# TC's Atheist discussion Thread - Everyone's welcome..



## peeyaj

I started doubting religion, probably when I was 18. That was a year ago.. I don't know why, but I have just drifted on me one day...

I live in a very religious country (80% catholic) and everyday you can see the influence of religion in the affairs of state.. It's disgusting. The church and state is fighting whether to legalize the use of contraception or not!

Then, I've started investigating the Bible.. Frankly, it's a mess, esp. the events in Creation.. We live in a very modern city, but evolution is not accepted.. For them, a supposedly ''higher being'' residing on heavens created us in 6 days! The bulk of evidence supporting evolution is immense, and I think a man with objective mind should accept it.. The Bible is just inconsistent and full of contradictions.. I think science offers a better explanation in everything.

The issue of morality is also troubling.. (You should live like a Christian and according to Bible!) I think morality is relative to a specific group.. What is right to a Christian, may be wrong to a Hindu, a Muslim or a Buddhist.

I happen to attend a worship service.. And it troubles me that the sermon was implying that their specific church would be the only one to be saved, and all those Catholics, Baptist, Muslims and every other religion you could imagine, would be damned and burned in hell.. Scary, isn't it..

As I'm contemplating this, I can find many faults in believing in a higher deity (Russel's teapot) and joining a specific religion.. But, I don't brandish my beliefs.. I admire various Christian churches for doing good works and the pope for communicating with the people.. I also admire Buddhists for their spirituality, and I admire those people whose core beliefs strengthened them.. *I'm just being disillusioned by the concept of Religion and God.. * Perhaps, someday, if I have an epiphany and someone would explain to me those troubling issues, I could go back. But for now, I don't believe in a personal god..

What do you think?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

My 2 cents about this if I may...

I don’t want to discuss religion on this site anymore without some kind of assurance that if things get a little heated up it wont be locked or closed but instead 'effectively moderated'. What's the point in discussing these issues of faith if the end result is always closure?

The bottom line is that if religion or atheism based discussions are permitted then they should go on without been closed, but if they are not allowed, then they shouldn’t even start.


----------



## Weston

I too would love to join this discussion but I'm reluctant to do so. This is a space to discuss music. I'm thinking of starting a blog on the topic.


----------



## peeyaj

@Saul and Weston

Thanks for the input. I love to discuss this issue, too.. But, well.

@mod Almaviva

Please, if you think it's not good for TC, lock the topic.. I trust your judgment, mod..


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> My 2 cents about this if I may...
> 
> I don't want to discuss religion on this site anymore without some kind of assurance that if things get a little heated up it wont be locked or closed but instead 'effectively moderated'. What's the point in discussing these issues of faith if the end result is always closure?
> 
> The bottom line is that if religion or atheism based discussions are permitted then they should go on without been closed, but if they are not allowed, then they shouldn't even start.


This. :tiphat:


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

O.K. then- let me add my observations:

I have never seen a discussion like this begun here without having it lead to some manner of widespread Terms of Service violations- and I don't have a lot of confidence that this will be the first time the topic is broached and we all manage to abide by the Forum Rules.

That said, discussions are allowed to range, so long as they keep to Forum policy- most specifically by 1) avoiding hateful statements, 2) stating opinions in a *»civil« and respectful* manner, & 3) not getting personal(!)

Now (speaking as a theist, and expresssing my own personal viewpoint) I'm not convinced that this thread is off to the best of starts, as the initial post is devoted to A) skepticism concerning the contents of The Bible, which is more a comment _contra_ Biblical literalism than against the idea of God _per se_. B) Criticism concerning one exclusive subset of worshippers who are characterized as reserving heaven for themselves while teaching that even fellow Christians of different denominations are condemned (Though here, I probably should consider my late mother's wisdom in her advice to "avoid responding to 'what-somebody-said-somebody-said.'") [&] C) Reservations about the possibility of a _personal_ God, which seems to admit of some measure of chance of an impersonal one- which then opens the door to a potential digression towards a discussion about the nature of God, rather than the existence thereof.

I wish I could give credit to the poster who showed that Atheism need not necessarily be exclusively deconstructionist in nature. [I'll edit this post later if I can correctly research his or her user-name- the person deserves credit.] If more atheists could spend time posting about the merits of their philosophy, rather than what's wrong and awful about the contrary viewpoints, it would be easier to have these discussions continue.


----------



## Yoshi

Like other people said, I think it's pointless to even begin to discuss this if it's going to be locked. 
I want to know first if mods want this topic to be allowed on these forums or not.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

The riddle of Epicurus sums up my thoughts on the subject:

*"Is God willing to prevent evil,
but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"*


----------



## toucan

I will not discuss religion on this or any other forum unless I have some sort of assurance no one will insult me, abuse me, smear me, degrade me, personally attack me, impugne my motives, read words into my mouth, pretend to quote me but change words inside the quote -irritate me or in any way whatsover justify the poor reputation of internet discussion boards. Otherwise I will demand wholesale bans + thread locked with last post for me. ha ha.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

toucan said:


> smear me


Unless you're peanut butter that could never take place...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

peeyaj said:


> _I started doubting...What do you think?_


I think it's your own damned problem and you should take it elsewhere.


----------



## Toccata

toucan said:


> I will not discuss religion on this or any other forum unless I have some sort of assurance no one will insult me, abuse me, smear me, degrade me, personally attack me, impugne my motives, read words into my mouth, pretend to quote me but change words inside the quote -irritate me or in any way whatsover justify the poor reputation of internet discussion boards. Otherwise I will demand wholesale bans + thread locked with last post for me. ha ha.


I give you my assurance. Fire away ... let it all hang out ... spill the beans ... I'm all ears.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Fsharpmajor said:


> The riddle of Epicurus


In order for that _bon mot_ to prove durable, we need to define "evil"- 
if not necessarily to universal satisfaction, then at least to preponderantly acceptable satisfaction.

We might have trouble with that- for the original poster said:


peeyaj said:


> I believe morality is relative to a specific group.. What is right to a Christian, may be wrong to a Hindu, or a Muslim or a Buddhist.


Now, I don't want to make this into a big digression _pro_ and _contra_ Moral Relativism- which I think would be as unfair to saddle upon Atheists as attempting to saddle Theists with Biblical literalism. However (the point remains) that 'Epicurus' needs a broadly resonant definition of evil, so that we can know what he's talking about.

Where's he gonna go to get THAT?

[I feel all 'Fred Friendly' all of a sudden!]

:takes off "Captain Dialectic" cape:


----------



## peeyaj

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> I think it's your own damned problem and you should take it elsewhere.


Sorry, sir, if I ruffled some of your feathers. But, we're here in the internets, so....


----------



## Elgarian

Chi_townPhilly said:


> O.K. then- let me add my observations:
> 
> I have never seen a discussion like this begun here without having it lead to some manner of widespread Terms of Service violations- and I don't have a lot of confidence that this will be the first time the topic is broached and we all manage to abide by the Forum Rules.
> 
> That said, discussions are allowed to range, so long as they keep to Forum policy- most specifically by 1) avoiding hateful statements, 2) stating opinions in a *»civil« and respectful* manner, & 3) not getting personal(!)
> 
> Now (speaking as a theist, and expresssing my own personal viewpoint) I'm not convinced that this thread is off to the best of starts, as the initial post is devoted to A) skepticism concerning the contents of The Bible, which is more a comment _contra_ Biblical literalism than against the idea of God _per se_. B) Criticism concerning one exclusive subset of worshippers who are characterized as reserving heaven for themselves while teaching that even fellow Christians of different denominations are condemned (Though here, I probably should consider my late mother's wisdom in her advice to "avoid responding to 'what-somebody-said-somebody-said.'") [&] C) Reservations about the possibility of a _personal_ God, which seems to admit of some measure of chance of an impersonal one- which then opens the door to a potential digression towards a discussion about the nature of God, rather than the existence thereof.
> 
> I wish I could give credit to the poster who showed that Atheism need not necessarily be exclusively deconstructionist in nature. [I'll edit this post later if I can correctly research his or her user-name- the person deserves credit.] If more atheists could spend time posting about the merits of their philosophy, rather than what's wrong and awful about the contrary viewpoints, it would be easier to have these discussions continue.


When I saw the title of this thread, I inwardly groaned, 'Oh no, not again'. Experience suggests that there's no more surefire way to inflame intolerance and destroy personal relationships than to start threads of this sort. Then I saw that CTP had been here before me. I most earnestly recommend his very wise observations here to anyone who's contemplating entering the discussion, and I quote them here to draw extra attention to the truth they contain, before I wander off somewhere else (to talk about music).


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Chi_townPhilly said:


> However (the point remains) that 'Epicurus' needs a broadly resonant definition of evil, so that we can know what he's talking about.
> 
> Where's he gonna go to get THAT?


Interesting question. Although I'm an atheist, I would maintain that Jesus Christ defined evil by teaching its opposite: _Do unto others as you would have them do unto you_. But Epicurus pre-dated Christianity and the other monotheistic religions, apart from, I suppose, Judaism--and I doubt that Judaism had many followers in Greece at that time. The gods of Greek mythology were really just humans writ large, so the riddle hardly applies to them. Leaving the question, why did Epicurus ask it in the first place.


----------



## Kopachris

Find what works for you. To me, the existence of God is not dependent on the Bible or how other people treat the existence of God. Personally, I believe that God, as a perfect being, is a perfect combination of all possible traits, including a mixture of seemingly contradictory traits such as benevolence and malevolence, and that He is both a personal god and an impersonal god at the same time. I also believe that a specific religion (as in the dutifully repetitive worship of any deity) is not necessary to go to Heaven, but merely a few core beliefs and some sort of religious worship in general. I believe that the Bible is fallible because it was written by man (though it may have been inspired by God) and shouldn't be relied upon as a complete guide to life anymore. Lastly, I don't see any problem reconciling religion and science because I don't believe the Bible is 100% literal truth. (Put briefly, my beliefs are a combination of deism and panentheism with just a touch of autotheism.) (Something interesting about this belief: when all the deities of a polytheistic/pagan pantheon (e.g. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu...) are combined, I get God. Therefore, to me, worshiping multiple deities doesn't necessarily preclude going to Heaven, though it usually does in practice.)

I only say this to let you know that not all people who believe in God are alike. I say again: choose what works for you. I won't get angry about you not believing in God if you don't get angry about me believing in God. I'm done with this thread now. :tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> My 2 cents about this if I may...
> 
> I don't want to discuss religion on this site anymore without some kind of assurance that if things get a little heated up it wont be locked or closed but instead 'effectively moderated'. What's the point in discussing these issues of faith if the end result is always closure?
> 
> The bottom line is that if religion or atheism based discussions are permitted then they should go on without been closed, but if they are not allowed, then they shouldn't even start.


Oh sure. The mods are the bad guys who lock threads for no reason. We've heard it before.

I haven't really seen any concrete example of a thread being closed without any violation of forum rules and terms of service happening first. If there ever is one - which is not impossible since the mods are human beings who can make mistakes - I'm sure that upon appeal, we'll reopen the thread and apologize (like I did to you when I misinterpreted something that you said).

"A little heated up" is OK. Hate speech is not. It's as simple as that. Respect the rules of the forum you have promised to abide by when you requested your registration, and I can assure you that the mods will take no action against your posts or threads.

"Effective moderation" has been tried many times regarding your posts and threads, with several friendly requests for you to change the tone. It's when you *don't* respond to these that your threads get locked.

I'm addressing you directly since you made the above claim, but what I said of course applies equally to any other member here, regardless of whether the moderators personally agree with the member's views or not. We don't single out people to take action against (you've seen me trying to stop others from issuing ad-homs against you). But don't think for one moment that we don't keep track of these things, and naturally, repeat offenders *will* get more scrutiny, as opposed to someone who occasionally gets angry and temporarily loses control and strays from the desirable civil tone. So, it's not that we single out people, but rather, people single themselves out by repeatedly violating the rules.

My best advice to you and everybody else here is: abide by the forum rules, and discuss away whatever you want.


----------



## Almaviva

Jan said:


> Like other people said, I think it's pointless to even begin to discuss this if it's going to be locked.
> I want to know first if mods want this topic to be allowed on these forums or not.


We discourage non-musical discussions in the forum areas that are reserved for music. This is the Community Forum, previously know as Members Chat, therefore, non-musical topics are allowed and encouraged. *This doesn't mean that this area is a free-for-all.* Forum rules and terms of service apply to this area *just like to any other area.*

There is no list of forbidden topics per se, except that (and I quote):



> ... members may not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, *hateful*, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.


If you consult the rules and TOS, you won't see such a thing as a prohibition to discuss religion. What there is instead is a set of behavior guidelines, and I quote again:



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, and visitor messages.
> 
> Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«.


So, Jan, you can start any topic in this area, as long as you abide by the above quoted rules and guidelines. If you start a thread with the title "Member ...... is a moron" or "The ..... should be bombed out of this planet and every single member of that group should be killed" then chances are :lol: that you thread won't survive any longer than the time that it takes for one of the mods to spot it.

Isn't this rather easy to understand?

Someone quoted above that instead of closing threads we need 'effective moderation.' Well, we try, but sometimes when there is a flagrant violation that is beyond help, action must be taken - some statements do force the hand of the mods and are beyond more gentle moderation efforts. I remember a recent thread in which I asked not less than three times that people refrain from personal attacks - as my attempts were ignored, the thread was then closed. Sure, we're all for 'effective moderation' as long as there is 'effective response' - but when there isn't, then further action is warranted. There was another recent thread in which the violation of rules and TOS was so egregious and sudden, that the thread had to be closed and removed right away - that's what I mean by forcing our hand.

I appreciate your nice contributions to this forum, Jan!:tiphat:


----------



## tdc

Kopachris said:


> Find what works for you. To me, the existence of God is not dependent on the Bible or how other people treat the existence of God. Personally, I believe that God, as a perfect being, is a perfect combination of all possible traits, including a mixture of seemingly contradictory traits such as benevolence and malevolence, and that He is both a personal god and an impersonal god at the same time. I also believe that a specific religion (as in the dutifully repetitive worship of any deity) is not necessary to go to Heaven, but merely a few core beliefs and some sort of religious worship in general. I believe that the Bible is fallible because it was written by man (though it may have been inspired by God) and shouldn't be relied upon as a complete guide to life anymore. Lastly, I don't see any problem reconciling religion and science because I don't believe the Bible is 100% literal truth. (Put briefly, my beliefs are a combination of deism and panentheism with just a touch of autotheism.) (Something interesting about this belief: when all the deities of a polytheistic/pagan pantheon (e.g. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Hindu...) are combined, I get God. Therefore, to me, worshiping multiple deities doesn't necessarily preclude going to Heaven, though it usually does in practice.)
> 
> I only say this to let you know that not all people who believe in God are alike. I say again: choose what works for you. I won't get angry about you not believing in God if you don't get angry about me believing in God. I'm done with this thread now. :tiphat:


Well said. I am not saying my beliefs are an exact replica of yours but definetely very similar, and you make a lot of great points. :tiphat:

As far as 'evil' I think this paradox can be resolved if the unity of all things is grasped, and that perhaps it is part of the lesson and responsibility we need to take and be initiated into, along our spiritual evolution - if that makes sense. Basically we learn some very valuable things from it, things that could not be learned in any other way. Think about all the advice our parents gave us, did we automatically follow all of it? Some things were needed to be experienced before we realized our elders were correct. People tend to learn most efficiently through experience, more so than just being told what to do.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Almaviva said:


> Oh sure. The mods are the bad guys who lock threads for no reason. We've heard it before.
> 
> I haven't really seen any concrete example of a thread being closed without any violation of forum rules and terms of service happening first. If there ever is one - which is not impossible since the mods are human beings who can make mistakes - I'm sure that upon appeal, we'll reopen the thread and apologize (like I did to you when I misinterpreted something that you said).
> 
> "A little heated up" is OK. Hate speech is not. It's as simple as that. Respect the rules of the forum you have promised to abide by when you requested your registration, and I can assure you that the mods will take no action against your posts or threads.
> 
> "Effective moderation" has been tried many times regarding your posts and threads, with several friendly requests for you to change the tone. It's when you *don't* respond to these that your threads get locked.
> 
> I'm addressing you directly since you made the above claim, but what I said of course applies equally to any other member here, regardless of whether the moderators personally agree with the member's views or not. We don't single out people to take action against (you've seen me trying to stop others from issuing ad-homs against you). But don't think for one moment that we don't keep track of these things, and naturally, repeat offenders *will* get more scrutiny, as opposed to someone who occasionally gets angry and temporarily loses control and strays from the desirable civil tone. So, it's not that we single out people, but rather, people single themselves out by repeatedly violating the rules.
> 
> My best advice to you and everybody else here is: abide by the forum rules, and discuss away whatever you want.


 I have never insinuated that the Mods are the bad guys, in fact all of you are just little innocent cute puppies like these :










And we do appreciate the work that you guys do here Very Much.

But my personal impression has been that you loveable and gentle Mods get too up tight when things get little fired up, and instead of singling out the trouble makers , you resort to closing the thread. I know that its the easy way out of the whole struggle of getting this kind of a thread on the right track, and in fact no one is suggesting that its an easy ride, but in order to have these threads that deal with religion really work, there has to be some sort of 'special flexibility', because by its very nature there is no way in the world that things will not get heated up, every discussion of this nature raises passions and memories and feelings, therefore its very normal to get very passionate about it. But what I saw was not really dealing with those who want to ruin the discussion for everyone, but instead talk about how all of us are just not 'following the forum rules' without taking into consideration those amazing passions that can be raised.

So I wonder, are you dear and beautiful and friendly moderators able to 'walk the thin line' or let the discussion dissolve and reach a dead end, with wasted time, feelings and thoughts?

What I would have done if I had the great merit to be one of you great Moderators?

1. Any person that begins insulting another member personally, gets thrown out of the discussion for a week.

2. Three strikes and your out can work wonders here as well. (for that thread only)

3. Anyone that engages in 'Hate Speech' should be given a warning, with an explanation that what he said was wrong, and what he should stay away from the future. Any member that will not abide by this law, after the warning and the explanation, should be kicked out from the discussion.

4. The moderators after doing these things, will pave the way for those who are genuinely desiring to engage in a meaningful discussion about these topics.

5. As a result the thread wont reach a 'Dead End' because one or two wanted to destroy the discussion for everyone.

These are my opinions about this matter, of course you moderators will have your take on these things, but I think that they are worthy for consideration, if we really want to see any informative and long lasting intellectual and civil debate taking place here now and in the future.

Best of Wishes,

Saul


----------



## Very Senior Member

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> What I would have done if I had the great merit to be one of you great Moderators? etc


 I think that your all of your suggestions are excellent. In fact, I would strongly support your candidature as a Mod, should a further vacancy arise.


----------



## jhar26

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> 3. Anyone that engages in 'Hate Speech' should be given a warning, with an explanation what he said wrong, and what he should stay away from the future. Any member that will not abide by this law, after the warning and the explanation, should be kicked out from the discussion.
> 
> Saul


Including those that say that Mekka should be bombed?


----------



## Very Senior Member

jhar26 said:


> Including those that say that Mekka should be bombed?


Roughly half of the USA voting population reckon that Iran should be bombed. Do you object to that? What about all the bombing currently going on in Afghanistan by the West. Is there a problem in suggesting that is a good thing? It's places like this that international terrorists hang out. I would do more than just bomb them; I'd nuke them.


----------



## mmsbls

Chi_townPhilly said:


> I wish I could give credit to the poster who showed that Atheism need not necessarily be exclusively deconstructionist in nature. [I'll edit this post later if I can correctly research his or her user-name- the person deserves credit.] If more atheists could spend time posting about the merits of their philosophy, rather than what's wrong and awful about the contrary viewpoints, it would be easier to have these discussions continue.


I think there may be some confusion in terms. Atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply the the belief that God does not exist. There are philosophies that some Atheists and Agnostics do hold such as secular humanism. Secular humanists can point to their beliefs and try to support them, but all Atheists can do is refute reasons to believe in God.

I do not believe in Santa Claus or ESP, but I don't feel I should (or can) justify in any positive way these absence of beliefs. The only way to talk about these is to show how the belief in ESP or Santa Claus is mistaken. I understand asking people not to explicitly detail why they feel belief in God or religion is awful, but you also seem to request that Atheists not talk about what is wrong with belief in God. Should we not talk about why we feel that Mozart is superior to Cage (i.e. that the belief that Cage is a better composer is mistaken)?

One other point. Religion has a special place with many people. In society we can argue why conservative or liberal views are harming the country or society in general, and most people do not take offense. When people's religious views are attacked (i.e. not the person but their view), they often take much greater offense. There is a sense that religion is off limits in some way. I feel this is unfortunate, but those entering this thread should keep this in mind.


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I have never insinuated that the Mods are the bad guys, in fact all of you are just little innocent cute puppies like these :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we do appreciate the work that you guys do here Very Much.
> 
> But my personal impression has been that you loveable and gentle Mods get too up tight when things get little fired up, and instead of singling out the trouble makers , you resort to closing the thread. I know that its the easy way out of the whole struggle of getting this kind of a thread on the right track, and in fact no one is suggesting that its an easy ride, but in order to have these threads that deal with religion really work, there has to be some sort of 'special flexibility', because by its very nature there is no way in the world that things will not get heated up, every discussion of this nature raises passions and memories and feelings, therefore its very normal to get very passionate about it. But what I saw was not really dealing with those who want to ruin the discussion for everyone, but instead talk about how all of us are just not 'following the forum rules' without taking into consideration those amazing passions that can be raised.
> 
> So I wonder, are you dear and beautiful and friendly moderators able to 'walk the thin line' or let the discussion dissolve and reach a dead end, with wasted time, feelings and thoughts?
> 
> What I would have done if I had the great merit to be one of you great Moderators?
> 
> 1. Any person that begins insulting another member personally, gets thrown out of the discussion for a week.
> 
> 2. Three strikes and your out can work wonders here as well. (for that thread only)
> 
> 3. Anyone that engages in 'Hate Speech' should be given a warning, with an explanation what he said wrong, and what he should stay away from the future. Any member that will not abide by this law, after the warning and the explanation, should be kicked out from the discussion.
> 
> 4. The moderators after doing these things, will pave the way for those who are genuinely desiring to engage in a meaningful discussion about these topics.
> 
> 5. As a result the thread wont reach a 'Dead End' because one or two wanted to destroy the discussion for everyone.
> 
> These are my opinions about this matter, of course you moderators will have your take on these things, but I think that they are worthy for consideration, if we really want to see any informative and long lasting intellectual and civil debate taking place here now and in the future.
> 
> Best of Wishes,
> 
> Saul


How thoughtful of you to say that we are adorable puppies, Saul, although your picture link is broken. However I believe you are somewhat mistaken in one little fragment of what you've said: we're far from being "innocent." We're not spring chicken, my friend. We've seen it all in decades of Internet posting.

As for your other suggestions, I'll pass on the sarcasm but will address them anyway, although in general terms and not one by one:

No. There is no "special flexibility." Like I said, this area is not a free-for-all and the rules *do* apply just as loosely or just as strictly as in any other area of the larger forum. The fact that these topics tend to heat up and provoke strong passions doesn't mean that suddenly, hate speech and ad-homs will be tolerated.

Then, funny that you make all of the above numbered suggestions because, my friend, if we had followed your suggestions to the letter, you'd have found yourself banned (again). It's exactly because we have been generous to you and have picked exactly the course of action of your suggestion number 3 that you're still here. If you recall the incident and I'm sure you do, I *did* send you a PM with the explanation of how and when you have violated the rules and terms of service. Oh, and sure, do it again like you said (I believe that you have pretty much used up your first two strikes already), and you *will* be gone. It may be for a lot longer than one week, though.

Hey, but like I said, follow the rules, and you have nothing to fear. Simple, no? This is the last I say on this matter. I'm not interested in making of this a personal issue between you and me, buddy. This is not how we operate. As far as I'm concerned, someone may challenge the way we do the moderation here, or may engage in all sorts of expression of ideas that match or don't match my own, and be fine and live long and prosper, as long as the person respects the forum rules and TOS. Besides, what we do here is very rarely done by just one of us. We do discuss the course of action once a member repeatedly violates the TOS, and reach a consensus on what to do. Nothing personal.


----------



## Almaviva

Oh, I said I wouldn't say anything else but I must because above I forgot to address one essential point.

When we close a thread thus tabling the discussion, it's not for our comfort, but rather, to protect *you* guys from committing further forum rules and TOS violations. Closing a thread prevents us from having to issue infractions that will get people banned.

You lose a thread but you keep your ability to continue to post here. I believe it's a gain, or better said, the lesser of two evils. I can guarantee to you Saul that you'd be banned by now, had we allowed that discussion to continue in the terms that you were utilizing.

We'd love to keep threads open... if possible. 

We also remove threads when the content is in gross violation of the laws that apply to this forum given the location of its servers.


----------



## jhar26

Very Senior Member said:


> Roughly half of the USA voting population reckon that Iran should be bombed. Do you object to that? What about all the bombing currently going on in Afghanistan by the West. Is there a problem in suggesting that is a good thing? It's places like this that international terrorists hang out. I would do more than just bomb them; I'd nuke them.


If tomorrow someone from the middle east would join this forum and say that the US should be nuked, would there be a problem? I think just about any member reading that post would click on that red triangle.


----------



## Edward Elgar

To believe in an afterlife is to deny death.


----------



## Argus

This is discrimination against agnostics.

The mods should ban everyone in this thread who has posted more than 20 words.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Very Senior Member said:


> I think that your all of your suggestions are excellent. In fact, I would strongly support your candidature as a Mod, should a further vacancy arise.





Very Senior Member said:


> Roughly half of the USA voting population reckon that Iran should be bombed. Do you object to that? What about all the bombing currently going on in Afghanistan by the West. Is there a problem in suggesting that is a good thing? It's places like this that international terrorists hang out. I would do more than just bomb them; I'd nuke them.


Wow, no wonder you support Saul for mod.

I know now in what light to consider your future posts.


----------



## Almaviva

Very Senior Member said:


> I think that your all of your suggestions are excellent. In fact, I would strongly support your candidature as a Mod, should a further vacancy arise.


Great idea! There is only one downside to this brilliant idea, though: it would likely bring up the first case in Internet history of a moderator being banned, making of TC the laughing stock of the net. Oh wait, maybe it's not a great idea after all, huh?:lol:


----------



## Almaviva

Argus said:


> This is discrimination against agnostics.
> 
> The mods should ban everyone in this thread who has posted more than 20 words.


Since an image is worth more than a thousand words and you did use one in your 19-word message, I guess we'll have to start by banning you.:lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Almaviva said:


> How thoughtful of you to say that we are adorable puppies, Saul, although your picture link is broken. However I believe you are somewhat mistaken in one little fragment of what you've said: we're far from being "innocent." We're not spring chicken, my friend. We've seen it all in decades of Internet posting.
> 
> As for your other suggestions, I'll pass on the sarcasm but will address them anyway, although in general terms and not one by one:
> 
> No. There is no "special flexibility." Like I said, this area is not a free-for-all and the rules *do* apply just as loosely or just as strictly as in any other area of the larger forum. The fact that these topics tend to heat up and provoke strong passions doesn't mean that suddenly, hate speech and ad-homs will be tolerated.
> 
> Then, funny that you make all of the above numbered suggestions because, my friend, if we had followed your suggestions to the letter, you'd have found yourself banned (again). It's exactly because we have been generous to you and have picked exactly the course of action of your suggestion number 3 that you're still here. If you recall the incident and I'm sure you do, I *did* send you a PM with the explanation of how and when you have violated the rules and terms of service. Oh, and sure, do it again like you said (I believe that you have pretty much used up your first two strikes already), and you *will* be gone. It may be for a lot longer than one week, though.
> 
> Hey, but like I said, follow the rules, and you have nothing to fear. Simple, no? This is the last I say on this matter. I'm not interested in making of this a personal issue between you and me, buddy. This is not how we operate. As far as I'm concerned, someone may challenge the way we do the moderation here, or may engage in all sorts of expression of ideas that match or don't match my own, and be fine and live long and prosper, as long as the person respects the forum rules and TOS. Besides, what we do here is very rarely done by just one of us. We do discuss the course of action once a member repeatedly violates the TOS, and reach a consensus on what to do. Nothing personal.


 Dear Alma,

In no way do I suggest that the forum rules should not be respected, I wanted to make this clear.
We are both on the same side, and we both want to see these kinds of discussions in this site become successful, therefore some of us here exchange different perspectives as to how effectively get these threads working.

The unfortunate fact is that up until now, it has not been working perhaps because the same rules that were enacted for the other avenues of this site, don't seem to work when it comes to 'Religious Talk'.

So I contemplated to myself what could be done about it, why cant intelligent people who are mature and talented be able to exchange views on these issues in a civil manner?

Therefore I decided to list a few alternatives that can be examined and perhaps implemented for a short period of time, perhaps a month, to see if it can work.

And if it would work, then all of us can become winners in this, there Is no need for any tension.

As to what I said about Mecca, well I should admit that yes it was over the line so to speak, even if one strongly feels about this course of action, it is silly to state it so openly on an internet website, therefore it was a mistake, but an honest mistake, my intention was not to make any 'Hate Speeches', for I'm in no way a racist or a hateful person, I even stated that I would be delighted to vote for this talented and admirable African American, for if he speaks the truth, his skin color makes no difference for me.

I also believe that I stated very clearly, and you can even check it out, that I have no problem with the people, but the Ideology.

What you did was correct, you have told me that stating that Mecca should be bombed was wrong, and I accept this criticism, and at this point my entire suggestion enters and I say, there was no real need to close that thread, a suggestion to refrain from talking like this should have been enough, and then a grace period to see if the person can keep his word, but to end it right there before the train even reached the second stop, was premature.

These are some of my thoughts about it, and I really don't have anything to add, as they say take it or leave it.

With the Warmest of Wishes,

Saul

P.S Senior Member thanks for considering me about Mod position, but I don't believe that it can ever happen, well at least not anytime soon.


----------



## Very Senior Member

emiellucifuge said:


> Wow, no wonder you support Saul for mod.
> 
> I know now in what light to consider your future posts.


What's your stance on dealing with breeding grounds for international terrorists then? I understand that the Netherlands pulled out its limited armed forces over a year in Afghanistan. Do you feel that was the right decision? Clearly, the Dutch must have felt that it wasn't achieving much so they left it all the USA & Britain to bear the main burden. So what would you do you next if, say, Amsterdam was the target of a massive explosion killing some 3000 innocent civilians? Probably not much at all, I guess.


----------



## Very Senior Member

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> P.S Senior Member thanks for considering me about Mod position, but I don't believe that it can ever happen, well at least not anytime soon.


Damned shame. I reckon you would be excellent material.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well Mecca, is a religious site visited by some 13 million people every year.

With a few exceptions, these people are innocents (as innocent as is reasonable, but definitely better than someone who actively advocates the murder of thousands of people - you) peacefully practising their faith.

So no, I would not 'bomb mecca', let alone Nuke it.


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Dear Alma,
> 
> In no way do I suggest that the forum rules should not be respected, I wanted to make this clear.
> We are both on the same side, and we both want to see these kinds of discussions in this site become successful, therefore some of us here exchange different perspectives as to how effectively get these threads working.
> 
> The unfortunate fact is that up until now, it has not been working perhaps because the same rules that were enacted for the other avenues of this site, don't seem to work when it comes to 'Religious Talk'.
> 
> So I contemplated to myself what could be done about it, why cant intelligent people who are mature and talented be able to exchange views on these issues in a civil manner?
> 
> Therefore I decided to list a few alternatives that can be examined and perhaps implemented for a short period of time, perhaps a month, to see if it can work.
> 
> And if it would work, then all of us can become winners in this, there Is no need for any tension.
> 
> As to what I said about Mecca, well I should admit that yes it was over the line so to speak, even if one strongly feels about this course of action, it is silly to state it so openly on an internet website, therefore it was a mistake, but an honest mistake, my intention was not to make any 'Hate Speeches', for I'm in no way a racist or a hateful person, I even stated that I would be delighted to vote for this talented and admirable African American, for if he speaks the truth, his skin color makes no difference for me.
> 
> I also believe that I stated very clearly, and you can even check it out, that I have no problem with the people, but the Ideology.
> 
> What you did was correct, you have told me that stating that Mecca should be bombed was wrong, and I accept this criticism, and at this point my entire suggestion enters and I say, there was no real need to close that thread, a suggestion to refrain from talking like this should have been enough, and then a grace period to see if the person can keep his word, but to end it right there before the train even reached the second stop, was premature.
> 
> These are some of my thoughts about it, and I really don't have anything to add, as they say take it or leave it.
> 
> With the Warmest of Wishes,
> 
> Saul
> 
> P.S Senior Member thanks for considering me about Mod position, but I don't believe that it can ever happen, well at least not anytime soon.


I believe that with the above post, Saul - which represents a sharp change of tone, not only from your hateful remark on the other thread (kudos for acknowledging *for the first time* that you were wrong in posting what you did) but also from your sarcastic remarks about the moderators here on this thread - you have just proven that 100% of the actions taken were indeed effective moderation, if their result was that you were able to write the above post (and keep your posting privileges here, for now). Sure, abide by what you've just said and you should have no further problems. Your suggestions, stated like above in a civil tone, will be taken into consideration.

I personally am against them, though, because I continue to believe that the rules should be uniformly applied everywhere in the forum regardless of in which area the discussion is taking place or what the topic is, and would therefore vote against your suggestions if the moderation/administration team puts this issue to vote. But hey, I'm just one, and if the other mods are for giving your ideas a try, I'd surely endorse the decision.

As for the closing of that thread being premature, it's easily said now that things have cooled off, it's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking on your part. While I can't know for sure, your tone was so heated that I think that closing it was what is keeping your privileges here, because it gave you the opportunity to cool off. Had that thread stayed open, in my humble opinion chances were that you would have committed not only one serious violation, but a second one would have followed, which would definitely have tipped the balance against you. That's what I mean when I say that closing a thread is not for our comfort, but rather for the offending member's protection.

As for your chances of becoming a moderator, buddy, I'd frankly agree with you that they seem very remote (to say the least) given your track record, but hey, people *can* change, can't they? It's up to you to prove that you can.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Well Mecca, is a religious site visited by some 13 million people every year.
> 
> With a few exceptions, these people are innocents (as innocent as is reasonable, but definitely better than someone who actively advocates the murder of thousands of people - you) peacefully practising their faith.
> 
> So no, I would not 'bomb mecca', let alone Nuke it.


No one was talking about Nuking, but strategic pinpointed strikes on key positions that will impress upon the racist dictatorship there to begin to teach their people about tolerance and stop been a center of terror and hate.

But did anyone give me the benefit of the doubt, or chose to take the worst and most extreme version of what 'bomb' means?

I think the answer to that is obvious.

But said all this, it was wrong either way, we can talk about bombing and war and all these things with our friends , but on the web it can only add to tension.

But to call it a 'Hate Speech' was too far stretched, imho.

Regards,


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> But to call it a 'Hate Speech' was too far stretched, imho.
> 
> Regards,


That's one of the reasons why I frankly believe you're not moderator material, buddy. You don't seem to know what 'Hate Speech" is.:lol:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Almaviva said:


> I believe that with the above post, Saul - which represents a sharp change of tone, not only from your hateful remark on the other thread (kudos for acknowledging *for the first time* that you were wrong in posting what you did) but also from your sarcastic remarks about the moderators here on this thread - you have just proven that 100% of the actions taken were indeed effective moderation, if their result was that you were able to write the above post (and keep your posting privileges here, for now). Sure, abide by what you've just said and you should have no further problems. Your suggestions, stated like above in a civil tone, will be taken into consideration.
> 
> I personally am against them, though, because I continue to believe that the rules should be uniformly applied everywhere in the forum regardless of in which area the discussion is taking place or what the topic is, and would therefore vote against your suggestions if the moderation/administration team puts this issue to vote. But hey, I'm just one, and if the other mods are for giving your ideas a try, I'd surely endorse the decision.
> 
> As for the closing of that thread being premature, it's easily said now that things have cooled off, it's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking on your part. While I can't know for sure, your tone was so heated that I think that closing it was what is keeping your privileges here, because it gave you the opportunity to cool off. Had that thread stayed open, in my humble opinion chances were that you would have committed not only one serious violation, but a second one would have followed, which would definitely have tipped the balance against you. That's what I mean when I say that closing a thread is not for our comfort, but rather for the offending member's protection.
> 
> As for your chances of becoming a moderator, buddy, I'd frankly agree with you that they seem very remote (to say the least) given your track record, but hey, people *can* change, can't they? It's up to you to prove that you can.


Well, you're both right and wrong.

I really mean it.

On the one hand you close the thread to save further action on the member, and that's a right and noble thing to do, but on the other the thread can't go on, and there is a measure of 'wrong ' here.

Therefore, in conclusion I should say, that its almost impossible to get a perfect formula for success, but perhaps trying new ideas for short periods of time for testing, isn't such a bad idea after all.

Best of Wishes,


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> No one was talking about Nuking





Very Senior Member said:


> I would do more than just bomb them; I'd nuke them.


Please. :tiphat:


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

emiellucifuge said:


> Please. :tiphat:


Hey, I'm not that guy...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Very Senior Member said:


> Damned shame. I reckon you would be excellent material.


:tiphat:.....


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Well, you're both right and wrong.
> 
> I really mean it.
> 
> On the one hand you close the thread to save further action on the member, and that's a right and noble thing to do, but on the other the thread can't go on, and there is a measure of 'wrong ' here.
> 
> Therefore, in conclusion I should say, that its almost impossible to get a perfect formula for success, but perhaps trying new ideas for short periods of time for testing, isn't such a bad idea after all.
> 
> Best of Wishes,


The "measure of wrong" is why I said "the lesser of two evils."
Sure, like I said, your suggestions will be taken into consideration. And I repeat, I'll vote against them. I think that the way we've been doing it is just fine, but maybe I'm wrong and will endorse whatever is decided.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

This discussion has turned from 'Lets eat apples' to 'why should we eat apples?'...

What's next?

Apple pie!,

Well Alma is saying I have no culinary experience, and I don’t seem to know what cinnamon is, while Very seniors member thinks that I have what it takes, but the question is would it taste good?

I never baked an apple pie before I grant you that, but anything else besides that I can say confidently that I'm a good cook, and even Watermelon Box would have said to that: 'Well Huday Thunk it'...!


----------



## emiellucifuge

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Hey, I'm not that guy...


Well, lucky for you it _was_ that guy whom I was addressing.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

mmsbls said:


> I think there may be some confusion in terms.


Maybe.


mmsbls said:


> Atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply the the belief that God does not exist.


Okay, it's getting a little semantical (and I'll accept a measure of responsibility for this)- 
but can you grant me at least this?:

Atheists have this position in common- and that is denial or major skepticism concerning the Metaphysical concept of the 'First Cause' or 'Unmoved Mover,' _a priori_ to the creation of the Universe-- a concept that the major monotheistic religions tend to believe, in common.

As such, atheists have staked an ontological position, 
and one's ontological position is part and parcel of one's Philosophy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I'm brewing my English breakfast tea as I read this thread. So far, it seems member Saul_D. has hijacked this thread based on *******, as one might have expected him to do so on threads of this nature.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm brewing my English breakfast tea as I read this thread. So far, it seems member Saul_D. has hijacked this thread based on ********, as one might have expected him to do so on threads of this nature.


What's with you?

This is an example of a personal attack, things like these is what makes the whole thing so rocky...


----------



## Almaviva

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I'm brewing my English breakfast tea as I read this thread. So far, it seems member Saul_D. has hijacked this thread based on ***********, as one might have expected him to do so on threads of this nature.


Regardless of how much or how little I agree with you, yes, member Saul has a point that this is a form of ad-hom, so, consider yourself warned.

As for the hijacking of this topic, you're right, and I have moved the posts to a different thread to allow the Atheism discussion to resume.


----------



## Sid James

Atheist or religous or anywhere in between - there are many shades of grey in between these two extremes. I am ok with people of whatever religous or non religious persuasion, as long as they don't try to ram their beliefs down my throat. Neither do I like ideologues with a fixed view, with no room for manouvre or flexibility. But that's just my opinion, I can be pretty tolerant and even accepting of various types of people I come across in life. It's actually good to have a bit of diversity, not "one size fits all" attitudes (as long as we can get along together and not nuke eachother, that is )...


----------



## peeyaj

My thoughts:










Obviously, its for *humor* only..


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

peeyaj said:


> My thoughts:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, its for *humor* only..


You can use the word 'atheism' instead of 'religion' too.


----------



## Sid James

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> You can use the word 'atheism' instead of 'religion' too.


Exactly, anything along the complex spectrum & between the various shades of "atheism" and "religion" can qualify for the purposes of the joke that peeyaj posted. Actually, it can apply to any belief or lack of one - there's no need for people to force things down eachother's throats...


----------



## Couchie

My problem with religions is that they all profess to be the moral compasses of the world, when in fact, what they offer is mere psuedo-morality. The most dangerous aspect of religion is their disconnect between objectionable actions and their consequences. "Good" and "Bad" actions are classified in a list of commandments in a book. The penalty for violating these commandments is eternal punishment for the violator. Some of these commandments (ie. do not kill) are obviously sound, but others are totally arbitrary: seriously quiz any Christian on why homosexuality is wrong, the answer is always some form of "it's not what God intended". The principal reason not to sin is purely selfish: If I sin, I will go to hell. How the sin negatively affects those around you is rarely considered.

Now:
1. These books (Bible, Qur'an, Torah) are generally very poorly written and ambiguous. Here are some gems:

Islam: There's no compulsion in religion, but yes, if they refuse to convert, please kill them:
[Qur'an 2:256] _*There shall be no compulsion in religion*: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient._
[Qur'an 4:89] _They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So *choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them* wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them_

Bible: The infamous unforgivable sin, debate over the implications of which still rages amongst theologians: 
[Luke 12:10] _And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto *him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven*. _

2. Because they're ambiguous, an enormous range of interpretations can be drawn. 
3. Due to this, most people depend on people to interpret to passages for them: your Sunday pastor, the Pope, Islamic scholars.

It is apparent how this is a recipe for disaster. All it takes is a corrupt interpreter to misalign what is clearly an evil action (ie. suicide bombing) from its consequence (hell) by all the loopholes made possible by this ambiguity, and the interpreter can easily corrupt otherwise good people to do evil by convincing them it's actually good. This is a fairly unique mechanism to religion. The only other one method that comes close is appealing to hypernationalism, and that is almost always tied in closely with religion.


----------



## Couchie

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> You can use the word 'atheism' instead of 'religion' too.


Uh, no. Evangelism is a built-in aspect of both Islam and Christianity. In Mormonism it's actually a requirement. I can supply you with a multitude of verses if you would like. Atheists have no such verses or calling. If you guys were to simply stop _doing that_, particularly by attempting to unconstitutionally go through public channels, atheists would be just as happy to stop as well.


----------



## mmsbls

Chi_townPhilly said:


> Atheists have this position in common- and that is denial or major skepticism concerning the Metaphysical concept of the 'First Cause' or 'Unmoved Mover,' _a priori_ to the creation of the Universe-- a concept that the major monotheistic religions tend to believe, in common.
> 
> As such, atheists have staked an ontological position,
> and one's ontological position is part and parcel of one's Philosophy.


I agree that a specific ontological position defines part of one's philosophy. However, I'm not sure I would consider my objection to the First Cause metaphysical argument philosophical. Basically, I don't agree that everything has a cause since many quantum mechanical events are probabilistic and are considered not caused. For example the decay of a uranium atom is not caused by another event - it just happens. I understand that some philosophers get around this argument by suggesting that causes do not have to be events but rather can be prior conditions such as natural laws or God's laws. I'm not so happy with that view, but I understand the idea. Further, the First Cause argument identifies the first cause as God rather than other possibilities such as natural laws. So I'd say my objections are more logical and scientific than philosophical, but I wouldn't push this point to hard.

By the way, I am not an Atheist but rather agnostic.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Couchie said:


> My problem with religions is that they all profess to be the moral compasses of the world, when in fact, what they offer is mere psuedo-morality. The most dangerous aspect of religion is their disconnect between objectionable actions and their consequences. "Good" and "Bad" actions are classified in a list of commandments in a book. The penalty for violating these commandments is eternal punishment for the violator. Some of these commandments (ie. do not kill) are obviously sound, but others are totally arbitrary: seriously quiz any Christian on why homosexuality is wrong, the answer is always some form of "it's not what God intended". The principal reason not to sin is purely selfish: If I sin, I will go to hell. How the sin negatively affects those around you is rarely considered.
> 
> Now:
> 1. These books (Bible, Qur'an, Torah) are generally very poorly written and ambiguous. Here are some gems:
> 
> Islam: There's no compulsion in religion, but yes, if they refuse to convert, please kill them:
> [Qur'an 2:256] _*There shall be no compulsion in religion*: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient._
> [Qur'an 4:89] _They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So *choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them* wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them_
> 
> Bible: The infamous unforgivable sin, debate over the implications of which still rages amongst theologians:
> [Luke 12:10] _And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto *him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven*. _
> 
> 2. Because they're ambiguous, an enormous range of interpretations can be drawn.
> 3. Due to this, most people depend on people to interpret to passages for them: your Sunday pastor, the Pope, Islamic scholars.
> 
> It is apparent how this is a recipe for disaster. All it takes is a corrupt interpreter to misalign what is clearly an evil action (ie. suicide bombing) from its consequence (hell) by all the loopholes made possible by this ambiguity, and the interpreter can easily corrupt otherwise good people to do evil by convincing them it's actually good. This is a fairly unique mechanism to religion. The only other one method that comes close is appealing to hypernationalism, and that is almost always tied in closely with religion.


Hello and thank you for your comments,

You have listed 3 faiths, yet you criticized only two and left Judaism and the Torah out of your criticism, though you might have done it unintentionally, I thank you for that.

Now, you said about Christianity the following

*:"seriously quiz any Christian on why homosexuality is wrong, the answer is always some form of "it's not what God intended". The principal reason not to sin is purely selfish: If I sin, I will go to hell. How the sin negatively affects those around you is rarely considered".*

Your dissatisfaction with what you precise to be the Christian position about this, shouldn't be interpreted to mean that "Just because Christianity doesn't have an answer about this matter, therefore Judaism also has no explanation".

In reality Judaism ties the sin to the entire existence of the universe.

Adam the first human being, was commanded by God not to eat from the tree of knowledge.
But unfortunately he didn't resist and ate from the forbidden tree. As a result several thing happened.
The Commandment of not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge was broken down to 613 Commandments as they are mentioned in the Torah. The 24 hour day was broken down into 1000 years. His Soul broken down to 600.000 souls.

Why all of these breaking down of time, commandments, days and souls?

Because Adam was born on the Six day of Creation, and all he had to do to achieve spiritual perfection for eternity was to Adhere to God's Commandment. If he would have been successful, he would have passed the test, and lived forever in closeness to God, growing to even higher levels of spirituality.

Since he Sinned, he caused the entire world to change for the worst.

All brought upon himself and to all his descendants thereafter the concept of death, where the body returns to the earth it was made of, and the Soul returns to God its creator. In this process of death, he cleanses his soul and body from the impurity of sin, as if someone dropped an expensive golden vessel in the dirt, nothing can completely cleanse it unless it is completely melted down and then brought back and reconstructed to its original previous clean formation.

After this cleansing the human being returns again, the soul and the body brought together into life, and in that time the human being will be in the same status as the First human Adam, before eating from the Tree of Knowledge. All this will take place after at the resurrection of the dead, as the Prophets of Israel speak of in the Tenach.

Now, not only Adam brought death to himself and to all of his descendants because of his sin, he also brought 'death' to the physical word. Jewish sources say that the world would also need to go through a process of 'cleansing' and God will destroy it and recreated it again, and bring it back to the previous position and status of before Adam's Sin.

The original plan was that Adam will not eat from the Tree of Knowledge and pass the test and on the 7th Day enter heaven for eternity without dieing. Since that didn't take place, the original time that God had designated for the world to achieve perfection, was broken down from 6 days into 6000 years.

To achieve heaven and spiritual perfection has become more difficult and longer, for Adam was replaced by his descendants, and the Commandment of not eating from the tree of knowledge was replaced with the 613 commandments mentioned in the Torah, and the time span of 6 days, was replaced with 6 thousand years, and today in the Jewish Calendar we are at 5771, that means we are very close to the end which will bring a whole new Beginning, where humanity will be in a position of 'Before the Sin of Adam' pure and sinless.

Therefore, the concept of Sin when it comes to Judaism is not only personal but its global, universal and it shapes the course of history and the future.


----------



## Couchie

mmsbls said:


> By the way, I am not an Atheist but rather agnostic.


This really irks me.
Most atheists are agnostics.
If you are not an atheist, you are, by definition, a theist...

Atheist/Theist: A claim about what you _believe_.
Agnostic/Gnostic: A claim about what you _know_.

All theists believe in god, and most claim to know he exists: _Gnostic-Theist._
All atheists do not believe in god, but most do not claim they know he doesn't exist: _Agnostic-Atheist._

Gnostic-Atheists are a very rare breed (atheists who claim unequivocally that God doesn't exist). However most atheists will still say "god does not exist" much like they say "bigfoot does not exist"; there's no real reason to give time to the possibility in light of the total lack of quantifiable evidence. However, at the same time these atheists will readily admit that they don't possess evidence that god doesn't exist (which is logically impossible anyways).

Fun stuff.


----------



## Almaviva

Saul, please keep your posts on-topic. 
No, buddy, this is not a violation... it's just that I don't want to have to multiply the threads by moving posts to new threads like I had to do when you hijacked this thread earlier today.
You did start by trying to refute the other user's explanations on why he dislikes religions (which is on-topic, the thread was an invitation for atheists to manifest their views) but then you got into a longer detour.


----------



## Sid James

As I said, so-called "atheism" and "religion" are but two extremes of the spectrum & maybe they are just two sides of the complex equation we call "belief." Eg. where does humanism stand? I'd say that many people tend to live by these shared humanist values, regardless of whether or not they are of a certain faith...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Almaviva said:


> Saul, please keep your posts on-topic.
> No, buddy, this is not a violation... it's just that I don't want to have to multiply the threads by moving posts to new threads like I had to do when you hijacked this thread earlier today.
> You did start by trying to refute the other user's explanations on why he dislikes religions (which is on-topic, the thread was an invitation for atheists to manifest their views) but then you got into a longer detour.


I thought that I responded to specific points that Couchie made about a religion's view on sin...

That's how I see it, I don't know.. really...

So even if someone makes comments that are 'off topic' to begin with, I'm not allowed to respond to them?

I'm getting confused...

I'm not trying to divert any topic, but raise the points as the discussion progresses from one topic to the next…


----------



## Couchie

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Therefore, the concept of Sin when it comes to Judaism is not only personal but its global, universal and it shapes the course of history and the future.


Sorry, but I think I'm missing your point. I had posted that god is guilty of making seemingly arbitrary acts "sinful" when they are of no real consequence to other's wellbeing or happiness, and that this is a poor foundation for morality. The commandment "Don't eat this tree's fruit" is the quintessential example of this.


----------



## mmsbls

Couchie said:


> This really irks me.
> Most atheists are agnostics.
> If you are not an atheist, you are, by definition, a theist...
> 
> However most atheists will still say "god does not exist" much like they say "bigfoot does not exist"; there's no real reason to give time to the possibility in light of the total lack of quantifiable evidence. However, at the same time these atheists will readily admit that they don't possess evidence that god doesn't exist (which is logically impossible anyways).


I understand your view. I assume that almost all Atheists believe essentially what I do. I guess I have interacted with a few too many people who attack me and other non-believers for having certainty about something we clearly cannot know (at least at this time). I think it's just easier to call myself an agnostic. Basically I don't believe because I have never come across any evidence that is remotely compelling. I can say the same about Bigfoot, ESP, Intelligent Design, etc.


----------



## peeyaj

@couchie

Thank you for your very erudite posts, and I agree with them.. I wish you would stick on the thread, and spread the light to others 

One of my problem regarding religion is the issue of: *reward*.

Why people need to convert into a specific faith in order to ascend to heavens when we died? Why do people need to obey laws in order to gain the promised afterlife? It's like saying to a child, *''You behave, and sit to a corner, and I'll reward you with box of candies.''*

Is living a good life and being a moral person, sufficient enough? Why would I need that reward in afterlife?

In my estimation, Buddhism is the nearest religion to approach spirituality.. Buddhism don't promise rewards such as heaven, but enlightenment to a person..


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> I thought that I responded to specific points that Couchie made about a religion's view on sin...
> 
> That's how I see it, I don't know.. really...
> 
> So even if someone makes comments that are 'off topic' to begin with, I'm not allowed to respond to them?
> 
> I'm getting confused...
> 
> I'm not trying to divert any topic, but raise the points as the discussion progresses from one topic to the next…


OK, good then...
I was being proactive.
I don't want to see another thread with moved posts from this one, on "the nature of sin." And then another one. And then another one. You know how you tend to monopolize these discussions, buddy.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Almaviva said:


> OK, good then...
> I was being proactive.
> I don't want to see another thread with moved posts from this one, on "the nature of sin." And then another one. And then another one. You know how you tend to monopolize these discussions, buddy.


Then how about creating a general thread called Religion and all topics related to religion should be there and only there?

I think it can work out.


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Then how about creating a general thread called Religion and all topics related to religion should be there and only there?
> 
> I think it can work out.


Looks like the stuff of nightmares for me.

Saul, so far this thread has been relatively fine (after I did away with the hijacking and some ad-homs), and is going in the direction that you had requested before: that we allow these discussions to proceed.

The question of atheism is getting a very thorough and interesting discussion here. Let's hope it continues to be fruitful, rather than becoming a massive treaty on religion.


----------



## Couchie

peeyaj said:


> One of my problem regarding religion is the issue of: *reward*.
> 
> Why people need to convert into a specific faith in order to ascend to heavens when we died? Why do people need to obey laws in order to gain the promised afterlife? It's like saying to a child, *''You behave, and sit to a corner, and I'll reward you with box of candies.''*


Yup, this is the other side of the coin. Should we do good acts because we will be rewarded in the next life? How about being charitable_ for the sake of being charitable?_


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Couchie said:


> Sorry, but I think I'm missing your point. I had posted that god is guilty of making seemingly arbitrary acts "sinful" when they are of no real consequence to other's wellbeing or happiness, and that this is a poor foundation for morality. The commandment "Don't eat this tree's fruit" is the quintessential example of this.


They seem to you 'arbitrary acts' because you are only exposed to the outer layer of what the Torah is talking about. You need deeper exposure and understanding in order to grasp what the Torah means with 'The Tree of Knowledge' and 'The Tree of Life' and creation in general and man's place in the universe.

These are deep matters, that require deep study and understanding.


----------



## mmsbls

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> They seem to you 'arbitrary acts' because you are only exposed to the outer layer of what the Torah is talking about. You need deeper exposure and understanding in order to grasp what the Torah means with 'The Tree of Knowledge' and 'The Tree of Life' and creation in general and man's place in the universe.
> 
> These are deep matters, that require deep study and understanding.


Attempting to understand knowledge and life (I would say reality) does require much study and thought. Those of us who are not religious in general do not believe all of the postulates (or axioms, basic beliefs, etc.) that religious people do. We therefore may come to different conclusions. Based on your prior posts I suspect you do not believe all of the what is in the Koran and are not much moved by the conclusions.

For example, many religious people believe that there is (must be?) a purpose to life or reality. Some will say they find it obvious. The longer I live the more I believe that there is NOT a purpose to reality. Or rather that there is not an inherent purpose. We are all free to find a purpose for ourselves or our society and live life in support of that purpose.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

mmsbls said:


> Attempting to understand knowledge and life (I would say reality) does require much study and thought. Those of us who are not religious in general do not believe all of the postulates (or axioms, basic beliefs, etc.) that religious people do. We therefore may come to different conclusions. Based on your prior posts I suspect you do not believe all of the what is in the Koran and are not much moved by the conclusions.
> 
> For example, many religious people believe that there is (must be?) a purpose to life or reality. Some will say they find it obvious. The longer I live the more I believe that there is NOT a purpose to reality. Or rather that there is not an inherent purpose. We are all free to find a purpose for ourselves or our society and live life in support of that purpose.


When I look at any product, be it from the most complex lets say a computer all the way to the most simple of things such as a plastic cup, I say that they were created by the industrialist, for some purpose.

If these is so for simple things such as these, how much so its true for God's Masterpiece , the Human Being.

By the way, Judaism says that the human being, his body and his soul, were created in a corresponding manner that reflects the universe. Which means that everything that exists in the universe also exists in the human. Its a masterful creation, shockingly and astonishingly great and beautiful, one only needs to learn how this entire great symphony of creation works, and how a little sublet action of the human being in this world shakes up and moves things in the universe at large and in the spiritual worlds.

Btw, the Temple that Stood in Jerusalem also corresponds to the human body and the spiritual worlds that exists.

Therefore there is a great complexity, and there is much to be learned and studied before reaching such broad conclusions as 'there's no real purpose to life or creation'.


----------



## science

I love religion - my favorite is Eastern Orthodox Christianity, but other Christian traditions, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Sikhism, Taoism, Buddhism - they are all repositories of more beauty and wisdom than any of us will be able to plumb in a lifetime. 

But I think the most parsimonious worldview (in light of all kinds of evidence) is that religion is a human phenomenon, so I'd be surprised if any of the gods or spirits exist "objectively," out there in the cosmos independent of human minds. 

This is just my opinion, and I rarely share it in person for several reasons: 

1. Losing my faith was a very painful experience. For several months I couldn't imagine a non-theistic meaning of life, and I was depressed. I've solved this problem to my own satisfaction now, but t want anyone to go through what I went through. I would still prefer to be a believer if I could be without compromising my intellectual integrity. I really, deeply miss the Orthodox Church. 

2. My mother would suffer great stress if she realized that I no longer share any of her religious beliefs. As long as she is alive, no one in my family can know that I'm no longer a believer.

3. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and I don't want to get yelled at. 

4. I don't believe I can persuade anyone who isn't going to be persuaded by the information that is already out there. These days, people can find out just about anything that they want to find out; if they're unaware of the arguments on either side, it's because they've chosen to be.


----------



## Almaviva

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> When I look at any product, be it from the most complex lets say a computer all the way to the most simple of things such as a plastic cup, I say that they were created by the industrialist, for some purpose.
> 
> If these is so for simple things such as these, how much so its true for God's Masterpiece , the Human Being.
> 
> By the way, Judaism says that the human being, his body and his soul, were created in a corresponding manner that reflects the universe. Which means that everything that exists in the universe also exists in the human. Its a masterful creation, shockingly and astonishingly great and beautiful, one only needs to learn how this entire great symphony of creation works, and how a little sublet action of the human being in this world shakes up and moves things in the universe at large and in the spiritual worlds.
> 
> Btw, the Temple that Stood in Jerusalem also corresponds to the human body and the spiritual worlds that exists.
> 
> Therefore there is a great complexity, and there is much to be learned and studied before reaching such broad conclusions as 'there's no real purpose to life or creation'.


Actually I disagree. If the human body was planned, I'd say there are several parts of it that are rather poorly planned. Teeth, for instance. Teeth are very stupid things. I'm not kidding, I'm serious. A more efficient system of mastication, not subject to easy decay and infection might have worked a lot better than teeth. The prostate is another rather poorly planned organ; its cells turn cancerous too often. Having a bag full of acid - the stomach - in direct proximity to a tubular organ with a wall that suffers from the presence of acid - the esophagus - is also a stupid solution. Knees are not constructed in a way that makes them last in good enough shape for the duration of one's life expectancy. Having the anus - a source of a huge number of bacteria - so close to the urethra - an organ that doesn't do well with the same bacteria and has insufficient defenses against them - causes a lot of urinary tract infections - If I was the planner, I'd have increased the distance between these orifices by a few inches. And so on and so forth.


----------



## peeyaj

@Science

Thanks for sharing.. The first weeks of being a non-believer is pretty hard. I was in religion all of my life, studied at Christian school and attended church services every week. Then, it came to me the *silliness* of this whole charade..


----------



## starthrower

The problem with the Jewish/Christian/Muslim religions is that they're built on specious, dogmatic creeds and texts. If people would just be more honest about this aspect, and embrace mystery and ambiguity, I would have more respect for religious leaders. Of course many are, but it's the fundamentalists that just refuse to be rational.


----------



## mmsbls

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> When I look at any product, be it from the most complex lets say a computer all the way to the most simple of things such as a plastic cup, I say that they were created by the industrialist, for some purpose.
> 
> If these is so for simple things such as these, how much so its true for God's Masterpiece , the Human Being.


I assume you realize that a significant percentage of society believes that humans evolved in a natural manner (from chance, natural selection, and other forces). Evolution is an extraordinarily complex theory. I suspect that the vast majority of people who believe it really have a very poor understanding of it. I completely understand how hard it is to believe that it is possible for something so complex as humans to evolve. Once one does understand evolution, it opens up a powerful way to make sense of the living world. A famous biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, once said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. As a scientist, there are so many questions that seem impossible to answer except through evolution.



Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Therefore there is a great complexity, and there is much to be learned and studied before reaching such broad conclusions as 'there's no real purpose to life or creation'.


Of course I could simply say: there is much to be learned and studied before reaching such broad conclusions as 'there's a real purpose to life or creation'. I am continuously trying to better understand reality. So far I have seen nothing compelling me to believe in a God or an inherent purpose to reality. That could change, but as I said, the more I learn, the less likely it seems.


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> I assume you realize that a significant percentage of society believes that humans evolved in a natural manner (from chance, natural selection, and other forces). Evolution is an extraordinarily complex theory. I suspect that the vast majority of people who believe it really have a very poor understanding of it. I completely understand how hard it is to believe that it is possible for something so complex as humans to evolve. Once one does understand evolution, it opens up a powerful way to make sense of the living world. A famous biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, once said that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. As a scientist, there are so many questions that seem impossible to answer except through evolution.
> 
> Of course I could simply say: there is much to be learned and studied before reaching such broad conclusions as 'there's a real purpose to life or creation'. I am continuously trying to better understand reality. So far I have seen nothing compelling me to believe in a God or an inherent purpose to reality. That could change, but as I said, the more I learn, the less likely it seems.


Yes, in light of what you said, the imperfections of the human body are much easier to account for. The proponents of "intelligent design" seem to forget that there are many parts of the human body that aren't intelligent at all. Hopefully, these would be progressively eliminated or modified by evolution, in terms of evolutionary advantages. My example of urinary tract infections - mutations leading to longer distance between the anus and the urethra or to prostate or breast cells that were less prone to developing cancers might confer an evolutionary advantage (not that we've notice these changes in our lifetime, though, because of course evolution is too slow and effects are measured in thousands of years). The problem is that by manipulating our environment and becoming largely immune to predators except when we prey on ourselves, and by inventing modern medical care that deals with many of our imperfections, we have stopped the evolutionary process of our species - and we also stopped the ecological equilibrium. We got from our protections against predators, the environment, and diseases, a population boom. We've never been as numerous. Of course, this all doesn't bode well for our future, because now we're starting to get into super-population and shortage of resources that we depend upon for our growth - energy, food, and in the future, drinking water. Our excessive population also puts a strain on the environment itself. So, it is all going very poorly from the ecological perspective.

I wonder why the religious discourse seems to be so fascinated with human beings as the peak of creation. We're rather flawed, I'd say, and we're on a very dangerous path.


----------



## Couchie

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> They seem to you 'arbitrary acts' because you are only exposed to the outer layer of what the Torah is talking about. You need deeper exposure and understanding in order to grasp what the Torah means with 'The Tree of Knowledge' and 'The Tree of Life' and creation in general and man's place in the universe.
> 
> These are deep matters, that require deep study and understanding.


*****Content removed by moderator, see explanation in next post**********. I was Christian for the better part of my life: _try me_.


----------



## Almaviva

Couchie said:


> ************ I was Christian for the better part of my life: _try me_.


Couchie, I'd rather that you hadn't used the first two phrases of your post. The third (last) one perfectly conveys the meaning of what you're saying and is more productive. This thread has been hard to keep peaceful, so, I've allowed myself the liberty to remove your first two phrases. You weren't as bad as others here were earlier today, so this is *not* a formal moderator warning, and normally I'd have left your phrasing stay, but this is such a delicate thread that I'll rather err on the side of caution. Cheers.:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

OK, guys, I'll be going to bed now. Please don't do like the saying - _when the cat is away, mice play_.:lol:

I'll be back here at some point tomorrow and expect this space to be just as civil as it has been for the most part. Or else!


----------



## Couchie

Almaviva said:


> Couchie, I'd rather that you hadn't used the first two phrases of your post. The third (last) one perfectly conveys the meaning of what you're saying and is more productive. This thread has been hard to keep peaceful, so, I've allowed myself the liberty to remove your first two phrases. You weren't as bad as others here were earlier today, so this is *not* a formal moderator warning, and normally I'd have left your phrasing stay, but this is such a delicate thread that I'll rather err on the side of caution. Cheers.:tiphat:


I think the danger though is that then Saul and others may be left to think I said something much worse than I actually did...
FYI: It was in no way a personal attack Saul, but a sharp criticism of the tactic you employed in your post.


----------



## science

peeyaj said:


> @Science
> 
> Thanks for sharing.. The first weeks of being a non-believer is pretty hard. I was in religion all of my life, studied at Christian school and attended church services every week. Then, it came to me the *silliness* of this whole charade..


Some, maybe even a lot, of it is silly, and some of it is a charade. But otoh, there is also a lot of - as I said - wisdom and beauty, and existential sincerity.

Any tradition that has been around for several hundred years builds up a lot of stuff, both good and bad.

I don't blame you for noticing the silliness, and like you I am not a believer, but I hope you won't cut yourself off from such an important part of the human experience.

To some degree, classical music is a secular alternative to religious ritual, and has been occasionally promoted as such from at least the time of Mozart.


----------



## peeyaj

science said:


> Some, maybe even a lot, of it is silly, and some of it is a charade. But otoh, there is also a lot of - as I said - wisdom and beauty, and existential sincerity.
> 
> Any tradition that has been around for several hundred years builds up a lot of stuff, both good and bad.
> 
> I don't blame you for noticing the silliness, and like you I am not a believer, but I hope you won't cut yourself off from such an important part of the human experience.
> 
> To some degree, classical music is a secular alternative to religious ritual, and has been occasionally promoted as such from at least the time of Mozart.


Fair enough.. Like in my op, I admire some aspects of religion. I admire Buddhism most, for being closer to spirituality.. I think, Buddhism and science is more compatible than any other religions.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Couchie said:


> Uh, no.


Uh, yes.


Couchie said:


> Evangelism is a built-in aspect of both Islam and Christianity. In Mormonism it's actually a requirement.


Well, there's evangelism and there's evangelism. The first aspect of a person's evangelism is their comportment to the world-at-large. This is in keeping with common-sense Scriptural precepts such as "by the fruits you shall know them" and "taking care of the plank in my own eye before worrying about the mote in someone else's eye."

You can be sure that if I (and other Christians) made as many posts here citing Aquinas, Luther and Calvin as atheists have made citing Russell, Dawkins and Hitchens, we doubtless would have been accused of "trying-to-ram-religion-down-people's-throats."

For too many, it seems that this formula applies-

Public discussion of atheism=Fearless service in the duty of Truth
Public discussion of religion=Gauche, unseemly proselytization.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Chi_townPhilly said:


> _Dawkins and Hitchens, this formula applies- Public discussion of atheism=Fearless service_


The Religion of Science has discovered the common link between homosexuality and atheism: FFS or, Faithless ******* Syndrome.


----------



## Guest

I agree with one of the posts Alma made early on, and I think that is what kept me out of this thread until now (and this will be my only post, even though I normally jump in on these types of threads).

Threads like this turn me off right away. At first blush, it looks like it was going to be a discussion of atheism - an interesting topic, since it is a foreign concept to me, and I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who espouse it.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I don't know if a central tenet of atheism is that you have to purposely state how ridiculous you find religion to be, but that is what I see here. Personally, as a Christian, I don't sit around all day discussing how ridiculous I find the beliefs/non-beliefs of others. I've got my own troubles to work out without having to point out the flaws of others. Or is this basically what atheism is about - does reason and rationality demand that you walk around and point out how unreasonable and irrational you think others are? Life seems too fleeting to spend your time in such a narcissistic pursuit - which is really all it is, trying to convince yourself how much more logical and rational you are than others. What other purpose does the criticism serve?

And that gets me to my original point, and the point that Alma made. When I read these types of threads, ultimately I find myself turned off by some people that I might normally share a great deal in common. Why? I find I don't care to talk with people, regardless how intelligent they are, who feel a need to discuss why they think what I believe is so ridiculous. So you don't believe in God. Why do you then feel the need to tell me how ridiculous I am? And don't deny it - all these posts of people who have "seen the light" make a point of how ridiculous you think religious tenets and scriptures are.

So that is all I have gained from this thread. I now feel less inclined to value the thoughts of certain members in other topics of discussion. Maybe that is a flaw on my part - I just don't care for the opinions of those who find it necessary to demean the beliefs of others. You don't believe it? Fine. Move on with your life. I had no clue atheists spent so much time agonizing over the beliefs that they had discarded.


----------



## Rasa

This thread is quite distasteful and supremely misplaced. I don't see why anyone would bring up a thread like this in a music forum. I would hope that in musical circles, your faith or lack thereof is irrelevant. 

Not to mention how weird it is to just randomly bring up a thread like this.... OP doesn't seem to be convinced of his initial statement.


----------



## peeyaj

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> The Religion of Science has discovered the common link between homosexuality and atheism: FFS or, Faithless ******* Syndrome.


I'm very much disappointed with you, sir.. I never imagined that you would stoop that low..


----------



## Ravellian

Well, I haven't spoken about religion to anybody in a long time, why not?

I am in a situation similar to science. I was raised Christian, then I went to college and I learned to think for myself. I had a very long personal battle over which one was the truth and I eventually decided upon atheism a couple years ago, for several unoriginal but powerful reasons:


1. Yes, God's existence can never be proven or disproven and there is no point in trying. "So just believe! Trust in your faith!" the Christians say. But we also can't prove or disprove the existence of any of the gods associated with Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc. Couldn't I just as easily "believe" in those gods? So who is right? Intuition tells me nobody, and that religion must be a human phenomenon with no factual basis.

2. There are too many difficult questions that arise with Christianity that Christians simply do not have the answer to. For example, why do some parts of the world (like Africa) suffer so much more than the rest of us? The Christian's answer is that "We do not know, but we trust that God knows" which is not an answer. Sorry, I need something better than that.

3. There are numerous problems with the story of Jesus and the history of the church. How much of Mark's original account was real and how much fabrication? We can never know. Why did it take nearly 300 years after Jesus' death for Christianity to become widely accepted? Why was the church so corrupt in the middle ages (allowing people to 'buy' their way into getting their sins forgiven, etc.)? It sounds to me like the Christian church was just another form of centralized power turned into dictatorship. 

4. Despite these difficulties I was aware of, I decided to join many Christian groups in the hope that maybe living and hanging out with real Christians would convince me that there is a difference, that Christians do lead better, happier lives. I couldn't have been more wrong; there was virtually no difference between them and my other friends, except that my Christian friends are always paranoid because they're wondering why "God" did something to them.. They are no less self-centered or hedonistic or lazy..


Phew, that was enough. I've been avoiding this subject with people for a while, so I felt like spilling my guts a bit. Excuse me.


----------



## Xaltotun

With religion, atheism, any topic really, there is a single truth: in the internet, you'll likely meet the most outspoken and vocal proponents.


----------



## peeyaj

Ravellian said:


> Well, I haven't spoken about religion to anybody in a long time, why not?
> 
> I am in a situation similar to science. I was raised Christian, then I went to college and I learned to think for myself. I had a very long personal battle over which one was the truth and I eventually decided upon atheism a couple years ago, for several unoriginal but powerful reasons:
> 
> 1. Yes, God's existence can never be proven or disproven and there is no point in trying. "So just believe! Trust in your faith!" the Christians say. But we also can't prove or disprove the existence of any of the gods associated with Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc. Couldn't I just as easily "believe" in those gods? So who is right? Intuition tells me nobody, and that religion must be a human phenomenon with no factual basis.
> 
> 2. There are too many difficult questions that arise with Christianity that Christians simply do not have the answer to. For example, why do some parts of the world (like Africa) suffer so much more than the rest of us? The Christian's answer is that "We do not know, but we trust that God knows" which is not an answer. Sorry, I need something better than that.
> 
> 3. There are numerous problems with the story of Jesus and the history of the church. How much of Mark's original account was real and how much fabrication? We can never know. Why did it take nearly 300 years after Jesus' death for Christianity to become widely accepted? Why was the church so corrupt in the middle ages (allowing people to 'buy' their way into getting their sins forgiven, etc.)? It sounds to me like the Christian church was just another form of centralized power turned into dictatorship.
> 
> 4. Despite these difficulties I was aware of, I decided to join many Christian groups in the hope that maybe living and hanging out with real Christians would convince me that there is a difference, that Christians do lead better, happier lives. I couldn't have been more wrong; there was virtually no difference between them and my other friends, except that my Christian friends are always paranoid because they're wondering why "God" did something to them.. They are no less self-centered or hedonistic or lazy..
> 
> Phew, that was enough. I've been avoiding this subject with people for a while, so I felt like spilling my guts a bit. Excuse me.


Thanks for a very thoughtful post. Maybe, if we can be civil to each other (like Ravellian), the topic would go on smoothly.

This is the community forum, so we can discuss any topic other than music.

Theists have the burden of proof to prove that a supreme being exists. I can say, *''I don't believe in a Supreme Being'', but if a person say ''No, you must believe in a Supreme Being. He/she/it exists''* Then, you must prove to me then, that that being exists, it is not my job to deny his existence, but a theist, to prove that supreme being exists.


----------



## Almaviva

Couchie said:


> I think the danger though is that then Saul and others may be left to think I said something much worse than I actually did...
> FYI: It was in no way a personal attack Saul, but a sharp criticism of the tactic you employed in your post.


Good point, but I can vouch for you and reassure Saul and others that you have engaged in no personal attacks. But posting about the posting style of another member is also not allowed, thus my action. Like I said, I was ambivalent about letting it stay or not since it wasn't bad, but decided to err on the side of caution given the passionate nature of this thread and recent conflicts here. I hope that what I did won't turn you off, please continue to contribute greatly like you've been doing, and my apologies if I was too strict on this one, but I do this for everybody's protections.


----------



## Almaviva

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> The Religion of Science has discovered the common link between homosexuality and atheism: FFS or, Faithless ******* Syndrome.


I hope this was meant as a joke and I can let it stay.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I agree with one of the posts Alma made early on, and I think that is what kept me out of this thread until now (and this will be my only post, even though I normally jump in on these types of threads).
> 
> Threads like this turn me off right away. At first blush, it looks like it was going to be a discussion of atheism - an interesting topic, since it is a foreign concept to me, and I'd love to hear the thoughts of those who espouse it.
> 
> Unfortunately, I was disappointed. I don't know if a central tenet of atheism is that you have to purposely state how ridiculous you find religion to be, but that is what I see here. Personally, as a Christian, I don't sit around all day discussing how ridiculous I find the beliefs/non-beliefs of others. I've got my own troubles to work out without having to point out the flaws of others. Or is this basically what atheism is about - does reason and rationality demand that you walk around and point out how unreasonable and irrational you think others are? Life seems too fleeting to spend your time in such a narcissistic pursuit - which is really all it is, trying to convince yourself how much more logical and rational you are than others. What other purpose does the criticism serve?
> 
> And that gets me to my original point, and the point that Alma made. When I read these types of threads, ultimately I find myself turned off by some people that I might normally share a great deal in common. Why? I find I don't care to talk with people, regardless how intelligent they are, who feel a need to discuss why they think what I believe is so ridiculous. So you don't believe in God. Why do you then feel the need to tell me how ridiculous I am? And don't deny it - all these posts of people who have "seen the light" make a point of how ridiculous you think religious tenets and scriptures are.
> 
> So that is all I have gained from this thread. I now feel less inclined to value the thoughts of certain members in other topics of discussion. Maybe that is a flaw on my part - I just don't care for the opinions of those who find it necessary to demean the beliefs of others. You don't believe it? Fine. Move on with your life. I had no clue atheists spent so much time agonizing over the beliefs that they had discarded.


Oh come on, Dr.Mike, there were some very interesting posts here. But if you then go and value less your opportunities to share with others your love for classical music given their lack of religion, then I'd say that you'd be doing pretty much the same thing that you're battling against here - you'd be agonizing over the non-beliefs of others. Oh, and thanks for your kind words regarding what I said before, whatever it was (you didn't make it clear).


----------



## Almaviva

Rasa said:


> This thread is quite distasteful and supremely misplaced. I don't see why anyone would bring up a thread like this in a music forum. I would hope that in musical circles, your faith or lack thereof is irrelevant.
> 
> Not to mention how weird it is to just randomly bring up a thread like this.... OP doesn't seem to be convinced of his initial statement.


Sorry Rasa but like I said before, these topics are allowed in the Community Forum area. The remedy for any member who disapproves of a thread is simple: don't click on threads that you don't like - often you can tell by the title, and if not, as soon as you start reading it you can then tell, and are free to then go elsewhere in the forum. If you decide to stick around, though, we'd love to read your contributions.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Oh come on, Dr.Mike, there were some very interesting posts here. But if you then go and value less your opportunities to share with others your love for classical music given their lack of religion, then I'd say that you'd be doing pretty much the same thing that you're battling against here - you'd be agonizing over the non-beliefs of others. Oh, and thanks for your kind words regarding what I said before, whatever it was (you didn't make it clear).


Re-read my post, Alma. I'm not agonizing over the non-beliefs of others. I am a scientist - I have numerous friends and acquaintances that I get along great with who are atheists. They don't feel the need to ridicule my beliefs and constantly point out how enlightened they are for not believing the ridiculous things I espouse.

That there may have been a few good points in this train wreck of a thread seems superfluous. The very first post sets the tone, and then the ridiculous posting of the flying spaghetti monster picture only emphasizes the lack of seriousness of the OP.

No, I think that my criticism is valid, and will only become more apparent the longer this thread exists. My judgment of a person in this thread is not based on what they believe, rather on how necessary they feel it is to demean the beliefs of others.


----------



## peeyaj

@Dr. Mike

Sorry if my intended humor was not appreciated. I'll concede and will the delete the photo now. Much I know how much ridiculous this is..


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Re-read my post, Alma. I'm not agonizing over the non-beliefs of others. I am a scientist - I have numerous friends and acquaintances that I get along great with who are atheists. They don't feel the need to ridicule my beliefs and constantly point out how enlightened they are for not believing the ridiculous things I espouse.
> 
> That there may have been a few good points in this train wreck of a thread seems superfluous. The very first post sets the tone, and then the ridiculous posting of the flying spaghetti monster picture only emphasizes the lack of seriousness of the OP.
> 
> No, I think that my criticism is valid, and will only become more apparent the longer this thread exists. My judgment of a person in this thread is not based on what they believe, rather on how necessary they feel it is to demean the beliefs of others.


But Dr. Mike, as far as you know, one of your kind atheist friends may be posting here on this anonymous forum under the guise of a screen name. It is the nature of anonymous message boards that people speak up their minds more freely than in regular life. Maybe your friends think just like some members here but are tasteful enough to refrain from saying it to your face in real life. We need to grow a thick skin when we are in the Internet. I though that the OP was truthful in expressing a personal conflict.

Whew... it's been hard to moderate this... I guess I'll let the "ridiculous" spaghetti monster comment stay... the poor monster does look a little ridiculous so it wasn't much of a personal attack... We'll see if this time I'm being too careless, I hope the issue won't spin out of control - in which case I may come back and edit it out.


----------



## Almaviva

See how hard the life of a moderator is, folks? Some people (e.g. Saul, emiel) complain when I don't let a thread go on. Some others (e.g. Dr.Mike) complain when I do let a thread go on. Fortunately for me, I've long learned that you can never please everybody at the same time so I never take it personally.


----------



## Almaviva

peeyaj said:


> @Dr. Mike
> 
> Sorry if my intended humor was not appreciated. I'll concede and will the delete the photo now. Much I know how much ridiculous this is..


It looks like I was right in letting the thing stay, the issue self-corrected which shoes that the members *are* getting into the civility mode. Whew!


----------



## peeyaj

@mod Almaviva

So can I post the pic now?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> ... I don't know if a central tenet of atheism is that you have to purposely state how ridiculous you find religion to be, but that is what I see here.
> 
> ... And don't deny it - all these posts of people who have "seen the light" make a point of how ridiculous you think religious tenets and scriptures are.


That is really, really unfair.

I find it hard to believe you read my posts and reached that conclusion from them.


----------



## Almaviva

peeyaj said:


> @mod Almaviva
> 
> So can I post the pic now?


Don't push your luck, peejay!:lol:


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> That is really, really unfair.
> 
> I find it hard to believe you read my posts and reached that conclusion from them.


Children, children, let's not take things personally...
I read it as Dr.Mike's beef with atheists in general, he got a little frustrated about it and expressed it strongly. I don't want to be too heavy-handed here in trying to keep the peace. I think I'm more tolerant today than yesterday, which could be dangerous, though. But let's see what comes from this more hands-off approach.


----------



## science

If he'd expressed it as a criticism of atheists in general, I could offer qualified sympathy. After all, my posts... well, it doesn't matter. I would be surprised if I were given a fair hearing by him, so, I'll just thank you for not giving me a warning if my post was over the line.


----------



## Yoshi

I admit I was a bit bored earlier, but I didn't mean to question the moderators' way to deal with this topic.
By the looks of this thread, Almaviva is doing a very good job!



Almaviva said:


> I appreciate your nice contributions to this forum, Jan!:tiphat:


That is so nice that I can't even figure out if it's sarcastic :lol:. So I'll just say Thank you :tiphat:.


----------



## Chris

Ravellian said:


> 1. Yes, God's existence can never be proven or disproven and there is no point in trying. "So just believe! Trust in your faith!" the Christians say. But we also can't prove or disprove the existence of any of the gods associated with Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism, etc. Couldn't I just as easily "believe" in those gods? So who is right? Intuition tells me nobody, and that religion must be a human phenomenon with no factual basis.


Does this principal apply generally? If you are faced with multiple options does it follow they must all be wrong? Or is it up to you to find the right option? As for Christians saying 'just believe', I am afraid there is no escape: 'Without faith it is impossible to please God' says Hebrews 11:6. We have three witnesses directing us to the truth; our conscience, which tells us that God exists and we have offended him; the glories of creation; and the Bible itself which directs us to Christ the redeemer. You must make do with these.



Ravellian said:


> 2. There are too many difficult questions that arise with Christianity that Christians simply do not have the answer to. For example, why do some parts of the world (like Africa) suffer so much more than the rest of us? The Christian's answer is that "We do not know, but we trust that God knows" which is not an answer. Sorry, I need something better than that.


Everyone struggles with difficult questions, not just Christians. As for the relative hardships of Africans, that may go back to the divine curse on Canaan in Genesis 9:25. This is part of a prophecy which divided humanity into three great divisions, one of which (Canaan) is reckoned to include Africa. I advance this only tentatively. But uncertainty on a question like that seems a flimsy reason for rejecting Christianity.



Ravellian said:


> 3. There are numerous problems with the story of Jesus and the history of the church. How much of Mark's original account was real and how much fabrication? We can never know. Why did it take nearly 300 years after Jesus' death for Christianity to become widely accepted? Why was the church so corrupt in the middle ages (allowing people to 'buy' their way into getting their sins forgiven, etc.)? It sounds to me like the Christian church was just another form of centralized power turned into dictatorship.


The only significant textual difficulty with Mark's gospel is the twelve verses at the end of the last chapter. This passage is narrative, dealing with events after Christ's resurrection. Scholars are divided on whether these twelve verses are genuine or an accretion. Fortunately the verses do not contain any vital doctrine. You can read Mark confident that you are reading the gospel of Jesus Christ.
As for the church not being 'widely accepted' for a while; first, a seed needs time to grow. The church began with 120 believers. Secondly, it was not altogether a blessing that Christianity was 'widely accepted' by which I assume you refer to its establishment as the official religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine. With institutionalisation came corruption.
...which answers your third point. In accordance with prophecy, Satan raised up an antichristian kingdom to oppose Christ's true kingdom. Satan's kingdom masqueraded as Christianity while being devoid of spirituality. Antichrist in its various guises will be with us until the Last Judgment. The true Kingdom of Heaven is invisible, and exists wherever a soul has submitted itself to the rule of Christ and has submitted to Jesus as Lord.



Ravellian said:


> 4. Despite these difficulties I was aware of, I decided to join many Christian groups in the hope that maybe living and hanging out with real Christians would convince me that there is a difference, that Christians do lead better, happier lives. I couldn't have been more wrong; there was virtually no difference between them and my other friends, except that my Christian friends are always paranoid because they're wondering why "God" did something to them.. They are no less self-centered or hedonistic or lazy..


Impossible to answer this as I do not know your friends. I suggest you put your fingers in your ears and read the Bible, starting with Mark's gospel.


----------



## science

Chris, see me in the Christian thread!


----------



## peeyaj

Why a religion needs to be mutually exclusive? Why did a supreme being needs you to join a specific faith in order to be saved? Why a person needs to be judged according to a book which was written by another human being thousand of years ago. Why the morality of a specific faith different from another. Is the Q'ran invalid because another faith rejects it? Is the Vedas which was written earlier, less invalid than the Bible? Ask a Hindu or a Buddhist to be a Muslim, I think he would laugh at you. Same to Christians. Reading the posts here in this thread, reaffirms my rejection to a god and religion in general.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> But Dr. Mike, as far as you know, one of your kind atheist friends may be posting here on this anonymous forum under the guise of a screen name. It is the nature of anonymous message boards that people speak up their minds more freely than in regular life. Maybe your friends think just like some members here but are tasteful enough to refrain from saying it to your face in real life. We need to grow a thick skin when we are in the Internet. I though that the OP was truthful in expressing a personal conflict.
> 
> Whew... it's been hard to moderate this... I guess I'll let the "ridiculous" spaghetti monster comment stay... the poor monster does look a little ridiculous so it wasn't much of a personal attack... We'll see if this time I'm being too careless, I hope the issue won't spin out of control - in which case I may come back and edit it out.


Alma - a couple of points. I never said to shut down the thread. I never even asked it, or hinted at it.

Second - if I should somehow feel better that some of these comments are being made by colleagues of mine, working under the shield of anonymity, I don't. I have issues with numerous things, and not just other belief systems. But I don't attack them, whether directly, or anonymously. What I say here is what I would say to your face. And I have in the past defended other belief systems that I absolutely disagreed with, because I think that the person who would attack one belief system would attack any belief system. I defended scientologists in another internet forum, not because I agree with any of their beliefs, but because I thought it absurd to attack a persons beliefs. Say what you will about Saul - the guy puts his whole name out there, nothing to hide. He makes his comments (of which I have disagreed with, at times, quite fervently) without a shred of anonynimity. To me, that takes a whole lot more courage than someone with a made up online alter ego coming on here and bashing religion because he thinks it is bunk.

If anything, I have even less patience for someone who would come on here and hide behind anonymity to attack the faith of others for no good reason. As I said before - so you have decided religion is not for you. Good for you. Why do you now feel the need to point out all the flaws in mine?

To Science - obviously if you weren't engaged in the type of attacks I have mentioned, then why do you feel my comments were directed at you?


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> To Science - obviously if you weren't engaged in the type of attacks I have mentioned, then why do you feel my comments were directed at you?


I didn't feel they were directed at me personally.


----------



## toucan

DrMike said:


> As I said before - so you have decided religion is not for you. Good for you. Why do you now feel the need to point out all the flaws in mine?


Because the flaws of religion are the reason why people lose their religion.

Because in a free country there are no sacred cows and people are free to discuss the cons as well as the pros - if any - of religion

Because religious people have a long history of forcing thir beliefs on people (or else: burn them) and of banning all critique of religion - which itself provokes and justifies the critique


----------



## Chris

peeyaj said:


> Why a religion needs to be mutually exclusive?


Every day we have to make choices between competing options.



peeyaj said:


> Why did a supreme being needs you to join a specific faith in order to be saved?


Christianity is not so much 'joining' something as surrendering yourself to the rule of Christ and believing in him as your saviour. It has to be Christ because 'There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus' (I Timothy 2:5). Jesus Christ, God and man, gave himself as a sacrifice for sin and only through his mediation can we be made right with God.



peeyaj said:


> Why a person needs to be judged according to a book which was written by another human being thousand of years ago. Why the morality of a specific faith different from another. Is the Q'ran invalid because another faith rejects it? Is the Vedas which was written earlier, less invalid than the Bible?


The gospel could only be made reliably known through the written word, therefore 'No prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit'. This refers to the books of the Bible itself. As for other writings, whatever their antiquity, someone else will have to speak up for them.



peeyaj said:


> Ask a Hindu or a Buddhist to be a Muslim, I think he would laugh at you.


I might laugh as well. But I would also direct our Hindu or Buddhist to the exclusive claims of Jesus: 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except through me'. (John 14:6)


----------



## emiellucifuge

How do you know the scripture tells the truth Chris?


----------



## Chris

emiellucifuge said:


> How do you know the scripture tells the truth Chris?


I confess it is a matter of faith. But having studied the Bible for many years I find plenty to encourage me to continue believing it. The way Christ is foreshadowed in the Old Testament is one.


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> As for Christians saying 'just believe', I am afraid there is no escape: 'Without faith it is impossible to please God' says Hebrews 11:6. We have three witnesses directing us to the truth; our conscience, which tells us that God exists and we have offended him; the glories of creation; and the Bible itself which directs us to Christ the redeemer. You must make do with these.


The concept of faith in religion has always confused me. I have friends who tell me it would actually be wrong to believe in God based on rational thought. Rather you must have faith. You say your conscience tells you that God exists and that you have offended God. Do you think everyone's conscience tells them that or just people who already believe? It seems rather difficult to have faith without already believing.

Another question I have with faith is the following. If one accepts that one must have faith, the problem then becomes what to have faith in. Perhaps what religious people are saying is that you must first have the faith and then you can decide based on other criteria what direction that faith should take. There are people who believe (have faith?) in multiple gods, in the powers of dead ancestors, or in an overall goodness of the universe. Would you suggest to those people that their faith is a good start but that they should consider certain reasons why the object of their faith might be mistaken? I don't mean that you would actually say that to them, but I am asking if you philosophically believe that.


----------



## science

There could be a "belief in faith," which would literally be a "belief in belief."

Maybe it doesn't matter what arbitrary thing you commit yourself to without evidence of its existence, as long as you actually do commit yourself to something without evidence of its existence. 

Just sayin' for the sake of discussion.


----------



## Chris

mmsbls said:


> The concept of faith in religion has always confused me. I have friends who tell me it would actually be wrong to believe in God based on rational thought. Rather you must have faith. You say your conscience tells you that God exists and that you have offended God. Do you think everyone's conscience tells them that or just people who already believe? It seems rather difficult to have faith without already believing.


I'm not sure what your friends mean. I hope they were not suggesting you should be irrational. C.S. Lewis became a Christian pretty well through rational deduction, or so he said, I wouldn't take anything away from him. As for conscience, I don't claim to see into other people's minds. But the Bible says 'He (God) has set eternity in the hearts of men' (Ecclesiates 3:11) and a lot more besides. The Bible also says the conscience can be suppressed through wickedness, and even destroyed alogether. A bit like pushing a football underwater. You say to yourself 'there is no God', pushing the football down. It bobs up, saying 'Yes, there is'. You push it down again, up it bobs again. In the end you might succeed in immersing it permanently, but at a terrible moral cost, for which see Romans 1:18-32.



mmsbls said:


> Another question I have with faith is the following. If one accepts that one must have faith, the problem then becomes what to have faith in. Perhaps what religious people are saying is that you must first have the faith and then you can decide based on other criteria what direction that faith should take. There are people who believe (have faith?) in multiple gods, in the powers of dead ancestors, or in an overall goodness of the universe. Would you suggest to those people that their faith is a good start but that they should consider certain reasons why the object of their faith might be mistaken? I don't mean that you would actually say that to them, but I am asking if you philosophically believe that.


I would not tell those people they had made a good start. I do not believe faith is a good thing irrespective of its object. All I can say is the God of the Bible commands faith in himself and his Son Jesus Christ, telling us there is no other way, sinful people that we are, can be reconciled to a holy and sinless God.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Do you think I am evil just for a lack of faith?


----------



## Chris

science said:


> There could be a "belief in faith," which would literally be a "belief in belief."
> 
> Maybe it doesn't matter what arbitrary thing you commit yourself to without evidence of its existence, as long as you actually do commit yourself to something without evidence of its existence.
> 
> Just sayin' for the sake of discussion.


I would try to think in concrete terms. Suppose you had a serious disease. You know the medical profession, in the widest sense of the term, comprises genuine doctors and quacks. Do you cultivate a general faith in doctors or do you try to repose your faith in a reliable one?


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> You push it down again, up it bobs again. In the end you might succeed in immersing it permanently, but at a terrible moral cost, for which see Romans 1:18-32.


Do you believe that people who don't believe in God cannot be moral? I assume you feel that non-believers can have a moral code that urges them not to kill, steal, etc. Are you referring to something specific in the Christian God's view of morality - things like having no other idols or following Jesus's way, etc.?


----------



## science

Chris said:


> I would try to think in concrete terms. Suppose you had a serious disease. You know the medical profession, in the widest sense of the term, comprises genuine doctors and quacks. Do you cultivate a general faith in doctors or do you try to repose your faith in a reliable one?


Well, if I didn't have any evidence as to which was which, but was required to pick one, then I would pick arbitrarily. Perhaps a friendly-looking one.

Fortunately, I'm not required to choose. I'll just go with what appears to be true.


----------



## Chris

emiellucifuge said:


> Do you think I am evil just for a lack of faith?


I would not dare call anyone evil. But lack of faith is not a mere peccadillo. Someone, maybe on this thread, recently mentioned the 'unforgivable sin' referring to the incident where Jesus says to the Pharisees:

'Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come' (Matthew 12:31)

The 'unforgivable sin' is unbelief, or lack of faith. That is, disbelief in Jesus and his offer of salvation. It is not 'unforgivable' in the sense that once you have committed it once, you are doomed, but in the sense that the gospel is the only thing that can reconcile you with God and so (obviously) to refuse it is cut yourself off from the only means of salvation. There may be a doctor who can cure anything. But the one thing he can't remedy is unbelief in his powers. He can't cure people who refuse treatment.


----------



## Chris

mmsbls said:


> Do you believe that people who don't believe in God cannot be moral? I assume you feel that non-believers can have a moral code that urges them not to kill, steal, etc. Are you referring to something specific in the Christian God's view of morality - things like having no other idols or following Jesus's way, etc.?


Yes, I believe unbelievers have an innate moral code, and thank God they do or the world would be a savage place. The conscience is not infallible because everything in us is affected by the Fall (entrance of sin at the Garden of Eden) but it is still, in its imperfect state, a powerful internal warning beacon. As for idolatry, Romans 1:20-23 renders the idolator without excuse even if he does not have the written commandment.


----------



## Almaviva

Jan said:


> I admit I was a bit bored earlier, but I didn't mean to question the moderators' way to deal with this topic.
> By the looks of this thread, Almaviva is doing a very good job!
> 
> That is so nice that I can't even figure out if it's sarcastic :lol:. So I'll just say Thank you :tiphat:.


No, it wasn't sarcasm, Jan. And thanks.


----------



## tdc

All though I consider myself a spiritual person of faith that believes in God, I feel I have more in common with agnostics, than with any religious person who claims their faith is the one and only true way. This mind set is just divisive, counter productive, mis interpreted, and really a shame imo, and clearly one of the main reasons many people end up disregarding religion in the first place.


----------



## kmisho

Chris said:


> There may be a doctor who can cure anything. But the one thing he can't remedy is unbelief in his powers. He can't cure people who refuse treatment.


Why not? I thought he could do anything.


----------



## dmg

Chris said:


> I would not dare call anyone evil. But lack of faith is not a mere peccadillo. Someone, maybe on this thread, recently mentioned the 'unforgivable sin' referring to the incident where Jesus says to the Pharisees:
> 
> 'Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come' (Matthew 12:31)
> 
> The 'unforgivable sin' is unbelief, or lack of faith. That is, disbelief in Jesus and his offer of salvation. It is not 'unforgivable' in the sense that once you have committed it once, you are doomed, but in the sense that the gospel is the only thing that can reconcile you with God and so (obviously) to refuse it is cut yourself off from the only means of salvation. There may be a doctor who can cure anything. But the one thing he can't remedy is unbelief in his powers. He can't cure people who refuse treatment.


Any 'religion' that condemns people, GOOD people, to death (whether it's a made-up 'eternal' death or actual stoning / execution) for not believing and frightens them into submission is EVIL. I'm glad I gave up believing these lies.


----------



## Edward Elgar

emiellucifuge said:


> Do you think I am evil just for a lack of faith?


Have you lied? cheated? taken the lord's name in vain? coveted thy neighborer's belongings?


----------



## Chris

dmg said:


> Any 'religion' that condemns people, GOOD people, to death (whether it's a made-up 'eternal' death or actual stoning / execution) for not believing and frightens them into submission is EVIL. I'm glad I gave up believing these lies.


All people who become Christians do so by the same means, by acknowledging that they have sinned against God, and by turning away from their sinful and selfish life, submitting themselves to God and accepting Christ as their Saviour and Lord. But each convert has his own pathway there. Some indeed have been terrified at the prospect of hell. John Bunyan is an example. While he was still in a state of unbelief he was afraid to walk near buildings in case a wall collapsed on him and despatched him to eternity in an unsaved condition. A little extreme, but I do not condemn his concern for his own soul. But there are numerous people who come to faith without any such dramatics, and having done so they discover God is not a tyrant but a friend.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Chris said:


> God is not a tyrant but a friend.


So what's hell all about then?


----------



## Chris

Edward Elgar said:


> So what's hell all about then?


God is a friend to those whose sins are forgiven through the intercession of Christ. Hell is the inevitable outcome for those who remain in a state of rebellion against God. It exists because God is sinless and cannot be reconciled to sin.


----------



## starthrower

Edward Elgar said:


> So what's hell all about then?


It keeps the potato eaters in line. Do people still believe in a literal hell? That's sad.


----------



## Edward Elgar

starthrower said:


> It keeps the potato eaters in line. Do people still believe in a literal hell? That's sad.


It's in the bible! Are you questioning the most deeply held convictions of the largest religion in the world?


----------



## science

The monotheistic traditions have quite a range of "hells" that people could believe in.


----------



## starthrower

Edward Elgar said:


> It's in the bible! Are you questioning the most deeply held convictions of the largest religion in the world?


I most certainly am!


----------



## Edward Elgar

science said:


> The monotheistic traditions have quite a range of "hells" that people could believe in.


Yes, hell could be anything bad, heaven could be anything good. When I listen to Mozart I'm in heaven! However, religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism have established traditional concepts of what hell is like. From what I can gather, the general consensus is that hell is very hot and very painful. It's torture and it lasts forever. Purgatory or limbo is bad, but you get a chance to climb the ladder once you've suffered enough to absolve your sins.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Oh come on, Dr.Mike, there were some very interesting posts here. But if you then go and value less your opportunities to share with others your love for classical music given their lack of religion, then I'd say that you'd be doing pretty much the same thing that you're battling against here - you'd be agonizing over the non-beliefs of others. *Oh, and thanks for your kind words regarding what I said before, whatever it was (you didn't make it clear).*


Sorry, I think it was actually Elgarian who made the comment, back in post #15.


----------



## TxllxT

What I like in the Good Book is the play & ploy of questions and counter-questions. This makes the atmosphere light and humorous. A man comes to a well. A village woman comes down to the same place as well. "How can you, a Jew, speak to me, a woman?" The intercourse that starts from this question whirls and whirls, until the question of questions pops up: "shouldn't this man be the messiah?" But centuries of church, philosophy and religion has plastered this light & humorous origin over and over, until everything became stifled, stiffened and very, very much out of breath. This stiffening process resembles the way how Bach used to be played in the old times: heavy & massive & without joy. I would like to get rid of all the plastering layers and let the original light touch speak & shine again. Just like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel or just like Gardiner's rediscovery of 'light' Bach.


----------



## starthrower

Edward Elgar said:


> Yes, hell could be anything bad, heaven could be anything good. When I listen to Mozart I'm in heaven! However, religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism have established traditional concepts of what hell is like. From what I can gather, the general consensus is that hell is very hot and very painful. It's torture and it lasts forever. Purgatory or limbo is bad, but you get a chance to climb the ladder once you've suffered enough to absolve your sins.


Purgatory seems to me to be more logical. A purification process. Eternal torture, to my mind seems absurd and pointless. As far as the flames and heat are concerned, I don't think it's meant to be taken literally. How can you experience physical pain when you're dead and disembodied? It's a metaphor for spiritual death. Alone with yourself, and separated from God.

Humans like to project their personalities and worldly experience into the netherworld. I'm not so sure things will continue as they are when we're dead.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

One of the biggest flaws with the major lines of religion competing for the same business is that each offer their own version of monumental reasoning about man and his morality, and ultimately they disagree violently with each other, often under the illusionary blanket of approval from their respective version of Gods. Judaism would have you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a chalatant, while the Christians would have you believe he was the son of God to be worshipped, not withstanding very different interpretations of the supposedly same God, while the Muslims would have you believe neither. Australian Aborigines also have their own version of creation and how a Rainbow Serpent was part of it. 

When questioned about these obvious differences pointing out the flaws behind each, the usual answer is something along the lines of "... it is faith, God's work is mysterious ...", in other words, they don't really know, but have been brought up to believe this faith as if offering them "meaning" nonetheless. 

I cannot believe there is a merciful loving God who created horrible viruses for example, or designed a planet with natural perils deadly enough to wipe out 20,000 people in Japan. The same pathetic answer gets fed again: "the Lord works in mysterious ways and we are part of his grand plan".


----------



## mamascarlatti

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I cannot believe there is a merciful loving God who created horrible viruses for example, or designed a planet with natural perils deadly enough to wipe out 20,000 people in Japan. The same pathetic answer gets fed again: "the Lord works in mysterious ways and we are part of his grand plan".


Yup, anyone who could actually think up guinea worms has got to be a sadist.


----------



## Lipatti

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I cannot believe there is a merciful loving God who created horrible viruses for example, or designed a planet with natural perils deadly enough to wipe out 20,000 people in Japan. The same pathetic answer gets fed again: "the Lord works in mysterious ways and we are part of his grand plan".


Check out the Bible, it says clearly that God also is wrathful and vengeful.


----------



## Lipatti

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> One of the biggest flaws with the major lines of religion competing for the same business is that each offer their own version of monumental reasoning about man and his morality, and ultimately they disagree violently with each other, often under the illusionary blanket of approval from their respective version of Gods. Judaism would have you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a chalatant, while the Christians would have you believe he was the son of God to be worshipped, not withstanding very different interpretations of the supposedly same God, while the Muslims would have you believe neither. Australian Aborigines also have their own version of creation and how a Rainbow Serpent was part of it.


I think it's intriguing to see so many different interpretations of something which, by nature, is ungraspable. It can certainly enhances one's understanding.


----------



## Nix

Lipatti said:


> Check out the Bible, it says clearly that God also is wrathful and vengeful.


I've also read that God is just, which I suppose can go hand in hand with vengeful... so the 20,000 people in Japan did something wrong then? More precisely, they all did something wrong that warranted their deaths?


----------



## Almaviva

I'd like to ask a genuine question (I'm not being sarcastic) to the more learned theologists here. 
Even if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. Even if some superior force (God?) has created the universe, the present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. Or else, if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still looks after or cares for his creature?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Nix said:


> I've also read that God is just, which I suppose can go hand in hand with vengeful... so the 20,000 people in Japan did something wrong then? More precisely, they all did something wrong that warranted their deaths?


To intimate that any mainstream Western religious tradition is out there teaching that the victims of modern natural disasters are the deserving recipients of God's wrath is to make a caricature of the Theistic position, rather than to approach in an attempt to understand it.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Almaviva said:


> I'd like to ask a genuine question (I'm not being sarcastic) to the more learned theologists here.
> Even if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. Even if some superior force (God?) has created the universe, the present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. Or else, if there was a creator, how do figure that this creator still looks after or cares for his creature?


Allow me to preempt their likely answers: it's all by *faith* that I know God still exists and loves/cares for us.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Allow me to preempt their likely answers: it's all by *faith* that I know God still exists and loves/cares for us.


Alternatively, *Almaviva* could stand by for someone grounded in Theological Apologetics to make a reason-based reply to him.

But why let that get in the way of bundling yet another straw-man for our consideration?


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> I'd like to ask a genuine question (I'm not being sarcastic) to the more learned theologists here.
> Even if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. Even if some superior force (God?) has created the universe, the present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. Or else, if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still looks after or cares for his creature?


I think most believers cite their own personal religious experience.

Of course that can't satisfy a skeptic, but it's hard to doubt one's own experience.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> I think most believers cite their own personal religious experience.
> 
> Of course that can't satisfy a skeptic, but it's hard to doubt one's own experience.


Like CTP said, I was hoping for a more reasoned answer.
In my humble opinion, one's own experience is very rarely proof of anything, for lack of corroboration.


----------



## science

Especially when the reports of individual experiences differ so much. That is one of the key reasons that I lost my faith.

Anyway, I woner what kinds of answers are possible? Besides personal experience, and philosophical argument, there is just religious authority such as sacred texts or prophets.

This line of thought reminds me of The Amber Spyglass, the third book in the series that starts with The Golden Compass.

SPOILER ALERT: In that, Lyra and her special friend Will kill God - a mercy killing, as he was an ancient, worn out spirit that was being kept alive against his will. 

I've always admired Pullman's creativity throughout that book. The first 2 books in that series are ok, the 3rd is absolutely the greatest children's novel I've ever read.


----------



## TxllxT

Almaviva said:


> I'd like to ask a genuine question (I'm not being sarcastic) to the more learned theologists here.
> Even if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. Even if some superior force (God?) has created the universe, the present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. Or else, if there was a creator, how do you figure that this creator still looks after or cares for his creature?


When you start with "if" all that follows after this "if" bears the burden of becoming hypothetical. In other words: all becomes philosophy. The same happens when someone begins with "I think". One thing that amazes me in the Scriptures: nobody 'thinks'.


----------



## Almaviva

TxllxT said:


> When you start with "if" all that follows after this "if" bears the burden of becoming hypothetical. In other words: all becomes philosophy. The same happens when someone begins with "I think". One thing that amazes me in the Scriptures: nobody 'thinks'.


Well, just eliminate the "ifs" then, and my question stands. Like this:

How do you figure that the creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. The present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. How do you figure that the creator still looks after or cares for his creature?

Like CTP said, I'm waiting for a convincing, reasoned explanation by learned Christian Apologetics (or apologetics from any other religion) who can provide a body of evidence beyond just saying "well you just have to have faith." Is this too much to ask for?


----------



## peeyaj

@mod Almaviva

Hope someone bite the bullet and provide a brilliant explanation to your question. We don't need *blind faith* answer here, we need a rational answer. Please do.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I think that, for many in the Monotheistic tradition, the _argument from causality_ (a.k.a.: Cosmological argument for the existence of God) provides a reasoned explanation of not only God's existence, but also His permanence.

I could link to posts in closed threads (where I discussed this before), OR maybe I could give a brief "reading list" of sources (Zaharias' _Let My People Think_ series, Geisler- hey, maybe even Aquinas and the granddaddy of all, Aristotle) or else I'll welcome Private Messages on this topic.

I'm actually starting to feel a little guilty about ongoing contributions in an 'Atheist' thread- 
my sturdiest credential here is that I'm a *former* atheist.


----------



## Ravellian

_Does this principal apply generally? If you are faced with multiple options does it follow they must all be wrong?_

No, it does not apply generally. When it comes to religions, all of which require "Belief" in something you can't sense, what makes one option 'better' than the other? Nothing, since there is no religion that offers any sort of evidence as to the existence of their deity. Again, so much of Christianity requires that you just 'believe' that something is true. Well why should I believe _that_ when I could just as easily believe in any other religion? We need something more concrete than that.

Which is probably why Christians rely on the Bible so much, since it's something tangible they can hang on to, and the same with the Qu'ran, and so on. Why I can't rely on the Bible is a complex topic but I can throw out a few ideas.

For example Chris, how do you know that all of Mark's gospel (except the last twelve verses) is genuine? How do you know he wrote exactly what happened? How do we know how much of it was actual fact and how much was based on stories of what he did? How do we know that Jesus really fulfilled all those OT prophecies and those weren't just fabricated additions to make Jesus seem legitimate?


----------



## peeyaj

I urge people to be open-minded and read a well-written article here:



> http://www.skepdic.com/atheism.html


----------



## Lipatti

Nix said:


> I've also read that God is just, which I suppose can go hand in hand with vengeful... so the 20,000 people in Japan did something wrong then? More precisely, they all did something wrong that warranted their deaths?


You are free to suppose whatever you want, I don't like to make guesses.


----------



## TxllxT

Jewish children are raised up with the question: "Who knows?" So after any convincing and well reasoned argument a Jew may be likely to add: "Who knows?" Philosophers do not like this. After the full stop of the '.', nothing ought to be added and certainly not an open question. Again one of my amazements with the Scriptures: there are no full stops, no interpunction signs in the Hebrew (Aramaic/Greek) original to force one to stand still or to go on in a pre-prepared direction. When I studied in Prague, I got into a such a heated debate with a well trained sceptical philosopher on this matter (I wanted to investigate, whether the whole biblical message in truth (true to itself) may end with "Who knows?"), that I could not continue studying there. He wanted to keep his own scepticism sacred untrodden ground.
I want to point out, that YouGetWhatYouWant very much applies to enlightened thinking-projects. Those who want to prove God's existence, do so with a predirected sense of mission & those who want to disprove that will follow their predirected disproving project of dismission. Franz Kafka's Process and Castle is about how language fools you & imprisons you. Just to make it more complex: I consider Kafka's writings to belong to the biblical canon.


----------



## Lipatti

Almaviva said:


> Like CTP said, I was hoping for a more reasoned answer.
> In my humble opinion, one's own experience is very rarely proof of anything, for lack of corroboration.


Your skepticism is very understandable, but what about the fact that hundreds of millions of people share a genuine belief of (a) God, most of whom are independent of each other? And I'm talking here about people who are actually passionate about their faith, who have pondered upon this and who choose to believe out of their own free will? I think it's a little arrogant and dismissive to simply say that all these people have been brainwashed.


----------



## peeyaj

@Lipatti

You are comitting the fallacies, Appeal to Belief and Appeal to Popularity. Even though, many people believe in a Supreme being, that did not make, the belief as true or rational.


----------



## Chris

Almaviva said:


> How do you figure that the creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. The present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. How do you figure that the creator still looks after or cares for his creature?
> 
> Like CTP said, I'm waiting for a convincing, reasoned explanation by learned Christian Apologetics (or apologetics from any other religion) who can provide a body of evidence beyond just saying "well you just have to have faith." Is this too much to ask for?


Any attempt to prove the existence of God will involve dishonesty. As soon as I initiate the debate I am effectively saying to you 'I believe in God. You do not. Let's go to a neutral third party called Mr. Logic and allow him to decide'. In doing so I would be lying to you because I don't believe Mr. Logic is neutral. My true belief, which I would be hiding, is that God is absolutely supreme. Logic and reasoning are his creations and cannot be used against him. He cannot be judged by his own creation because he is in every way above that creation.

You say the earth is 'likely' to be billions of years old but you do not know. The past has gone and cannot be retrieved. Any belief about the distant past must involve faith, even if that faith is disguised is scientific terminology like 'the cosmological principle' or 'uniformitarianism'.

I have various books on Christian apologetics and I am sure they have helped some people, but what limits them is that people's antipathy to God is not primarily intellectual but spiritual. As Paul says in Romans 8:7 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so'. That is the real barrier to belief. The pharisees saw the miracles of Jesus and dismissed them as 'earthly, not heavenly'. They said he was working black magic. Even the crowds who idolised Jesus for a while left him in droves when they couldn't stomach his teaching, and were finally easily incited to scream for his cricifixion.

As for God caring for his creation, you would know in an instant if he chose to withdraw his hand, because 'The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word' (Hebrews 1:3). The very laws of nature operate because God sustains them. Apart from that, the fact that we do not live as savages, tearing each other apart, is attributable to the restraining hand of God. The fact that we enjoy not only the bare essentials to sustain life but even many comforts, is more reason for giving thanks to God.


----------



## kmisho

There are three things you never discuss in mixed company. Politics, religion, and the Great Pumpkin.


----------



## Chris

Ravellian said:


> For example Chris, how do you know that all of Mark's gospel (except the last twelve verses) is genuine? How do you know he wrote exactly what happened? How do we know how much of it was actual fact and how much was based on stories of what he did? How do we know that Jesus really fulfilled all those OT prophecies and those weren't just fabricated additions to make Jesus seem legitimate?


Jesus on many occasions (e.g. John 10:35, 'Scripture cannot be broken') spoke of the OT Scriptures as an absolutely reliable revelation of truth from God. He promised his own words would be preserved (Mark 13:31 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away') and commissioned the apostles to complete the written Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 'All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work').

That is a very brief answer and there are scores of other relevant scriptures. And I am well aware that to make the Bible its own witness is not a scientific proof. There is no getting away from faith, but those who are born of the Spirit of God will believe the scriptures because 'He (Jesus) calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own , he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice' (John 10:3-4). There are reasons for trusting the Bible other than bare faith, such as its internal consistency and the prophetical parts of OT which foreshadow the coming of Christ, but at its root it is a matter of faith.


----------



## mmsbls

First, thank you for being so willing to discuss questions which may seem simplistic, silly, obnoxious, or even worse. Many people I have spoken with have given up in frustration or dismiss some questions because they think I just can't be serious.



Chris said:


> My true belief, which I would be hiding, is that God is absolutely supreme. Logic and reasoning are his creations and cannot be used against him. He cannot be judged by his own creation because he is in every way above that creation.


Can you imagine events or things which would strongly lessen your belief in God (or even make you disbelieve)? What could be "used" against God?



Chris said:


> You say the earth is 'likely' to be billions of years old but you do not know. The past has gone and cannot be retrieved. Any belief about the distant past must involve faith, even if that faith is disguised is scientific terminology like 'the cosmological principle' or 'uniformitarianism'.


Faith as I understand its use in religion refers to believe without reasons. In this sense I strongly disbelieve that knowledge of the distant past must involve faith. And certainly the cosmological principle has little to do with faith. When we put people on trial for murder (or any crime), we do not say this trial is all about faith because these crimes were committed in the past and we cannot have knowledge of past events. We investigate, get clues, and use reason to piece together what likely happened. Science is no different. There are numerous clues about the past history of the universe. We are continuing to amass more and more data and learn more about the past 13-14 billion years of our universe. The cosmological principle is simply an assumption based on a significant amount of data. As scientists we realize that we are making an assumption, but we are explicitly not making an assertion about which we know nothing.



Chris said:


> As Paul says in Romans 8:7 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so'. That is the real barrier to belief. The pharisees saw the miracles of Jesus and dismissed them as 'earthly, not heavenly'. They said he was working black magic. Even the crowds who idolised Jesus for a while left him in droves when they couldn't stomach his teaching, and were finally easily incited to scream for his cricifixion.


I may be misunderstanding what you are saying here. It reminds me of criticism of ESP. Some people say ESP does not work as well when non-believers are present. The sinful mind is hostile to God so if you don't believe in God, you are sinful (I understand that this is not quite the same logically). For non-believers what could get them to believe? I know people who were non-believers and came to believe due to various life experiences. For me I have searched for evidence of God by talking to many people, reading many books, and thinking very hard about issues. I have found nothing remotely convincing. It is NOT that I have found nothing convincing me of God specifically but rather nothing convincing me of anything supernatural. Is it because I am sinful? If so, how could I possibly change that?

For example, suppose to save my soul I felt I had to believe that Cage was a superior musician to Mozart. What would I do? I can't just convince my mind to believe that. I would have to find reasons to believe. If I couldn't find reasons, I'd be out of luck.


----------



## peeyaj

@Chris

I'm curious. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and morality should be base on it ? That it doesn't contain any contradiction or mistakes.. Do you believe that the people who wrote the Bible were divine inspired and did not have their own agendas?

Do you believe, that the Earth and Universe was created 10,000 years ago? And the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting that we evolved something millions of years ago is false?

I think it would be futile if you quote some Bible verses. I just wanted your rational opinion, Chris..

Thank you..


----------



## kmisho

Chris said:


> Jesus on many occasions (e.g. John 10:35, 'Scripture cannot be broken') spoke of the OT Scriptures as an absolutely reliable revelation of truth from God. He promised his own words would be preserved (Mark 13:31 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away') and commissioned the apostles to complete the written Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16 'All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work').


The Bible says the Bible is right. Big surprise...



> That is a very brief answer and there are scores of other relevant scriptures. And I am well aware that to make the Bible its own witness is not a scientific proof. There is no getting away from faith, but those who are born of the Spirit of God will believe the scriptures because 'He (Jesus) calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own , he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice' (John 10:3-4). There are reasons for trusting the Bible other than bare faith, such as its internal consistency and the prophetical parts of OT which foreshadow the coming of Christ, but at its root it is a matter of faith.


If it comes down to a matter of faith, then why are you wasting time pretending to employ brain cells?


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> How do you figure that the creator still exists? The origins of the universe are uncertain but are likely to be found billions of years ago. Think of an orphan, for instance. His immediate creators - father and mother - are gone, but he's still in existence. The present state of affairs in our planet doesn't seem to me to indicate the constant presence of any kind of sensible supervision. How do you figure that the creator still looks after or cares for his creature?
> 
> Like CTP said, I'm waiting for a convincing, reasoned explanation by learned Christian Apologetics (or apologetics from any other religion) who can provide a body of evidence beyond just saying "well you just have to have faith." Is this too much to ask for?


I think it probably is (too much to ask for), Alma. Not for the reason you might think, but because it's probably a meaningless question. I know it looks like a real question, but I think it may be one of those non-questions, like 'Is the King of France bald?

I'm posting in this thread with a lot of reservations about whether I'm wise to do so, and I don't enter the discussion on one side or the other. I'd like to make that clear at the outset. (And I hope this is the only contribution I'll make.)

It seems to me that all these types of questions - 'was there a 'creator'? 'Where is he now?' - are driven by our Western cultural heritage. We seek out _explanations_, and we have certain notions about the kinds of explanations we find acceptable. And we approach the question of the existence of God in the same way. The difficulty is that we tend to get the kind of answers that our culture conditions us to expect. For instance, 200 years ago, William Paley (inheriting a cultural ideology of Natural Theology) looked at the apparent design of the world and used it to prove the existence of God. Today, Richard Dawkins (inheriting a cultural ideology of scientism) looks at the apparent design of the world and uses it to _dis_prove the existence of God. Both views can still be found today, taking the same starting point and arguing to an opposite conclusion. Why is this? I suspect it's because the question of apparent design in the universe has no bearing on the matter. If we find ourselves able to use the same piece of evidence to prove that the suspect is both guilty and not guilty at the same time, we can be pretty sure that we're barking up the wrong tree.

We get a lot further, I think, if we drop the whole idea of 'God as an Explanation', or even 'God as the Ultimate Explanation'. God (if it's meaningful to talk about God at all) is not that Kind of Thing. Genuine religious belief, for all its flaws, is about a personal relationship or union with a spiritually perceived divine being. That's a nonsense statement to a Dawkins, or Wittgenstein, or a logical positivist. To them it means, literally, nothing. Yet it means _everything_ to the person who has had that direct experience. See - there's a sharp and unbridgable polarisation straight away. I'm thinking here of the kind of experience we find implied in medieval mystical works like _The Cloud of Unknowing_, or in the visions of Julian of Norwich; or even in the experiences of Jung when he did those famous 'inner explorations'. And billions of similar but unsung personal experiences down through human history. It will always be possible for the sceptic to dismiss them as phantasms of brain chemistry; and talking about brain chemistry will always seem entirely to miss the point to the person who's actually had the experience.

The issue of God surely isn't a question of intellectual assent to the existence or otherwise of a being whose attributes no one can decide upon. Rather, it seems that it's more a matter of choosing to live in a certain way, according to the best light we have. And that does involve this troublesome concept 'faith'; but then so does a great deal of our normal lives. I can't be intellectually certain that my wife loves me (indeed there's a lot of evidence to suggest that a lot of wives _cease_ to love their husbands), but I choose to live my life as if she does, and so far my faith in that has worked out pretty well. So if (and I speak here impersonally and impartially) I were to choose to trust in a personal experience of some kind of inexpressible and transcendent relationship with a divine being, and if it seems to work out pretty well, then I see nothing foolish in continuing; just as I see nothing foolish about the scepticism of those who question its reality. William James has something interesting to say about this, but where....? Let me try to Google it.

Here it is. He's talking about what we mean by 'truth', and concludes that 'ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience'. I think there's lot to be said for that essentially pragmatic view of 'truth'. There may or may not be some Absolute Truth Out There; but if there is, no one has ever yet found an entirely dependable guide to what it might be. The most we can each hope for is follow the best light we have, and most importantly (because of our awareness of the vulnerablity of all metaphysical standpoints, including our own), to respect the views of those who disagree with us.


----------



## kmisho

The main problem with the religious perspective of many is their failure to be sufficiently doubtful of their own experiences in light of what we know about how easy it is to fool our senses with everything from optical illusions to wishful thinking to the effects of brain injury. Nowadays, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the weakest forms of evidence. Yes, you can not believe your eyes. When you believe, it's not your eyes you are believing, but a memory of some perception. Those who are certain there is a god are guilty of idolatry of the feeling of certainty itself.


----------



## Chris

kmisho said:


> The Bible says the Bible is right. Big surprise...


I conceded later in the thread that I was not offering a scientific proof.



kmisho said:


> If it comes down to a matter of faith, then why are you wasting time pretending to employ brain cells?


To exercise faith requires brain cells. To believe you are alienated from God by your sin requires some. To accept Jesus as your Saviour requires more. And when you are in a saved condition you can study theological tomes and utilise even more of them.


----------



## Chris

peeyaj said:


> @Chris
> 
> I'm curious. Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and morality should be base on it ? That it doesn't contain any contradiction or mistakes.. Do you believe that the people who wrote the Bible were divine inspired and did not have their own agendas?
> 
> Do you believe, that the Earth and Universe was created 10,000 years ago? And the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting that we evolved something millions of years ago is false?
> 
> I think it would be futile if you quote some Bible verses. I just wanted your rational opinion, Chris..
> 
> Thank you..


OK, just for you peeyaj, no Bible verses

On the first, yes. I believe the Bible as originally given is inerrant. I have to say 'as originally given' because the original manuscripts (the autographs) have all been lost so the Bible as we have it has been based on copies. There is not much dispute about the text but there is some, the largest being the last 12 verses of Mark's gospel and the account of the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53 - 8:11.
By inerrant I mean error-free in every sense and a fit basis for morality. I do not say everything is applicable though, as sections of the OT comprise civil and ceremonial law applicable to the Jewish theocracy which Christ's kingdom supersedes.

I do not know how old the earth is but on the basis of what I read in the Bible I would prefer 10,000 years to millions or billions of years. I do not believe in the theory of evolution. I have seen plenty of 'overwhelming scientific evidence' for evolution, including fragments of bone and odd teeth around which fertile imaginations have constructed wonderful chimeras, part-crocodile, part-bird (or whatever), supposedly providing links in a golden chain connecting man to the amoeba. Don't take that bit literally, it was a little sarcastic. But no, I don't accept evolution has been 'proved'.


----------



## Almaviva

Disclosure: I'm speaking here as myself, Almaviva, not as a staffer for Talk Classical. What I will say should not be understood in any way shape or form to express the opinion of Talk Classical, its owner, administration, or other staffers.

@Chris:

See, this is an example of why I disagree with all of this, particularly on the matter of how religious people see atheists. You said:

"people's antipathy to God is not primarily intellectual but spiritual. As Paul says in Romans 8:7 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so'. That is the real barrier to belief."

This amounts to saying that if I'm a non-believer, I'm sinful and hostile to the idea; it can't be that I'm purelly intellectually a non-believer.

In all walks of life I lead a rather exemplary life. I'm a good husband and father (my kids are doing great and are ethical and compassionate young people), love my wife, and don't cheat on her. I'm incapable of any cruelty while dealing with people and animals. I'm charitable and I always make sure to separate as much as I can safely afford to give to worthy causes such as the UNICEF (my favorite charity). I work pro bono when I can, for worthy causes. My finances are in order and I have a credit score of about 800. I have never engaged in any criminal activity and the worst behavior I've ever had regarding laws are a couple of speeding tickets decades ago. I drink alcohol in moderation (wine while entertaining friends) and don't get drunk and obnoxious. I don't use illegal drugs. I'm a hardworker, and in my work I do my best to help people as much as I can with no consideration of race, color, gender, national origin, or ability to pay. I'm not greedy and have often worked overtime (unpaid) to get the job well done. I have made real contributions to my field and I am a published author in my field (including articles, a chapter in a textbook, and a textbook). I have founded and directed an institution that benefits hundreds of trainees in my field. I relate friendly to people at work from the most humble janitor to the most powerful administrator. This extends to my personal friends too - I have had parties at home that had in the list of invitees people of all races and economic status, from a lady who is a maid in a hotel to CEOs of large local businesses. I'm convivial and loyal to my friends and always prompt to help them in case of need. My hobbies couldn't be more benign, listening to opera being the most important one. I try to refrain from polluting the environment as much as I can. I actively participate of the political life in my community, trying to steer people into fair and balanced actions to support our citizens in need.

Basically, I lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians (e.g., I have never seduced young boys like many Catholic priests have).

So, come again, am I supposed to be a sinner and hostile to God because I intellectually chose not to believe in him???


----------



## Chris

mmsbls said:


> Can you imagine events or things which would strongly lessen your belief in God (or even make you disbelieve)? What could be "used" against God?


This makes me nervous. Faith goes through trials and I am aware my faith has never really been tested. I have never lost a child, been paralysed in a car accident, or anything of that sort. I know some who have. There is a Christian couple living locally who have a son, now aged 18. Two years ago he was on a school trip and dived into shallow water, breaking his neck. He is in a wheelchair, paralysed from the chest downwards with only limited movement of his arms. It was a severe trial for the family, and from what I heard the mother was for a time bitter about it, but she is now reconciled to God and his providence and is worshipping God again. The young man himself, who was a Christian at the time of the accident, has never wavered in his faith and has a wonderful spirituality about him.
I hope I would have faith like this....but I admit I would rather not have the trial. 
Actually I'm not sure that's not what you had in mind...you may have been thinking more in terms of intellectual arguments. In which case I would say faith still has to come first, but I would add that it is not only Christians, and not even just religious people, who have faith positions.

...I have to go out now so will have to leave the rest of your questions for now....apologies for that

@Almaviva, I have seen your post; I will try to come back to it later


----------



## starthrower

Chris said:


> As for God caring for his creation, you would know in an instant if he chose to withdraw his hand, because 'The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word' (Hebrews 1:3). The very laws of nature operate because God sustains them. Apart from that, the fact that we do not live as savages, tearing each other apart, is attributable to the restraining hand of God. The fact that we enjoy not only the bare essentials to sustain life but even many comforts, is more reason for giving thanks to God.


I don't know who you are referring to when you say "we"? There are at least a billion people on this planet who do not enjoy the bare essentials. Many who enjoy comforts live in countries who have dominated and exploited weaker nations. To chalk it up the the hand of God is awfully naive. This is what people used to think about the black plague in the 14th century, but science has proved otherwise.

Believe what you want to, but don't state your dogmatic beliefs as if they were universal truths.


----------



## emiellucifuge

This has been most amusing and engaging,

I thank member Chris for his willingness to engage the topic reasonably, maturely and with humility also.


----------



## Guest

kmisho said:


> The Bible says the Bible is right. Big surprise...
> 
> *If it comes down to a matter of faith, then why are you wasting time pretending to employ brain cells?*





kmisho said:


> The main problem with the religious perspective of many is their failure to be sufficiently doubtful of their own experiences in light of what we know about how easy it is to fool our senses with everything from optical illusions to wishful thinking to the effects of brain injury. Nowadays, eyewitness testimony is considered one of the weakest forms of evidence. Yes, you can not believe your eyes. When you believe, it's not your eyes you are believing, but a memory of some perception. *Those who are certain there is a god are guilty of idolatry of the feeling of certainty itself*.





starthrower said:


> I don't know who you are referring to when you say "we"? There are at least a billion people on this planet who do not enjoy the bare essentials. Many who enjoy comforts live in countries who have dominated and exploited weaker nations. To chalk it up the the hand of God is awfully naive. This is what people used to think about the black plague in the 14th century, but science has proved otherwise.
> 
> *Believe what you want to, but don't state your dogmatic beliefs as if they were universal truths*.


I find it quite interesting that Chris has taken the time to very thoughtfully and extensively answer numerous questions posed to him in this thread, stating his beliefs in response to various queries, and then you get people lobbing these kinds of comments at him. Don't worry, Alma, I'm not saying shut this down, or that there is abusive activity going on here. I'm just saying that you all want him to state honestly what he believes in these answers, and then people take potshots at him.

To Chris: :tiphat:
To the authors of the above comments:


----------



## david johnson

Fsharpmajor said:


> The riddle of Epicurus sums up my thoughts on the subject:
> 
> *"Is God willing to prevent evil,
> but not able?
> Then he is not omnipotent.
> Is he able, but not willing?
> Then he is malevolent.
> Is he both able and willing?
> Then whence cometh evil?
> Is he neither able nor willing?
> Then why call him God?"*


spoken like one who *assumed* he had a handle on understanding.


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> Basically, I lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians (e.g., I have never seduced young boys like many Catholic priests have).


I can't read that and not quibble - forgive me. But the Christian life is a life lived in the belief that one is essentially sinful, and saved by divine grace. Neither you nor I live such a life, Alma. The Christian doesn't (or rather, _shouldn't_) take the moral high ground, because Christianity has no monopoly on right conduct. The ancient Egyptian, for instance, regarded it as good not to bring misery upon his fellows, not to cause hunger, not to cause weeping, not to steal, and to 'gladden the heart' of his wife all day long, etc, etc. (We'd both make really good Ancient Egyptians!) It's true that the Christian regards God as the root of all his moral value, but that's not at all the same, because _he's aware that he can't live up to it unaided_.

So we mustn't equate 'Christian' with 'moral'. That muddies the water too much.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

*Good-Natured Semi-Rant*

Perhaps it's time for me to follow in the footsteps of some and make my final post here. 
[That is, unless intervening on a Forum Rules & Terms of Service thing.:devil:] 
So- with that in mind, presented for your amusement:

*Schematic for an 'Atheism Thread!'*:trp:

1. Poster weighs in on atheism, and/or solicits opinions on atheism. 
(10 times out of 10, it's an atheist that does this.)
2. Within two or three pages, a fellow atheist weighs in with a deliciously judged sense of ironic timing with a comment about how repulsive it is for believers to evangelize.
3. The inquisition begins, as questions are framed in the light of making the responses susceptible to further japes. 
4. The most vulernable-looking Theist(s) is/are isolated, and discussion bogs down as they are impelled to answer questions about 'Young Earth,' Old Testament Slaughters, the Virgin Birth, the injustice of natural disasters, and other such inquries.
5. Half of the time, an invitation to privately discuss the issues is made. 
100% of the time, the invitation is spurned.
6. One or more posters make an attempt to lower the temperature by citing real-world examples where the course of human activity, even for non-believers, doesn't always come down to sense-experience and the Scientific Method. This, typically, is as effective as the invitation(s) to discuss privately.
7. Moderators hold their collective breath hoping (usually vainly) that the whole thing doesn't spin out-of-control.

(okay- rant over!)


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Basically, I lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians (e.g., I have never seduced young boys like many Catholic priests have).


Should I understand this as you implying that many Christians engage in the sexual abuse of non-consensual minors? You say that you lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians, and you cite as your prime example the sexual abuse of young boys. I really don't think you believe that, but it is interesting that you should cite such an extreme example of what can in no way be proven to be more than the actions of an extremely small minority within the entire group of what would be considered "Christian" people. You see, in your comment, you make the same mistake that you so harped on Saul for - painting Christians in a bad light by blowing out of proportion the actions of a ridiculously small minority, how is that different than Saul painting a picture of Islam based on the terrorism committed by a small minority of that group? Sure, you didn't call Christians an evil cult in need of destruction, but you bring the implication that many Christians are similar to pedophile priests. I suppose that is mildly less insulting - pedophilia, I suppose, isn't quite on the same level as mass murder.
Here, let me fully illustrate by example:
Basically, I lead a more "Muslim" life than that of many Muslims (e.g., I have never strapped a bomb to my body and blown myself up in some nightclub).

So you believe you lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians because you don't engage in activities similar to some of the worst practitioners of that faith? Can we judge atheists by the worst examples of that group? Do you have some kind of statistics on just how many of the entire group of self-avowed Christians are engaged in immoral activities, or do you bias yourself based on the much-reported activities of the minority that fail miserably at practicing their beliefs?

Christians don't claim infallibility. Is that really so hard to grasp? If perfection is the only way to judge the merits of a philosophy, then let me condemn all you atheists as well who worship at the all to fallible alter of science and reason.

Note: I am not pointing this out in order to bring down moderator wrath on Almaviva. I just thought this little bit of hypocrisy was a bit galling, particular in the way (whether intentional or not) it so impugned an entire group (or at least "many" in that group, as Alma said) in such a careless way.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I find it quite interesting that Chris has taken the time to very thoughtfully and extensively answer numerous questions posed to him in this thread, stating his beliefs in response to various queries, and then you get people lobbing these kinds of comments at him.


I

I read all of Chris's comments with interest, but there is another way of thinking about a number things he brought up. For example, man's rebellious, wayward nature has resulted in many positives as well as negatives. I would argue that the cunning, wayward nature of humans is what has enabled us to survive throughout the ages.

He speaks of the restraining hand of God which prevents humans from savagely tearing each other apart. I'd say history is proof that humans have done a magnificent job of tearing each other to pieces. What about the endless wars and genocidal campaigns?

, His comment about being thankful for not only the bare essentials, but the comforts in life can also be looked at in more than one way. I'm sure the many comforts I enjoy as an American are multidimensional, but are also the result of many others suffering in my place.

Should the young women slaving away in Chinese sweatshops to provide me with cheap goods be thankful for not being able to afford the bare essentials for themselves and their families.

Call my response a potshot if feel so inclined, but I view some of Chris's comments and explanations as rather simplistic.


----------



## science

Chi_townPhilly said:


> 4. The most vulernable-looking Theist(s) is/are isolated, and discussion bogs down as they are impelled to answer questions about 'Young Earth,' Old Testament Slaughters, the Virgin Birth, the injustice of natural disasters, and other such inquries.


I haven't noticed any particularly vulnerable theists here. Perhaps you meant Chris, but as a few people noted, he's doing fine.

I just wish people didn't feel the need to debate religion. If we have the smallest shred of intellectual integrity, we'll work ten times as hard criticizing our own beliefs and leave others alone. We usually don't have that shred - me neither. I hope I do occasionally, but usually not. We'd usually rather be certain than honest.

So if there is a God, I will agree if he decides to damn the lot of us, even if it's just because we haven't managed to get our theology straight.

Of course that, like nearly all theology, is just blatant projection of my own conscience and values onto the cosmos.


----------



## Polednice

science said:


> I just wish people didn't feel the need to debate religion. If we have the smallest shred of intellectual integrity, we'll work ten times as hard criticizing our own beliefs and leave others alone.


I realise that this isn't usually true of many discussions - religion in particular! - but one of the best ways to critique one's own beliefs is to engage in mutual criticism with people who hold opposing views. Of course, when people operate on fundamentally incompatible standards of evidence and logic, that's largely impossible


----------



## jhar26

science said:


> I just wish people didn't feel the need to debate religion.


Personally I try to stay away from debates about religion (and to a lesser degree politics) because you're constantly walking on egg-shells. It's so easy to be missunderstood or unintentionally step on somebody's toes - you have to weigh each word so carefully that the chance of slipping up is just too big, so I don't bother. But I seriously doubt if anyone has even in the slightest degree ever changed anybody else's mind in one of these debates about politics or (especially) religion anyway.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Almaviva said:


> @Chris:
> 
> See, this is an example of why I disagree with all of this, particularly on the matter of how religious people see atheists. You said:
> 
> "people's antipathy to God is not primarily intellectual but spiritual. As Paul says in Romans 8:7 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so'. That is the real barrier to belief."
> 
> This amounts to saying that if I'm a non-believer, I'm sinful and hostile to the idea; it can't be that I'm purelly intellectually a non-believer.
> 
> In all walks of life I lead a rather exemplary life. I'm a good husband and father (my kids are doing great and are ethical and compassionate young people), love my wife, and don't cheat on her. I'm incapable of any cruelty while dealing with people and animals. I'm charitable and I always make sure to separate as much as I can safely afford to give to worthy causes such as the UNICEF (my favorite charity). I work pro bono when I can, for worthy causes. My finances are in order and I have a credit score of about 800. I have never engaged in any criminal activity and the worst behavior I've ever had regarding laws are a couple of speeding tickets decades ago. I drink alcohol in moderation (wine while entertaining friends) and don't get drunk and obnoxious. I don't use illegal drugs. I'm a hardworker, and in my work I do my best to help people as much as I can with no consideration of race, color, gender, national origin, or ability to pay. I'm not greedy and have often worked overtime (unpaid) to get the job well done. I have made real contributions to my field and I am a published author in my field (including articles, a chapter in a textbook, and a textbook). I have founded and directed an institution that benefits hundreds of trainees in my field. I relate friendly to people at work from the most humble janitor to the most powerful administrator. This extends to my personal friends too - I have had parties at home that had in the list of invitees people of all races and economic status, from a lady who is a maid in a hotel to CEOs of large local businesses. I'm convivial and loyal to my friends and always prompt to help them in case of need. My hobbies couldn't be more benign, listening to opera being the most important one. I try to refrain from polluting the environment as much as I can. I actively participate of the political life in my community, trying to steer people into fair and balanced actions to support our citizens in need.
> 
> Basically, I lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians (e.g., I have never seduced young boys like many Catholic priests have).
> 
> So, come again, am I supposed to be a sinner and hostile to God because I intellectually chose not to believe in him???


Kudos to you, Almaviva. Your actions speak volumes. :tiphat: I try to do more charity work but this is often crowded out by more selfish motivations - including listening to music - and of course, spending time with family and friends.

As for you original question, I think I was right from yesterday - post #150, bottom of page 10 of thread.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Allow me to preempt their likely answers: it's all by *faith* that I know God still exists and loves/cares for us.


----------



## Chris

Belated part 2 of my response...



mmsbls said:


> Faith as I understand its use in religion refers to believe without reasons. In this sense I strongly disbelieve that knowledge of the distant past must involve faith. And certainly the cosmological principle has little to do with faith. When we put people on trial for murder (or any crime), we do not say this trial is all about faith because these crimes were committed in the past and we cannot have knowledge of past events. We investigate, get clues, and use reason to piece together what likely happened. Science is no different. There are numerous clues about the past history of the universe. We are continuing to amass more and more data and learn more about the past 13-14 billion years of our universe. The cosmological principle is simply an assumption based on a significant amount of data. As scientists we realize that we are making an assumption, but we are explicitly not making an assertion about which we know nothing.


The cosmological principle, as I understand it, states that the universe looks similar, in terms of things like Doppler shift of distant objects, wherever you are standing in it. That is, the universe has no edge or middle. This follows from the belief that there is nothing special about the earth or its position. Whether it is true or not I do not know, but it looks to me like a faith position, because it can only be tested by the impossible task of travelling to distant parts of the universe and making observations. The geologists' Principle of Uniformitarianism, used in past centuries to construct the geological timescales, is similar. Uniformitarianism makes the assumption that the geological processes seen today are the only ones that have ever operated. I do not accept that at all, because I believe the physical upheavals caused by the Genesis flood would have been vastly greater than anything seen today. Which is right, Genesis or the Principle of Uniformitarianism? The past has gone and cannot be retrieved. You have to choose between two faith positions, a secular one and a Christian one. 
The case of a murder investigation is different because when the police are examining the blood-stained shirt, or whatever, their investigations are not based on a faith position. At least, one hopes they are not....


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> I
> 
> I read all of Chris's comments with interest, but there is another way of thinking about a number things he brought up. For example, man's rebellious, wayward nature has resulted in many positives as well as negatives. I would argue that the cunning, wayward nature of humans is what has enabled us to survive throughout the ages.
> 
> He speaks of the restraining hand of God which prevents humans from savagely tearing each other apart. I'd say history is proof that humans have done a magnificent job of tearing each other to pieces. What about the endless wars and genocidal campaigns?
> 
> , His comment about being thankful for not only the bare essentials, but the comforts in life can also be looked at in more than one way. I'm sure the many comforts I enjoy as an American are multidimensional, but are also the result of many others suffering in my place.
> 
> Should the young women slaving away in Chinese sweatshops to provide me with cheap goods be thankful for not being able to afford the bare essentials for themselves and their families.
> 
> Call my response a potshot if feel so inclined, but I view some of Chris's comments and explanations as rather simplistic.


So you thought his comments and explanations were simplistic. So? Your judgment of the value of a persons belief is directly proportional to the complexity of that belief? You criticized him for implying that his dogmatic beliefs were universal truths. But what if he believes they are universal truths? I think he believes that his religious dogma is universal truth. That you don't believe so has no impact whatsoever on his belief.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Should I understand this as you implying that many Christians engage in the sexual abuse of non-consensual minors? You say that you lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians, and you cite as your prime example the sexual abuse of young boys. I really don't think you believe that, but it is interesting that you should cite such an extreme example of what can in no way be proven to be more than the actions of an extremely small minority within the entire group of what would be considered "Christian" people. You see, in your comment, you make the same mistake that you so harped on Saul for - painting Christians in a bad light by blowing out of proportion the actions of a ridiculously small minority, how is that different than Saul painting a picture of Islam based on the terrorism committed by a small minority of that group? Sure, you didn't call Christians an evil cult in need of destruction, but you bring the implication that many Christians are similar to pedophile priests. I suppose that is mildly less insulting - pedophilia, I suppose, isn't quite on the same level as mass murder.
> Here, let me fully illustrate by example:
> Basically, I lead a more "Muslim" life than that of many Muslims (e.g., I have never strapped a bomb to my body and blown myself up in some nightclub).
> 
> So you believe you lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians because you don't engage in activities similar to some of the worst practitioners of that faith? Can we judge atheists by the worst examples of that group? Do you have some kind of statistics on just how many of the entire group of self-avowed Christians are engaged in immoral activities, or do you bias yourself based on the much-reported activities of the minority that fail miserably at practicing their beliefs?
> 
> Christians don't claim infallibility. Is that really so hard to grasp? If perfection is the only way to judge the merits of a philosophy, then let me condemn all you atheists as well who worship at the all to fallible alter of science and reason.
> 
> Note: I am not pointing this out in order to bring down moderator wrath on Almaviva. I just thought this little bit of hypocrisy was a bit galling, particular in the way (whether intentional or not) it so impugned an entire group (or at least "many" in that group, as Alma said) in such a careless way.


Disclosure: I'm speaking here as myself, Almaviva, not as a staffer for Talk Classical. What I will say should not be understood in any way shape or form to express the opinion of Talk Classical, its owner, administration, or other staffers.

My friend, I apologize if my words were offensive. I never meant to imply "most" Christians. Please notice that I have mentioned "many Christians" not most. Yes I do believe - actually it is not a belief but rather a well documented fact - that many priests have abused minors. *One* would have been one too many. Yes, there were *many* abusive priests and I don't see why I can't use the word many.

The biblical quote brought up by Chris did rub me the wrong way. I am tired of theists telling me I am a sinner when many theists (not all, mind you, and not even most) sin a lot more than I do. I guess what I was saying is - before theists throw stones at atheists calling them sinners, they should better take care of their own ranks. That's all.

And if I were to unleash moderator wrath as you put it on you because we disagree then I would be a true hypocrite which Iam not. I have obviously spoken for myself, without the moderator hat. I am allowed to participate of threads as well, rather than just moderating them. If one of my colleagues believes that I have violated any terms of service by quoting a real life example that did happen and by doing so without ever implying that this example is the rule rather than just an example, I'm sure they'll edit my post and issue a warning to me - but I do believe that people would be hard pressed to find a single violation of TOS in my post.

I am willing to respect theists as long as they don't tell me that I am a sinner, thus insulting me and the group of people to which I belong. Besides, what I said was an example (preceded by the initials e.g.) and it is a true example. I sin a lot less than those priests. I didn't imply that my example was the rule. But there are many other Christians who also sin a lot, although not as severely as pedophile priests - but still, more than I do, since like I said, I lead a rather righteous life (some might call it boring... I like my life just fine). Do you want another example? I know of several Christian friends who cheat on their spouses. Do I need to go on? There are plenty of examples. I picked one.

So it is a little off when someone asks a genuine intellectual question about the nature and lasting power of creation - in my question, mind you, there was no element whatsoever of ridiculing theists or accusing them of this or that - and the result is that I collect an answer saying that my quest can't be intellectual, because theists are sinners who are hostile to the idea of God and their problem with the dogmas derives exclusively of the fact that they are sinners so their minds can't grasp God.

It is this kind of statement that turns off people from a good, honest discussion. I respectfully asked a question, and collected as an answer the statement that the group of people to which I belong is made of a bunch of sinners who can't possibily be intellectually preocuppied with this question. Bravo! Nice!

"You bring the implication that many Christians are similar to pedophile priests." I did no such thing. You're employing a straw man fallacy here. I quoted as an example of Christians who sin more than I do, pedophile priests. It's a valid example. In *no* part of my post I have implied that this specific case applies to Christians other than those who committed the abuse. The operative word is "example."

"So you believe you lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians because you don't engage in activities similar to some of the worst practitioners of that faith?" Again, I said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mind. Instead, I spelled out in a looooooong paragraph why I believe I lead a more 'Christian' life than *many* Christians (again, not all, and not most). I gave you a full account of several aspects of my life in which I do what is right and good. *That's* what leads me to believe in what I said, *not* what you said I have implied.

"how is that different than Saul painting a picture of Islam based on the terrorism committed by a small minority of that group? Sure, you didn't call Christians an evil cult in need of destruction"

It looks like I don't need to reply to this one, because you did it yourself. There is a world of difference between what Saul said and what I said, and to imply the contrary is again a straw man fallacy.

" it so impugned an entire group" - again, stop putting words in my mouth. I did no such thing. It's another straw man fallacy. On the other hand, Chris did impugn an entire group quoting as the reason why atheists can't grasp the concept of God the fact that they are sinners.

If you haven't noticed, my post was a *reaction* to that statement. I had said nothing against Christians in any previous post (you can check it out). But if theists think they are in the right to say that atheists are sinners, then they should be prepared to handle a few examples of theists who are even worse sinners.


----------



## Almaviva

Oh well, like jhar26 said, these threads lead to no good. Even *I* got angry.


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> Belated part 2 of my response...
> The cosmological principle, as I understand it, states that the universe looks similar, in terms of things like Doppler shift of distant objects, wherever you are standing in it. That is, the universe has no edge or middle. This follows from the belief that there is nothing special about the earth or its position. Whether it is true or not I do not know, but it looks to me like a faith position, because it can only be tested by the impossible task of travelling to distant parts of the universe and making observations. The geologists' Principle of Uniformitarianism, used in past centuries to construct the geological timescales, is similar. Uniformitarianism makes the assumption that the geological processes seen today are the only ones that have ever operated. I do not accept that at all, because I believe the physical upheavals caused by the Genesis flood would have been vastly greater than anything seen today. Which is right, Genesis or the Principle of Uniformitarianism? The past has gone and cannot be retrieved. You have to choose between two faith positions, a secular one and a Christian one.
> The case of a murder investigation is different because when the police are examining the blood-stained shirt, or whatever, their investigations are not based on a faith position. At least, one hopes they are not....


Your definition of the cosmological principle is roughly correct - that humans don't occupy a privileged position in the universe, and observers in all other parts would see or measure the same laws and features of the universe. This was not proposed on faith but rather based on observations that the Earth and our solar system does not appear special in any way. In effect it is an extrapolation of certain measurements to the entire universe. But the assumption is testable in some ways and does not have to be taken solely on faith. For example the relative uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence of this principle.

The past is gone but can be retrieved and frequently is. When police examine blood stains, they are looking at the effects of past events. The crime was committed in the past and leaves evidence of those events. The same is true of the universe and the earth. Cosmologists believe that our region of spacetime (what most people call the universe) was created roughly 13.7 billion years ago in a very energetic event. That event and the subsequent evolution of the universe has left many tell tale pieces of evidence that cosmologists have measured and will continue to do so (relative abundance of helium to hydrogen atoms, the redshirt or doppler shift in the frequencies of light from stars, the microwave background mentioned above, etc.). A fairly recent piece of evidence is the anisotropy (or small variations) in the cosmic microwave background. The variations allowed cosmologists to test specific predictions of theories related to the beginning of our universe. More detailed measurements are forthcoming.

Incidentally you mention that one can only test these things by the impossible task of going to the distant parts of the universe to test them. I've mentioned some examples above where we don't have to travel anywhere. A wonderful story that may be exaggerated is that a famous scientist was asked to give an example of something we will never know. He said the composition of the sun. Several years later the spectrometer was developed and we not only knew the composition of the sun but of all stars we can see. We do not necessarily have to go places to make measurements or do experiments to learn about the universe. In fact many of our experiments determine events taking place a very long time ago. We use light from distant stars to ask whether some constants of nature (the strength of the electromagnetic force, the speed of light, the charge of the electron, and a constant related to quantum mechanics) were the same billions of years ago and billions of light years away (another example of the cosmological principle being tested).

Sorry this may have been too detailed, but I wanted to try to show how things scientists study are not taken on faith. Police investigations are not taken on faith and scientific studies are not either. That doesn't mean they are known with certainty. Nothing in science is know with certainly but rather must be continuously tested.


----------



## Couchie

jhar26 said:


> Personally I try to stay away from debates about religion (and to a lesser degree politics) because you're constantly walking on egg-shells. It's so easy to be missunderstood or unintentionally step on somebody's toes - you have to weigh each word so carefully that the chance of slipping up is just too big, so I don't bother. But I seriously doubt if anyone has even in the slightest degree ever changed anybody else's mind in one of these debates about politics or (especially) religion anyway.


In just _one_ debate obviously not, but I'm living proof that these types of conversations _can_ be fruitful sometimes. I would say online conversation played a big role in my deconversion from Christian to atheist: Over the course of several years, many different communities, many good questions posed by a variety of atheists, many of these question handled extremely well by very smart Christians, and other questions neither I nor other Christians could answer to my satisfaction. So yes it's extremely unlikely that you will bring a person around to your views in one sitting, but sometimes you will give them just the slightest nudge one way or another, these nudges eventually do add up.

Earlier Dr.Mike complained about internet user's anonymity and saying things they wouldn't otherwise. I personally think this is _the best thing_ about the internet... people are prepared to share their most intimate personal details and opinions with total strangers. In real life, getting to such a point where you're comfortable enough with a person to share your closest views can take months/years, and by the time you're comfortable you generally don't want to delve into the deep stuff lest you risk offending them and derailing the friendship.

Also, I have no respect for the view that a person's faith or religion is somehow off-limits for criticism. The only things that are off-limits are the things that a person had no say over, and cannot help or change even if they wanted to: Race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. Their beliefs and opinions are totally fair game. I'm not saying that people deserve to be mocked for their views, but I'm also not saying that there isn't a time for slicing a person with some sharp criticism.


----------



## Elgarian

Could I just draw attention again to my post #181 above? The 'Christian life' - an expression that's being used frequently here - is _not the same_ as a 'morally good' life. On the contrary, it's a life lived with an awareness of one's sinfulness, and of one's salvation through divine grace. If we don't use these terms accurately, we'll inevitably misunderstand each other and people will get upset or angry.

In practice, most of us try to be reasonably helpful and considerate human beings a lot of the time, regardless of our beliefs; but even when we succeed, we're not living a 'Christian' life merely by 'being good'.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian said:


> Could I just draw attention again to my post #181 above? The 'Christian life' - an expression that's being used frequently here - is _not the same_ as a 'morally good' life. On the contrary, it's a life lived with an awareness of one's sinfulness, and of one's salvation through divine grace. If we don't use these terms accurately, we'll inevitably misunderstand each other and people will get upset or angry.
> 
> In practice, most of us try to be reasonably helpful and considerate human beings a lot of the time, regardless of our beliefs; but even when we succeed, we're not living a 'Christian' life merely by 'being good'.


[Edit - Actually I had somehow skipped post #181 and just now read it. Sorry. But anyway, if I had seen it before, here is how I'd have responded to it, and it is also a response to your later post that I've just quoted:]

I know, that's why I put "Christian" life between quotation marks, for short, instead of going through your explanation above. I meant that my morally good life is likely to be more sin-free (that is, *if* I believed in such thing as a sin - again, it was a way of speaking) than that of *some* Christians [operative word: some], and I don't appreciate being called "a sinner who is hostile to the idea of God therefore can't intellectually grasp the concept" because I'm an atheist. It's this kind of statement that discourages sensible and respectful atheists (like me) from engaging in a debate with theists - the "I'm more righteous than you because I deny evolution and believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old against all solid evidence to the contrary; besides, you can't understand it because you're a sinner" kind of thing.

Again, I don't think I'm out of line here - and definitely I haven't committed any TOS violations; I even ran this through our own wise Krummhorn who confirmed that I didn't [I told him - I'm angry and need external feedback, please read what I said in my two long posts above and tell me if I'm in the wrong, in case I am, I'll acknowledge it and correct myself - the answer: no, you aren't] - when I vehemently protested the notion - especially when words were put on my mouth with straw men implying that I had said what I didn't say.

But I wouldn't mind debating the issue with *you*, buddy, someone I deeply appreciate for your kindness, ability to respect others' point of view, balanced personality, and sharp intellect.

So, tell me, if Christians live with the notion that they are by nature sinners, why exactly do they also think that being a sinner prevents one from intellectually grasping the concept of God? Don't you guys believe that we are already born sinners through some fundamental sin that passes from one generation to the next until one can individually reach salvation by accepting God? But then, nobody would ever be able to do it, if Paul was right in what he said:

"As Paul says in Romans 8:7 'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, *nor can it do so'*. That is the real barrier to belief."

Isn't there some *huge* logical problem here?

A - We are all sinners.
B - We, Christians, are sinners but we have accepted God
C - Therefore at least some sinners can accept God

X - Atheists are sinners
Y - All sinners can not accept God
Z - Therefore atheists can not accept God

Sequences ABC and XYZ logically hold if they are taken separately. But if you try to combine them, they don't. They can't be simultaneously valid because B and C are incompatible with Y.


----------



## Chris

mmsbls said:


> Your definition of the cosmological principle is roughly correct - that humans don't occupy a privileged position in the universe, and observers in all other parts would see or measure the same laws and features of the universe. This was not proposed on faith but rather based on *observations that the Earth and our solar system does not appear special in any way*. In effect it is an extrapolation of certain measurements to the entire universe. But the assumption is testable in some ways and does not have to be taken solely on faith. For example the relative uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence of this principle.


How can you 'observe' that 'the Earth and our solar system does not appear special in any way'? If God created earth as the theatre for the drama of redemption, and the vast heavens for his glory, how would that be observable through telescopes? You have merely restated the cosmological principle's faith position.

Nor is the cosmological principle proved by the logic:

1. The Big Bang theory rests on the cosmological principle
2. The Big bang theory predicts background radiation is random, not in any particular direction
3. The radiation is random, therefore the cosmological principle (and the Big Bang theory) is proved.

Can you not see the weakness of this reasoning? The radiation might be random for reasons unconnected with the Big Bang. Randomness is no big deal. Lots of things are random. Sorry, if you want to know what the universe looks like from the other side you have to get aboard the Enterprise, set the throttle to warp 9, and have a look when you get there!

As for anisotropy measurements, any deductions coming from these should be treated with caution. The Big Bang theory is a model, and like geological models it will probably have all manner of 'reasonable assumptions' built into it, quite apart from the cosmological principle. The problem is these assumptions will be hidden in mathematics well beyond my comprehension. I am guessing here, but this sort of thing is an integral part of the geological and evolutionary models I have seen. Even Creation scientists do it. I read a 'demonstration' once that the Genesis flood was created by condensation of a canopy of water vapour around the Earth. I forget the details, but it neatly 'proved' the Biblical age of the earth. But at its heart was a 'reasonable assumption' about the rate of precipitation during the Flood. So of course it proved the Biblical age of the Earth. It it hadn't, that precipitation figure could have been adjusted to give the right answer. I'm not saying the cosmologists will do this....but I am going to be wary.

Once again, the murder investigation is not the same situation. When you find the suspect's DNA at the murder site, you have a much more closed system. Much research has been done on DNA and its variability, and it is possible to calculate the probability of a false match. But that is based on hard statistics, a rather different situation from the guesswork of the cosmological principle.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Disclosure: I'm speaking here as myself, Almaviva, not as a staffer for Talk Classical. What I will say should not be understood in any way shape or form to express the opinion of Talk Classical, its owner, administration, or other staffers.
> 
> My friend, I apologize if my words were offensive. I never meant to imply "most" Christians. Please notice that I have mentioned "many Christians" not most. Yes I do believe - actually it is not a belief but rather a well documented fact - that many priests have abused minors. *One* would have been one too many. Yes, there were *many* abusive priests and I don't see why I can't use the word many.
> 
> The biblical quote brought up by Chris did rub me the wrong way. I am tired of theists telling me I am a sinner when many theists (not all, mind you, and not even most) sin a lot more than I do. I guess what I was saying is - before theists throw stones at atheists calling them sinners, they should better take care of their own ranks. That's all.
> 
> And if I were to unleash moderator wrath as you put it on you because we disagree then I would be a true hypocrite which Iam not. I have obviously spoken for myself, without the moderator hat. I am allowed to participate of threads as well, rather than just moderating them. If one of my colleagues believes that I have violated any terms of service by quoting a real life example that did happen and by doing so without ever implying that this example is the rule rather than just an example, I'm sure they'll edit my post and issue a warning to me - but I do believe that people would be hard pressed to find a single violation of TOS in my post.
> 
> I am willing to respect theists as long as they don't tell me that I am a sinner, thus insulting me and the group of people to which I belong. Besides, what I said was an example (preceded by the initials e.g.) and it is a true example. I sin a lot less than those priests. I didn't imply that my example was the rule. But there are many other Christians who also sin a lot, although not as severely as pedophile priests - but still, more than I do, since like I said, I lead a rather righteous life (some might call it boring... I like my life just fine). Do you want another example? I know of several Christian friends who cheat on their spouses. Do I need to go on? There are plenty of examples. I picked one.
> 
> So it is a little off when someone asks a genuine intellectual question about the nature and lasting power of creation - in my question, mind you, there was no element whatsoever of ridiculing theists or accusing them of this or that - and the result is that I collect an answer saying that my quest can't be intellectual, because theists are sinners who are hostile to the idea of God and their problem with the dogmas derives exclusively of the fact that they are sinners so their minds can't grasp God.
> 
> It is this kind of statement that turns off people from a good, honest discussion. I respectfully asked a question, and collected as an answer the statement that the group of people to which I belong is made of a bunch of sinners who can't possibily be intellectually preocuppied with this question. Bravo! Nice!
> 
> "You bring the implication that many Christians are similar to pedophile priests." I did no such thing. You're employing a straw man fallacy here. I quoted as an example of Christians who sin more than I do, pedophile priests. It's a valid example. In *no* part of my post I have implied that this specific case applies to Christians other than those who committed the abuse. The operative word is "example."
> 
> "So you believe you lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians because you don't engage in activities similar to some of the worst practitioners of that faith?" Again, I said no such thing. Please don't put words in my mind. Instead, I spelled out in a looooooong paragraph why I believe I lead a more 'Christian' life than *many* Christians (again, not all, and not most). I gave you a full account of several aspects of my life in which I do what is right and good. *That's* what leads me to believe in what I said, *not* what you said I have implied.
> 
> "how is that different than Saul painting a picture of Islam based on the terrorism committed by a small minority of that group? Sure, you didn't call Christians an evil cult in need of destruction"
> 
> It looks like I don't need to reply to this one, because you did it yourself. There is a world of difference between what Saul said and what I said, and to imply the contrary is again a straw man fallacy.
> 
> " it so impugned an entire group" - again, stop putting words in my mouth. I did no such thing. It's another straw man fallacy. On the other hand, Chris did impugn an entire group quoting as the reason why atheists can't grasp the concept of God the fact that they are sinners.
> 
> If you haven't noticed, my post was a *reaction* to that statement. I had said nothing against Christians in any previous post (you can check it out). But if theists think they are in the right to say that atheists are sinners, then they should be prepared to handle a few examples of theists who are even worse sinners.


You know what, I appreciate your apparent outrage at my post, but I think this is a load of crap. You obviously mentioned the pedophile Catholic priests for one reason and one reason only - to take a cheap shot at Christians. Yes, one is too many, but to imply that the number is anything more than a statistically insignificant number of Christians is simple intellectual dishonesty, and you know full well that it goes against Christian teachings. And it is completely irrelevant to your discussion of the good deeds of your life.

I can appreciate that you were upset by the comments of Chris, but as YOU YOURSELF have said, just because one person may make a comment that violates the TOS of Talk Classical, a response to that comment can just as much be a violation.

You know what? I'm a better person than many atheists, because I haven't killed or tortured countless numbers of people like several (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Marquis de Sade). Oh, and don't take my comments literally, because I am just upset by your post.:tiphat:


----------



## peeyaj

I respect and admire Almaviva as a moderator and a person. I think Almaviva's post is brilliant and its rebuttal of Theist '' self-righteousness'' is exemplary. As a victim of abuse as a child, I agree of your stand on this matter. Don't worry mod Almaviva, we respect you.

I also admire Chris for his brilliant defense of his faith. Much I was nauseated for his endless quoting of the Bible, Chris conviction to his belief is no less than admirable. I wholeheartedly disagree with his position with the Bible's account of the origin of universe because I know better and believe with the scientific consensus. Chris is an admirable and brilliant man. Thank you for sticking on this thread.

@Dr. Mike

I don't know you, but your antagonistic temperance is getting on my nerves. Why don't you just be more like Chris, whose calm demeanor is admirable.. You seem to be taking Almaviva's posts seriously, as like its a matter of life and death.

I disagree with your assertion that Atheists killed a lot of people. The people you mentioned are evil to the core, and some of them have belief systems which is comparable to religion (Stalinism).



> http://freethoughtnation.com/index....pol-pot-atheists&catid=39:atheism-agnosticism


If you review history, you will see a lot of deaths concerning Religious beliefs. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? The endless and bloody war between Christian and Muslims? The crusades? The various killings made because of the name of God? The endless wars because of the different of faiths? Oliver Cromwell?


----------



## Guest

peeyaj said:


> I respect and admire Almaviva as a moderator and a person. I think Almaviva's post is brilliant and its rebuttal of Theist '' self-righteousness'' is exemplary. As a victim of abuse as a child, I agree of your stand on this matter. Don't worry mod Almaviva, we respect you.
> 
> I also admire Chris for his brilliant defense of his faith. Much I was nauseated for his endless quoting of the Bible, Chris conviction to his belief is no less than admirable. I wholeheartedly disagree with his position with the Bible's account of the origin of universe because I know better and believe with the scientific consensus. Chris is an admirable and brilliant man. Thank you for sticking on this thread.
> 
> @Dr. Mike
> 
> I don't know you, but your antagonistic temperance is getting on my nerves. Why don't you just be more like Chris, whose calm demeanor is admirable.. You seem to be taking Almaviva's post seriously, as like its a matter of life and death.
> 
> *I disagree with your assertion that Atheist killed a lot of people. The people you mentioned are evil to the core, and some of them have belief systems which is comparable to religion.*
> If you review history, you will see a lot of deaths concerning Religious beliefs. Remember the Spanish Inquisition? The endless and bloody war between Christian and Muslims? The crusades? The various killings made because of the name of God? The endless wars because of the different of faiths? Oliver Cromwell?


They were atheists. The oft-mentioned pedophile Catholic priests were also evil. And you make my point. Neither is representative of those groups in general. So why mention them in such a way? Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed more people than the Inquisition and the Crusades combined. If you are going to lay the blame for those killings at the feet of religion, then I will lay the blame of the mass slaughter by Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot at the feet of atheists and say that I am a better human than many atheists because I am not a mass murderer like those prominent atheists. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm sorry I am not a touchy-feely Christian who takes abuse kindly and silently allows aspersions to be cast about my beliefs. I'm sorry I don't happily accept cheap shots about pedophile priests as backhanded attempts to ridicule Christians. I don't care what you have said here, or how Krummhorn interpreted Almaviva's comments. I generally have enjoyed Almaviva's comments throughout, but that comment just really ticked me off, because it wasn't made in a vacuum. That issue has been used to no end by atheists to somehow demonstrate that Christians are really just a bunch of hypocrites. All comments have context, and I built up no straw man. I will accept that Alma didn't intend everything I read into it, but the fact is that it is just the same as drawing a parallel to Naziism. Stepping back and then claiming that was not the intent of your comment is irrelevant. The reference is so inflammatory that it can't possibly do anything other than imply some sinister motive to the group being discussed.

I purposely made my examples inflammatory - as they have felt to you, linking atheists to Pol Pot, Mao, and Stalin - because that is how inflammatory it feels to me to talk about the morals of Christians and pedophile priests in the same post. You think my comment was unfair. Well, now you know what I think of Alma's.

And Alma, I didn't mean, in my postscript, to imply you would ban me for my post, rather I didn't want YOU to suffer the same fate as Saul.

So here is the point where, despite their supposed curiosity in learning all the intricacies of what Christians believe, the atheists will then feign outrage when someone like Chris actually tells them the answers to their questions. His statement that atheists are sinners is in keeping with Christian doctrine that we ALL are sinners, and are all in need of God's grace to overcome our sins. How that grace is obtained is a point of contention among the different Christian sects, but that we all are in need of his grace - both Christians and atheists alike - is a central point of Christian doctrine. Don't like that answer? Well then you shouldn't have asked the question.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Dont you guys see?

Mass crimes are comitted by theists and non-theists. Neither category has any effect on the amount of crime comitted by its occupants.
Therefore I conclude, that morality and the lack thereof is something that is generally inherent to humanity; theist or not. And not at all related to the involvement of religion.
Having lost its special aura of morality, we see that religion has very little redeeming qualities.


----------



## Chris

Almaviva said:


> On the other hand, Chris did impugn an entire group quoting as the reason why atheists can't grasp the concept of God the fact that they are sinners.


The offending verse was Romans 8:7:

'The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, *nor can it do so*'

I can't say much to sugar this particular pill but I can at least explain that I am impugning everybody, self included, because

'As for you (Paul writing to Christians), you were *dead* in your transgressions ansd sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world' (Ephesians 2:1)

and

'When you were *dead* in your sins, and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive in Christ' (Colossians 2:18)

So Christians, too, were spiritually lifeless corpses unable to apprehend the things of God. Only the resurrecting power of Christ has rendered them otherwise. So can Christians claim the credit for their faith?

'For by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God' (Ephesians 2:8)

So even our faith had to be given to us. We were like Lazarus in the tomb, four days dead and unable to do anything for himself. We are saved by the power of Christ just as Lazarus was raised by the power of Christ.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Dont you guys see?
> 
> Mass crimes are comitted by theists and non-theists. Neither category has any effect on the amount of crime comitted by its occupants.
> Therefore I conclude, that morality and the lack thereof is something that is generally inherent to humanity; theist or not. And not at all related to the involvement of religion.
> *Having lost its special aura of morality, we see that religion has very little redeeming qualities.*


And clearly atheism doesn't make people any more mindful of the uniqueness of man as the pinnacle of evolution, as followers of this ideology can be found in the ranks of some of the worst mass murderers in human history.


----------



## emiellucifuge

DrMike said:


> And clearly atheism doesn't make people any more mindful of the uniqueness of man as the pinnacle of evolution, as followers of this ideology can be found in the ranks of some of the worst mass murderers in human history.


Clearly not.


----------



## peeyaj

Advert and Off-Topic!
 

*Vote now...*

http://www.talkclassical.com/12796-poll-greatest-composer-who.html

It seems that Bach and Verdi's losing..

Thank you!

*Back to the topic*


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> And clearly atheism doesn't make people any more mindful of the uniqueness of man as the pinnacle of evolution, as followers of this ideology can be found in the ranks of some of the worst mass murderers in human history.


Nothing is or can be the pinnacle of evolution; it has no direction, and no goals.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> Nothing is or can be the pinnacle of evolution; it has no direction, and no goals.


I think a good argument can be made that mankind is currently the pinnacle. Whether the mountain continues to grow, who knows.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well how about Krill, its the most abundant animal species on Earth in terms of biomass?


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> So you thought his comments and explanations were simplistic. So? Your judgment of the value of a persons belief is directly proportional to the complexity of that belief? You criticized him for implying that his dogmatic beliefs were universal truths. But what if he believes they are universal truths? I think he believes that his religious dogma is universal truth. That you don't believe so has no impact whatsoever on his belief.


Yes, I'm aware of that fact. I'm not out to change minds. I didn't say I thought all of Chris's comments were simplistic, and I admit it was not the correct adjective. Chris is obviously an intelligent, thoughtful person, but some of these statements need to be accompanied by an explanation.

An example would be the statement, "the fact that we do not live as savages, tearing each other apart, is attributable to the restraining hand of God." What exactly does this mean? I thought Christians believed man was created in the image of God, a little lower than the angels! Are we God's children, or savages?

I am not out to ridicule anyone for their beliefs or non-belief. And just for the record, I am not a professed atheist looking to attack Christians, but I obviously don't accept everything in the bible as straight from the mouth of God.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> Dont you guys see?
> 
> Mass crimes are comitted by theists and non-theists. Neither category has any effect on the amount of crime comitted by its occupants.
> Therefore I conclude, that morality and the lack thereof is something that is generally inherent to humanity; theist or not. And not at all related to the involvement of religion.
> Having lost its special aura of morality, we see that religion has very little redeeming qualities.


Let's keep in mind here, as well, the misconception you have - religion does not make anybody moral, and more than science makes people smart. Science does nothing in and of itself, rather science is a process by which man can observe the natural world, and develop hypotheses and models to explain how things came to be what they are. But that is all the action of the scientist, not science. Were nobody to practice science, no scientific observations would occur. So it would be wrong to, say, blame science for the destruction caused by nuclear weapons. Science didn't do it. People using science made the observations that allowed for the creation of the first atomic weapon.

So it is with religion. Religion does not make a person moral. Religion is a guide book that tells a person how they can live to be acceptable to whatever higher power or ideal the religion professes. I am unable to speak for anything other than Christianity (and even then, only my particular belief system), but my religion doesn't magically make me moral. My religion provides me with a series of commandments which, if followed, would lead to a moral life. But if I choose to not follow that religion to its fullest, the blame cannot be laid at the feet of the religion, but at mine. If you set out to make a souffle but fail to follow the recipe exactly and the souffle fails, is the recipe to blame, or is the cook?

So you criticize religion, but you criticize it based on the imperfect actions of the people attempting to practice the religion. This is an unfair criticism. Just as it would be wrong to look at a failed chef and blame the cookbook.

So some Catholic priests molested some children. Is that the fault of their religion, or the fault of them not properly practicing their religion? Does Catholic doctrine anywhere instruct its clergy to molest children? If it did, then the criticism would be a just one. But in fact you will find that just the opposite is true, and that Christ himself spoke out vehemently of the type of punishment awaiting those who brought harm to children. So clearly here the religion is not at fault, but rather the practitioners. They were clearly in violation of their religious doctrine, so the fault is theirs alone. Do we say that the American legal/justice system is abhorrent because we have murderers in this country? No, because those are the actions of people acting contrary to the law.

Religion cannot make a person moral. Religion can show a person how to be moral, but then so can many other philosophies. That is not in dispute. The issue is not whether or not Christians have a monopoly on morality. Any person can be moral - Christian, atheist, pagan, whatever - if they are following a moral code. Any person can be immoral. Morality, though, is not synonymous with righteousness, which is a specifically religious concept, and has to do with following specific requirements laid out in religious doctrine. Righteousness goes beyond merely being moral - it is the state of being reconciled with God, and can only come through God's grace. So you must forgive me for stating this again, but God does not grant that grace to those who do not want it.

And so Alma is not more "Christian" than many Christians, because he specifically rejects the unique aspects of what it is to be Christian. Now, he may argue that he is more moral than many Christians, and the way he lives his life certainly demonstrates what many of us would deem to be moral. But being Christian is more than just being moral - it is the acceptance that we have all sinned, and have amassed a debt that we alone cannot pay, which stands as a barrier to our acceptability to God, and that only through the power of Jesus Christ can we overcome that debt and be reconciled with God. Now, as part of that, there is the requirement that one lead a moral life, and there are many that do fail, because it is not an easy thing to do. Do they purposely fail? Did they never try in the first place? Did they merely exploit their particular religion for evil designs? That I cannot tell you without reading their minds - that is for God to judge.


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> I know, that's why I put "Christian" life between quotation marks, for short, instead of going through your explanation above.


The problem in these discussions often lies in a misunderstanding of what the other person is saying, and I made my point not to defend or criticise anyone, but merely to clarify terms. My point is simply this: that 'the Christian life' means one very specific thing, and it isn't the same as 'the moral life'. Even if you put the word in inverted commas in the way you did, you'll almost certainly be misunderstood.

I think what you were (very reasonably) wanting to say is simply that you try to be a responsible person with a moral conscience, and you object to being called to account merely because you don't believe Christian doctrines. Well, sure - I'd say pretty much the same myself. However, I don't lead a Christian life (nor even a "Christian" life), and neither do you; so if we say we do, we'd be _bound_ to be misunderstood. Words are slithery things, and a great deal of misunderstanding in these areas is created by people using the same words to mean two entirely different things without apparently realising it.



> So, tell me, if Christians live with the notion that they are by nature sinners, why exactly do they also think that being a sinner prevents one from intellectually grasping the concept of God? Don't you guys believe that we are already born sinners through some fundamental sin that passes from one generation to the next until one can individually reach salvation by accepting God?


Well, I'm not a Christian, so of course I'm not one of the 'you guys' that you're addressing. But basically my understanding about the difference between the Christian and the non-believer doesn't concern the amount of sinning as such, but by the fact that the Christian acknowledges that (1) all men are essentially sinful and can't follow the moral law unaided; but that (2) salvation from this plight can be obtained by faith in Jesus, through divine grace.

But as I explained in my overlengthy post, #171, I don't think_ intellectual_ assent has anything much to do with this. Christianity is often portrayed (as much by its proponents as its detractors) as if it requires you to believe half a dozen impossible things before breakfast, and then you're 'saved'. But that's an absurd distortion. It's more like making a life choice. I can't speak with any authority, but my understanding is that Jesus didn't suggest that in order to be saved we should try to believe in an impossible fairy tale. He said 'take up your cross and follow me'. Therein lies one of the reasons why all these discussions lead nowhere: to discover the essential truth about the Christian life, one has to _live_ it, not argue about it. Again I refer you to that fascinating quote by William James that I gave in my post #171, about pragmatism. Christianity (like any other major world religion) has been so successful for so many people for so long not because it has the most compelling intellectual arguments, but because for many it offers the most deeply satisfying and self-consistent way to live a life.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> So some Catholic priests molested some children. Is that the fault of their religion, or the fault of them not properly practicing their religion? Does Catholic doctrine anywhere instruct its clergy to molest children? If it did, then the criticism would be a just one. But in fact you will find that just the opposite is true, and that Christ himself spoke out vehemently of the type of punishment awaiting those who brought harm to children. So clearly here the religion is not at fault, but rather the practitioners. They were clearly in violation of their religious doctrine, so the fault is theirs alone.


Of course the offending priests must bear the responsibility for their deplorable actions, as well as the leaders who covered it up and continue to impose their ridiculous, rigid doctrines including the vow of celibacy. "It is better to marry than to burn."

If healthy minded married individuals were allowed to serve as priests, maybe there would be 
a lot less sociopaths entering the priesthood. And maybe not? Just a thought.


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> How can you 'observe' that 'the Earth and our solar system does not appear special in any way'? If God created earth as the theatre for the drama of redemption, and the vast heavens for his glory, how would that be observable through telescopes? You have merely restated the cosmological principle's faith position.


I think you are aware of some of these observations. Originally people thought the earth was the center of the universe and the sun and planets revolved around it. Copernicus realized that the theory is much simpler when placing the sun at the center. Earth no longer had a privileged position relative to other cosmological bodies. Later we realized that our solar system is also not privileged because we are one of many star systems, our system is toward the outside of our galaxy, and there are many similar galaxies. These are all observations that our world is not privileged in certain ways. We of course could be privileged on other ways that we do not understand.



Chris said:


> Nor is the cosmological principle proved by the logic:
> 
> 1. The Big Bang theory rests on the cosmological principle
> 2. The Big bang theory predicts background radiation is random, not in any particular direction
> 3. The radiation is random, therefore the cosmological principle (and the Big Bang theory) is proved.


Science does not prove anything. Science makes hypotheses (formally consistent theories based on significant evidence that can be and are tested repeatedly). My discussion of the cosmological principle was meant to show that it is an assumption but not one based solely on faith. Scientists are VERY keenly aware of the assumptions in theories. They always attempt to test all such assumptions, but obviously some remain untested so far.



Chris said:


> Can you not see the weakness of this reasoning? The radiation might be random for reasons unconnected with the Big Bang. Randomness is no big deal. Lots of things are random. Sorry, if you want to know what the universe looks like from the other side you have to get aboard the Enterprise, set the throttle to warp 9, and have a look when you get there!


The important thing to realize here is that the radiation is not remotely random. It is VERY VERY highly ordered. The radiation is roughly equal in magnitude in all directions (I believe that is what you meant by random), but it has the precise shape of what is know as black body radiation. Big Bang models predict such black body radiation and the agreement with theory is spectacular. Further Big Bang and other models predict very specific anisotropy in the angular variation. The agreement with theory was even more spectacular. These measurements were a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE deal. This is what science is all about - the ability to construct theories that can make precise predictions about the real world and predictions that can be verified within ever increasing experimental accuracy.



Chris said:


> As for anisotropy measurements, any deductions coming from these should be treated with caution. The Big Bang theory is a model, and like geological models it will probably have all manner of 'reasonable assumptions' built into it, quite apart from the cosmological principle.


One thing to realize is that science theories are not independent of one another. They are based on other theories that have independent verification. The Big Bang theory is based in part on thermodynamics, electroweak theory, the strong nuclear theory, and gravitation. We do not know everything about these other theories, but they are exceedingly well tested.



Chris said:


> Once again, the murder investigation is not the same situation. When you find the suspect's DNA at the murder site, you have a much more closed system. Much research has been done on DNA and its variability, and it is possible to calculate the probability of a false match. But that is based on hard statistics, a rather different situation from the guesswork of the cosmological principle.


You don't have a much more closed system. You just have a system that you personally understand better. You are unaware of the vast research done on understanding the inputs to various cosmological and geological theories. There are 2 separate things going on here. One is the data and the other is the theory. I personally believe the data showing the anisotropy of the microwave background better than I believe a particular DNA sample test. You may find this hard to believe, but it's true. A large team of incredibly dedicated scientists worked for many years on the anisotropy data. The DNA measurement was done by one technician who cared vastly less about the result (I don't mean that they don't care at all, just much less compared to the team of scientists who spent over 10 years of their life on their experiment). Police or technicians might have been a bit sloppy with the data sample. The test equipment might not have been calibrated carefully or recently.

Now to the theory of DNA testing. Suppose all of the police, citizens, and judges were conspiring against a suspect? Suppose DNA has different properties in the crime lab than everywhere else? Suppose the sample of people where human DNA has been tested is remarkably non-random? All of these would cause the normal DNA tests to be vastly less useful. I do not believe these since we (you and I) have so much experience with things like these to make us believe that they are not true. I would suggest to you that scientists are in a similar situation. They have worked very hard over many, many years to better understand the inputs to their theories and to make sure the theories are consistent with an ENORMOUS amount of data (and other theory). Most people have no sense of how strongly scientific theories are constrained by data and how strongly they are tested with each new experiment.

In general you are right to be somewhat skeptical. Scientists are the most skeptical group of people I know. Since you have very little background in complex scientific work (I assume), you have less sense of where their confidence comes in respect to various theories. Obviously you are in the same situation as the overwhelming majority of people


----------



## dmg

Here is a video that counters every major argument against evolution:






Here's Neil deGrasse Tyson's take in ID (warning: graphic depictions of birth defects):






More Tyson:


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Of course the offending priests must bear the responsibility for their deplorable actions, as well as the leaders who covered it up and continue to impose their ridiculous, rigid doctrines including the vow of celibacy. "It is better to marry than to burn."
> 
> If healthy minded married individuals were allowed to serve as priests, maybe there would be
> a lot less sociopaths entering the priesthood. And maybe not? Just a thought.


I am not Catholic, and certainly don't buy into their doctrine of a celibate priesthood, but do you have any evidence that celibacy has any impact on the rate of pedophilia? Because from what I have read, the rate of pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood is no higher than in clergy of other denominations that allow marriage, or even in the non-clergy. Legal insurance for religious groups does not charge Catholics more because they are somehow more prone to these activities. Don't mistake greater press coverage with higher prevalence. If we were to make scientific observations based on how much publicity something gets, that would be a sad commentary on us indeed.

And how does the imposition of rigid doctrine cause one to err? Certainly the law of gravity is a rigid doctrine. Is it to blame for those who fall to their deaths? The necessity of oxygen is also very rigid for aerobic organisms. Is it to blame for suffocation deaths? Is a doctrine ridiculous simply because it is difficult to follow? Do we go around and dismiss any laws that are too difficult to follow? What if the law against murder were simply too difficult for a murderer to follow. Do we consider the law ridiculously rigid? Certainly the law against stealing is rigid. But do we dismiss it because there are some who simply cannot follow it? Is the blame for the inability of some to follow a law or doctrine to be laid at the feet of a rigid doctrine, or at the feet of the violator?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> You know what, I appreciate your apparent outrage at my post, but I think this is a load of crap. You obviously mentioned the pedophile Catholic priests for one reason and one reason only - to take a cheap shot at Christians. Yes, one is too many, but to imply that the number is anything more than a statistically insignificant number of Christians is simple intellectual dishonesty, and you know full well that it goes against Christian teachings. And it is completely irrelevant to your discussion of the good deeds of your life.


First, let's get one thing out of the way: it's only a cheap shot from the standpoint of the perpetrator. From the standpoint of the victim, it's far from cheap, it's actually outrageous and criminal. I wouldn't minimize for one second what those priests did. And before you imply that I'm saying something I'm not, I don't mean to imply at all that you are one of the perpetrators, or that most Christians are. But when even high officials of the Church try to sweep this under the rug, it is fair game to present this as an example - operative word, example - of the fact that even among the highest and most pious officials, there were *very* reprehensive actions regarding this phenomenon. If you Christians can't tolerate that we bring this up, maybe you should have done more to prevent it and curb it before it got so damaging.

What I'm saying is that it is strange that Christians get so revved up at the simple mention of a well publicized and well documented FACT, in the context of someone defending himself from the accusation that one can't grasp God because one is a sinner. Like I said, before throwing stones at atheits, you guys need to worry about your own ranks, and my example was valid, and I stand behind it.

Again, where did I imply that "the number is anything more than a statistically insignificant number of Christians?" Yes, it would have been intellectual dishonesty if I had done such a thing, *but I didn't.* You keep putting words in my mouth. Are you familiar with the concept of the straw man fallacy? I assume you are, since you're a scientist and likely to have had good college education. If anybody here - maybe the younger crowd - is less familiar with the concept, allow me to explain.

Straw man fallacy in a debate:

Your opponent makes statement A which is valid (in this example, "many Catholic priests have sexually abused minors."

Since statement A is hard to fight off because it's based on well known facts, instead of trying to refute it, you pretend that your opponent said something else that he didn't, which is easier to attack. Then you put on your opponent's mouth statement B:
"You have implied that most Catholics are sexual abusers" - or, "you have implied that this phenomenon is more than a statistically insignificant number of Christians." Then, you attack the straw man, the dummy that you planted there and is easier to bring down (a straw dummy doesn't even fight back). You then disprove statement B (which your opponent had never issued in the first place) thus giving the impression that you have proven that your opponent is in the wrong.

Nice try, but no, I said no such thing and can prove it, because my post is still up there - only edited *after* you quoted it in its entirety so it is even preserved inside your quote before my edit which can be proven by the time stamps - and my only edit was to include a disclaimer that my views here are personal and not the views of Talk Classical.

In your attacks on my position, you have been using straw men over and over and over. When you decide to refute my points *by addressing what I've actually said instead of what you want to imply that I said* then maybe we'll be able to have a more productive debate.



> I can appreciate that you were upset by the comments of Chris, but as YOU YOURSELF have said, just because one person may make a comment that violates the TOS of Talk Classical, a response to that comment can just as much be a violation.


I hereby challenge you to screen my posts above and find *a single incident* of violation of Talk Classical Terms of Service. I have committed no such violation, and even ran it by our senior administrator who agrees. If you still think that I have committed a violation of TOS, you are likely to have misunderstood the TOS. They are available in our FAQ for your perusal, and if you read them and compare them to my post, like I said, you'll be hard pressed to find a violation. By the way, I have never said that Chris committed a violation of TOS. You on the other hand are closer to doing so (or actually may have already done so) by calling me intellectually dishonest and saying that my argumentation is a load of crap. However, I chose not to report these violations because since I'm the victim of the assault, it would appear like I'd be having a vested interest on this. I prefer to roll with the punches and put them on the account of your passionate views about religion, which are commendable.



> You know what? I'm a better person than many atheists, because I haven't killed or tortured countless numbers of people like several (e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Marquis de Sade).


Yes, I believe you are a better person than *many* atheists. Your examples above are valid (although, like others said here, they're matched by crusaders and inquisitors and the such). So was mine. However, I wouldn't be able to tell whether you're better than *me* because I don't know you or your life. That's one of the reasons why I wouldn't dare calling you a sinner. All I want is the same mutual respect.



> Oh, and don't take my comments literally, because I am just upset by your post.:tiphat:


I am not upset at you. Like I said in my opening, I am sorry if my words gave offense. On the other hand I'd very much like it if you could manage to stop putting words in my mouth and stopped issuing straw men. Oh, and if you can avoid calling me an intellectually dishonest person whose words are crap, it would also be appreciated, although I think that the odds that this will happen are not very favorable.

Cheers.:tiphat:


----------



## Almaviva

peeyaj said:


> I respect and admire Almaviva as a moderator and a person. I think Almaviva's post is brilliant and its rebuttal of Theist '' self-righteousness'' is exemplary. As a victim of abuse as a child, I agree of your stand on this matter. Don't worry mod Almaviva, we respect you.


Thanks. Not that I don't regret going a little overboard myself. These topics do it to us.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> I am not Catholic, and certainly don't buy into their doctrine of a celibate priesthood, but do you have any evidence that celibacy has any impact on the rate of pedophilia? Because from what I have read, the rate of pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood is no higher than in clergy of other denominations that allow marriage, or even in the non-clergy. Legal insurance for religious groups does not charge Catholics more because they are somehow more prone to these activities. Don't mistake greater press coverage with higher prevalence. If we were to make scientific observations based on how much publicity something gets, that would be a sad commentary on us indeed.


No, I don't believe celibacy has an impact on the rate of pedophilia. I believe these people were prone to pedophilia before they entered the priesthood.

I also don't believe the rigid doctrine causes one to err. I'm just in favor of non celibate people being allowed to serve in those positions. This is an assumption, but I'm not so sure
many in the western world are cut out for the ascetic lifestyle.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> First, let's get one thing out of the way: it's only a cheap shot from the standpoint of the perpetrator. From the standpoint of the victim, it's far from cheap, it's actually outrageous and criminal. I wouldn't minimize for one second what those priests did. And before you imply that I'm saying something I'm not, I don't mean to imply at all that you are one of the perpetrators, or that most Christians are. But when even high officials of the Church try to sweep this under the rug, it is fair game to present this as an example - operative word, example - of the fact that even among the highest and most pious officials, there were *very* reprehensive actions regarding this phenomenon. *If you Christians can't tolerate that we bring this up, maybe you should have done more to prevent it and curb it before it got so damaging.*
> What I'm saying is that it is strange that Christians get so revved up at the simple mention of a well publicized and well documented FACT, in the context of someone defending himself from the accusation that one can't grasp God because one is a sinner. Like I said, before throwing stones at atheits, you guys need to worry about your own ranks, and my example was valid, and I stand behind it.
> 
> Again, where did I imply that "the number is anything more than a statistically insignificant number of Christians?" Yes, it would have been intellectual dishonesty if I had done such a thing, *but I didn't.* You keep putting words in my mouth. Are you familiar with the concept of the straw man fallacy? I assume you are, since you're a scientist and likely to have had good college education. If anybody here - maybe the younger crowd - is less familiar with the concept, allow me to explain.
> 
> Straw man fallacy in a debate:
> 
> Your opponent makes statement A which is valid (in this example, "many Catholic priests have sexually abused minors."
> 
> Since statement A is hard to fight off because it's based on well known facts, instead of trying to refute it, you pretend that your opponent said something else that he didn't, which is easier to attack. Then you put on your opponent's mouth statement B:
> "You have implied that most Catholics are sexual abusers" - or, "you have implied that this phenomenon is more than a statistically insignificant number of Christians." Then, you attack the straw man, the dummy that you planted there and is easier to bring down (a straw dummy doesn't even fight back). You then disprove statement B (which your opponent had never issued in the first place) thus giving the impression that you have proven that your opponent is in the wrong.
> 
> Nice try, but no, I said no such thing and can prove it, because my post is still up there - only edited *after* you quoted it in its entirety so it is even preserved inside your quote before my edit which can be proven by the time stamps - and my only edit was to include a disclaimer that my views here are personal and not the views of Talk Classical.
> 
> In your attacks on my position, you have been using straw men over and over and over. When you decide to refute my points *by addressing what I've actually said instead of what you want to imply that I said* then maybe we'll be able to have a more productive debate.
> 
> I hereby challenge you to screen my posts above and find *a single incident* of violation of Talk Classical Terms of Service. I have committed no such violation, and even ran it by our senior administrator who agrees. If you still think that I have committed a violation of TOS, you are likely to have misunderstood the TOS. They are available in our FAQ for your perusal, and if you read them and compare them to my post, like I said, you'll be hard pressed to find a violation. By the way, I have never said that Chris committed a violation of TOS. You on the other hand are closer to doing so (or actually may have already done so) by calling me intellectually dishonest and saying that my argumentation is a load of crap. However, I chose not to report these violations because since I'm the victim of the assault, it would appear like I'd be having a vested interest on this. I prefer to roll with the punches and put them on the account of your passionate views about religion, which are commendable.
> 
> Yes, I believe you are a better person than *many* atheists. Your examples above are valid (although, like others said here, they're matched by crusaders and inquisitors and the such). So was mine. However, I wouldn't be able to tell whether you're better than *me* because I don't know you or your life. That's one of the reasons why I wouldn't dare calling you a sinner. All I want is the same mutual respect.
> 
> I am not upset at you. Like I said in my opening, I am sorry if my words gave offense. On the other hand I'd very much like it if you could manage to stop putting words in my mouth and stopped issuing straw men. Oh, and if you can avoid calling me an intellectually dishonest person whose words are crap, it would also be appreciated, although I think that the odds that this will happen are not very favorable.
> 
> Cheers.:tiphat:


I still don't believe that I have raised a straw man (and yes, I do understand what it is).
First, to the point bolded above. You talk of Christians, but then you refer to the actions of some Catholic priests. You do realize, I hope, that while all Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics. I am not Catholic. Like most people, I was not aware of the actions of the perpetrators until it was brought to light. So I might just as well ask why atheists did not do more to stop Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as you ask why Christians didn't do more about pedophile Catholic priests. If you are going to make Christians answer for the infractions of anybody and everybody who professes to be a Christian, then I will ask atheists to do likewise. And let us be clear that, once the abuses came to light, the outrage was not solely from atheists. I was just as outraged as anyone, save probably the actual victims.

Your description of your life was commendable, and had it been limited to that, the point would be a just one. But please. Right after you talk about being more "Christian" than many Christians, you then cite as your only example the case of pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood. By using e.g., you are implying that the following example is a representative one. When you use e.g., you typically include representative examples, not anomalous ones. Any scientist knows that you don't cite the anomalies as proof of point. When defending a scientific point - say, evolution - do you include the anomalies that don't fit the data as an example?

The fact that the instances of pedophilia are very real to the victims is an emotional one, and does not have any bearing whatsoever on the overall conduct of those who consider themselves as Christians. If you are to judge an entire group by the actions of the anomalous fringes, then go ahead and condemn each and every group and each and every person. You gave a description of your life. I assume you gave the highlights, the general things that you feel justify your assertion that you are a better "Christian" than many Christians. I assume you have left out those actions in your life that you are not so proud of, because, let's face it, we all have those. Why not air those as well, so that then I can describe the high points of my life and say I am a better "Almaviva" than Almaviva because at least I haven't done some of the bad things that Almaviva has done. But that would be unfair, because it is much more fair to judge you based on whether those bad things are common or anomalies, and not merely to judge you based on your anomalies, as they really aren't representative of who you are.

I, too, stand by what I have said. If you do feel that what I have said has been in violation of the TOS, then there is no reason I should be given a free pass where others have not. It seems that we are at an impasse. You see nothing wrong in what you said, and I do. Barring either of us having some kind of an epiphany, I don't see either of us changing our minds. I object to the mentioning of the pedophile priests as you did in your post - not because I have ever stated that Christians are infallible and are never answerable for their defects, but rather because I don't believe in collective guilt for the actions of an anomaly.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> No, I don't believe celibacy has an impact on the rate of pedophilia. I believe these people were prone to pedophilia before they entered the priesthood.
> 
> I also don't believe the rigid doctrine causes one to err. I'm just in favor of non celibate people being allowed to serve in those positions. This is an assumption, but I'm not so sure
> many in the western world are cut out for the ascetic lifestyle.


I too also suspect that these individuals may just as well committed the acts they did had they gone into some other calling other than the priesthood, but unless there is some way to detect pedophiles before they commit the act, I don't see how this can be predicted.

I am also not in favor of a celibate priesthood, or the state of celibacy in general. My own particular faith prizes highly marriage, and our clergy (we don't have lay clergy, as do Catholics and other Christian denominations), especially at higher levels in the priesthood, are all married.

I just don't think, though, that the sin of pedophilia can necessarily be directly tied to celibacy, as the data don't bear this out. But it seems that you are also in agreement on that point.


----------



## dmg

Celibacy is both unnatural and dangerous, particularly in men. Not only can it create sexual tension (whether or not this contributes to molestation cases is not known and subject to debate), it can increase the likelihood of prostate cancer as carcinogens can collect in ducts that are not emptied regularly.

http://menshealth.about.com/cs/prostatehealth/a/ejaculate_ptate.htm

Increased incidence of prostate cancer in Catholic priests:

http://www.prostate90.com/book/p5.html



> The celibate priests were found to have a high incidence of prostate cancer and a significantly increased risk of dying from prostate cancer, as compared to age-adjusted controls.


Religious dogma and willful ignorance are dangerous. The natural world should be observed and studied, not ignored and overwritten by primitive traditions, religious texts and taboos.


----------



## Elgarian

Well, CTP was right again. How very sad to see all one's worst misgivings confirmed.

Much of this thread has become a generator of heat rather than light, and a battleground rather than a forum for calm discussion of varying points of view. Even some degree of accurate acknowledgement of what Christianity is actually _about_ would have been a helpful start. But it seems to have become a repository for the expression of anger rather than a helpful search for understanding, and I'm giving up on it.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian said:


> the difference between the Christian and the non-believer doesn't concern the amount of sinning as such, but by the fact that the Christian acknowledges that (1) all men are essentially sinful and can't follow the moral law unaided; but that (2) salvation from this plight can be obtained by *faith* in Jesus, through divine grace.


Sorry, but this is still not logically sound.

1. All men are sinners
2. Sinners cannot grasp the concept of God
3. For men to be saved and grasp the concept of God, they need to have faith *first* and *then* they will be saved.
4. Men need to grasp the concept of God in order to have faith.

See? To achieve 3 you need 4, but you can't get 4 because of the barrier of 2.

You know, people can't have the egg and the omelette.

Either men *can* grasp the concept of God even though they are sinners, and therefore can develop faith and reach salvation, *or *if they cannot grasp the concept of God because they are sinners, then faith is not accessible to them, and therefore neither is salvation.

Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that Paul mispoke in that quote to the Romans, since there *are* faithful people out there. Therefore, my intellectual quest *is* valid, and can't be dismissed because - supposedly - I'm a sinner.

Besides, another factor that bothers me in this whole thing is the notion that this can only be achieved through Christ. So, other monotheistic religions in which the faithful do apparently grasp the concept of God will *not* lead to salvation because it won't be through the conduit of Christ?

This seems to me to be the equivalent of saying "we have the monopoly of the truth, our God is better than your God, we are the chosen people, and you all who think differently will be damned."

This doesn't sound like a very pious concept to me. This is exactly where religions stray. From that statement to "death to the infidels" there is just a small jump, and it has happened just like this several times in history, and continues to happen today.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Sorry, but this is still not logically sound.
> 
> 1. All men are sinners
> 2. Sinners cannot grasp the concept of God
> 3. For men to be saved and grasp the concept of God, they need to have faith *first* and *then* they will be saved.
> 4. Men need to grasp the concept of God in order to have faith.
> 
> See? To achieve 3 you need 4, but you can't get 4 because of the barrier of 2.
> 
> You know, people can't have the egg and the omelette.
> 
> Either men *can* grasp the concept of God even though they are sinners, and therefore can develop faith and reach salvation, *or *if they cannot grasp the concept of God because they are sinners, then faith is not accessible to them, and therefore neither is salvation.
> 
> Therefore, the only possible conclusion is that Paul mispoke in that quote to the Romans, since there *are* faithful people out there. Therefore, my intellectual quest *is* valid, and can't be dismissed because - supposedly - I'm a sinner.
> 
> Besides, another factor that bothers me in this whole thing is the notion that this can only be achieved through Christ. So, other monotheistic religions in which the faithful do apparently grasp the concept of God will *not* lead to salvation because it won't be through the conduit of Christ?
> 
> This seems to me to be the equivalent of saying "we have the monopoly of the truth, our God is better than your God, we are the chosen people, and you all who think differently will be damned."
> 
> This doesn't sound like a very pious concept to me. This is exactly where religions stray. From that statement to "death to the infidels" there is just a small jump, and it has happened just like this several times in history, and continues to happen today.


It isn't logically sound as you have presented it, true. But that is not how Christians understand their faith, and that is what is causing the confusion. Now, my doctrine no doubt conflicts with some other Christian doctrines, but this is how I see it.

We are God's children. We all make mistakes in this life - we sin. Because of that sin, we are not capable in and of ourselves to be in God's presence, who is perfect. An intercession was needed in our behalf - someone had to pay the price that we could not in order to reconcile us with God. That person is Jesus Christ. In order to access his atonement for us, we have to have faith in God and follow his commandments. Sinners can have faith. But faith is not merely an intellectual pursuit into whether or not God can logically be explained. Anybody can have faith - God's grace is open to all who seek after it. Ask and ye shall receive. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. Faith is not an event, any more than living a Christian life is. It is a process that constantly has to be attended to.

Now, as to your statements regarding monopolies on truth, that is not how I, or my church views things. We view it as there is truth everywhere out there. Everybody can have truth, nobody has a monopoly. It is not the proverbial pie, where there is only a finite amount, and only one group can possess any particular amount at a time. Most religions have varying levels of truths. But we do believe that the complete truth lies in ours.

There is no slippery slope from there to death to the infidels. That is contrary to church teachings - Christian teachings. Christian doctrine holds that vengeance and justice is for God, not man. Our job is not to go around condemning people, rather to help them along and bring souls unto Christ by patience and longsuffering and love.

My own particular doctrine does not hold that all who didn't embrace it will be comdemned, rather that each person will be judged based on what they were able to know. Those who never heard the name Jesus Christ or laid eyes on a bible will not be judged in the same way by God as those who knew these things quite well. God will judge each according to the light and knowledge they obtained. If anything, those who profess a faith and belief in Christ will be judged much more critically than those who didn't. Unto whom much is given, much is required. I do believe that each person born into this world is given some light and knowledge, and has some basic understanding of right and wrong, and will be judged accordingly.


----------



## starthrower

Elgarian said:


> Well, CTP was right again. How very sad to see all one's worst misgivings confirmed.
> 
> Much of this thread has become a generator of heat rather than light, and a battleground rather than a forum for calm discussion of varying points of view. Even some degree of accurate acknowledgement of what Christianity is actually _about_ would have been a helpful start. But it seems to have become a repository for the expression of anger rather than a helpful search for understanding, and I'm giving up on it.


 Internet forums are obviously not the ideal situation for seeking enlightenment. I suppose we all have to work these things out on our own, or in the company of trusted friends. There are some wonderful books as well, written by intelligent, thoughtful, and knowledgeable people who aren't in the evangelism business. Authors like Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels, and the late Leslie D. Weatherhead. His minor classic The Christian Agnostic may be of interest to those with a skeptical attitude who still have an interest in God and Christianity.


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> Sorry, but this is still not logically sound.


Alma, as a non-Christian, I'm not in any position to defend Christianity, and I didn't attempt to. I've only stated my (doubtless imperfect) understanding of what it _is_. But I think I should stress that in the rest of the post from which you quoted, I explained that we misunderstand Christianity if we approach it expecting to find a logical system, or an intellectual argument. It's a _way of living_. It involves an existential choice. The invitation is not to unravel the intellectual intricacies, or resolve the logic of the muddle that men have made of it down the centuries, but to 'take up your cross and follow me'. One either accepts the invitation, and tries it (and finds that it either works, or doesn't), or says no thanks at the outset. All the rest, as far as I can see, is a distraction from the real business.

As I said above, I don't feel comfortable contributing to this thread any longer, so I'm going to opt out from here.


----------



## Polednice

As Elgarian has just suggested, conflicts of opinion between theists and atheists cannot be resolved by reasoned arguments, because as soon as one side introduces the concept of faith, it is clear that the two parties function on fundamentally different thought processes - one makes no assumptions that cannot be backed by evidence, the other denies evidence in preference for cultural teachings or revealed wisdom.

Of course, if someone who is faithful wishes to claim that their beliefs are _also_ based on evidence, then, fair enough - they should be prepared to be laughed at and derided. But, ultimately, it might be more productive to ignore the question '_is there a god?_', and instead ask whether or not a faithful "way of living" leads people down a path of self-improvement that the non-faithful cannot access. That argument might be more intelligible, but the answer is still that faith is unnecessary baggage, the ambiguity of which has the ability to cause great harm without the bonus of bolstering the good side of humanity.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> I still don't believe that I have raised a straw man (and yes, I do understand what it is).
> First, to the point bolded above. You talk of Christians, but then you refer to the actions of some Catholic priests. You do realize, I hope, that while all Catholics are Christians, not all Christians are Catholics. I am not Catholic. Like most people, I was not aware of the actions of the perpetrators until it was brought to light. So I might just as well ask why atheists did not do more to stop Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as you ask why Christians didn't do more about pedophile Catholic priests. If you are going to make Christians answer for the infractions of anybody and everybody who professes to be a Christian, then I will ask atheists to do likewise. And let us be clear that, once the abuses came to light, the outrage was not solely from atheists. I was just as outraged as anyone, save probably the actual victims.
> 
> Your description of your life was commendable, and had it been limited to that, the point would be a just one. But please. Right after you talk about being more "Christian" than many Christians, you then cite as your only example the case of pedophilia in the Catholic priesthood. By using e.g., you are implying that the following example is a representative one. When you use e.g., you typically include representative examples, not anomalous ones. Any scientist knows that you don't cite the anomalies as proof of point. When defending a scientific point - say, evolution - do you include the anomalies that don't fit the data as an example?
> 
> The fact that the instances of pedophilia are very real to the victims is an emotional one, and does not have any bearing whatsoever on the overall conduct of those who consider themselves as Christians. If you are to judge an entire group by the actions of the anomalous fringes, then go ahead and condemn each and every group and each and every person. You gave a description of your life. I assume you gave the highlights, the general things that you feel justify your assertion that you are a better "Christian" than many Christians. I assume you have left out those actions in your life that you are not so proud of, because, let's face it, we all have those. Why not air those as well, so that then I can describe the high points of my life and say I am a better "Almaviva" than Almaviva because at least I haven't done some of the bad things that Almaviva has done. But that would be unfair, because it is much more fair to judge you based on whether those bad things are common or anomalies, and not merely to judge you based on your anomalies, as they really aren't representative of who you are.
> 
> I, too, stand by what I have said. If you do feel that what I have said has been in violation of the TOS, then there is no reason I should be given a free pass where others have not. It seems that we are at an impasse. You see nothing wrong in what you said, and I do. Barring either of us having some kind of an epiphany, I don't see either of us changing our minds. I object to the mentioning of the pedophile priests as you did in your post - not because I have ever stated that Christians are infallible and are never answerable for their defects, but rather because I don't believe in collective guilt for the actions of an anomaly.


First, as long as my examples are real and not some fabrication, I'm perfectly entitled to picking them, especially because I drew no generalization from them. My example only meant to say that I clearly lead a more sin-free life than *many* Christians (not most, not all), for example, those who seduce boys or - I added a second example later - cheat on their spouses.

Oh, and I didn't fail to mention my bad parts... I did mention a couple of speeding tickets, didn't I?:lol: You want another one? Sometimes I eat pizza although I know it's not good for me. It's the sin of gluttony.

Your point about science doesn't apply. Outliers *are* considered in studies but their behavior is not generalized to the whole. That's exactly what I did. I have mentioned the worst sinners among Christians, as an example of Christians who lead a less moral life than mine. It is a true example. In a good scientific experiment, it is not that you suddenly deny the existence of the outliers. You just acknowledge that they are outliers and most parts of the sample don't exhibit the same behavior. It would still be true - as long as there were many outliers - to report that in spite of a good solid cluster closer to the middle of the range, still, there were many outliers. Even if these don't get reported in the brief conclusion section for lack of space, you can often "see" the outliers in graphs, inside the body of the study. Those dots are not any less true than those that fall closer to the average value.

Just today I was writing a progress note in which I said: "Mr. X's diabetes was fairly well controlled during the past two weeks, with his accu-checks (done four times a day) ranging between 97 and 143, except for two outliers at 230 and 235. "

The outliers are still important because one may want to consider what happened to push those readings this high - has he eaten out of his diet? Has he picked food from a peer's tray? It wouldn't be wise for me to ignore the outliers. If I said, "his glucose level control is for the most part better than on the occasion of these two outliers since the majority of his readings fall on the acceptable range for a diabetic" - this is true. However, if I said - Mr. X's diabetes is out of control because he's getting *most *readings (or in your lattest straw man, *the entire group of readings*)between 230 and 235," this would be completely false, a gross misrepresentation of what is going on, and if believed, would lead to excessively large doses of insulin which then would put Mr. X at risk for hypoglycemia instead. So, if this was the topic of our conversation, I could see you insisting that I was wrong because I had said the latter, when I hadn't said such thing.

Oh, OK, so, it's the Catholics, the other guys. Sure. This certainly invalidates what I said, right? Catholics are not Christians. Oh wait... they *are* Christians... So, no, what I said remains valid, sorry.

As for the straw men, I'm getting tired of this. You continue to employ them. Here is another one:

"If you are to judge *an entire group* by the actions of the anomalous fringes, then go ahead and condemn each and every group and each and every person."

Again, I did no such thing. I said *many* not most and not all and *not the entire group. dammit!* When you seem to have some fixed notions of what I said or implied and you refuse to acknowledge that I didn't (although my post is still there to be consulted, intact), it is impossible to have a discussion.

There are only two ways to continue this discussion with you:

1. You go back to *MY* post, not your idea of what my post might have been, and quote VERBATIM the part in which I have said that THE ENTIRE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY is made of a bunch of horrible pedophiles (before, you were putting "more than insignificant" in my mouth, then "most" in my mouth, now you're putting "all" - as implied in the concept of "entire" - your straw men are just getting worse and worse).

Hmmm... can't do it, right? I didn't think so (because what you are fishing for is just *not there*).

If you can't understand that "many" is not the same as "most" or "all" then debating this point with you is hopeless. You're gripping strongly to the notion that I have implied that my example was majoritary when *I did no such thing*. You won't let go. You will keep insisting and twisting my words. But if you *can *find in my original post in this matter a phrase that clearly states that I am saying that ALL christians are pedophiles or MOST Christians are pedophiles or that MORE THAN AN INSIGNIFCANT FRINGE OF CHRISTIANS are pedophiles - I said no such things - then quote it - I repeat, verbatim and with my own words, not your assumptions about them, and if you can do this, I'll do an about face, apologize, and we'll continue the talk. Unfortunately for you I won't need to take these steps, because I just *DIDN'T SAY ANY OF THE ABOVE.* Period. That's a fact. It can be proven. It *has *been proven.

2. You drop the straw men and start discussing what I *did *say.

You made it clear that you won't do neither of the above two options. Therefore I hereby declare that I lost all interest in pursuing this point with you. Mind you, it is not that I'm short in arguments and am abandoning the debate. I will gladly continue to pursue the point with other people who don't put words in my mouth - but with you, it is impossible because you won't let go of your conviction that I said what I most definitely didn't say (as proven by my post still standing there). This is the last I'll say about this. If you want to have the last word on this, fine, go just ahead, but don't count on any further response from me on this point (I'll continue to be glad to discuss with you any other topic, such as our recent exchanges about the economy and immigration - oh, and I love classical music too).

As for your violations of TOS (which you did commit) I have chosen to not report them. Speaking as a member here, it's my right to be generous and roll with the punches. It won't be the first time that I do so, I'm a generally tolerant person. You may have noticed that we mods frequently operate by appeals to calm and friendly warnings instead of penalties. If one of my colleagues happens to bump into this thread and finds that when you called me intellectually dishonest you have violated the item in the TOS that says that members are not allowed to offend other members, then he/she should feel free to act. I wouldn't recommend it, though, since like I said, I put it on the account of your strong passion for your religion, and I value other aspects of your self and other contributions that you have made to this forum.

But if you are so worried about it and believe that you shouldn't get a free pass like you said, you can report it yourself. Just click on the red triangle and in the message to the moderation team, say "I called Almaviva intellectually dishonest, a hypocrite, and said that what he is saying is crap." They'd be likely to ask me what I think, and I'd certainly say: "let him be. He is a good guy after all, got a little emotional given the nature of the topic; it happens, and I don't mind, I know I'm not what he said I am and I don't take it personally."

Ooh, this gotta be my longest post ever in Talk Classical. Maybe I *was* upset after all. It's out of my system now, hopefully.

Have a nice day, sir.:tiphat:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> Alma, as a non-Christian, I'm not in any position to defend Christianity, and I didn't attempt to. I've only stated my (doubtless imperfect) understanding of what it _is_. But I think I should stress that in the rest of the post from which you quoted, I explained that we misunderstand Christianity if we approach it expecting to find a logical system, or an intellectual argument. It's a _way of living_. It involves an existential choice. The invitation is not to unravel the intellectual intricacies, or resolve the logic of the muddle that men have made of it down the centuries, but to 'take up your cross and follow me'. One either accepts the invitation, and tries it (and finds that it either works, or doesn't), or says no thanks at the outset. All the rest, as far as I can see, is a distraction from the real business.
> 
> As I said above, I don't feel comfortable contributing to this thread any longer, so I'm going to opt out from here.


Elgarian, religion is more than just a lifestyle. I'm sure you know that but were kindly pointing out the difference as the source of debate and misunderstanding as seen in this thread.

The _institution_ that is of religion, is no different on many levels to the institutions that are part of many different societies (secular or not), whether as corrupt as failed corporations like Enron or as exempt from public scrutiny and audit as the Red Cross. Institutions make concession when it suits them to forward the interests of those already in power or key stakeholders often by supression of others, for example ordination of women or the cover up of sick priests who violated children in the interest of its prestige and public credibility. And I'm not even resorting to history, but to issues that all of us living today here and now are well aware of.


----------



## Almaviva

I'd like to disclose to this thread's participants that I got a nice Private Message from Dr. Mike, this time addressing what I DID say and not what I didn't, showing that he *is* capable of adopting option number 2 above. While doing so, he suggested that the example of sinning behavior I chose to pick was inflammatory. I have acknowledged that yes, it was, and have apologized to Dr. Mike for having been inflammatory, and I extend this apology to others here who may have felt equally upset at what I had picked to exemplify my point. This said, I do not agree with any notion that I was implying that the despicable behavior of pedophilia applies to most or all Christians, and also do not agree with it being an invalid example. Inflammatory, yes. Invalid, no. With this, I put this matter to rest, and I have expressed to Dr. Mike that I have no hard feelings towards him, and will continue to appreciate other opportunities to debate other issues with him. It may be wise for Dr.Mike and me to refrain from discussing religion though, because it is unlikely that we will ever see eye to eye on this, and further attempts would only brew resentment.


----------



## Couchie

DrMike said:


> We are God's children. We all make mistakes in this life - we sin. Because of that sin, we are not capable in and of ourselves to be in God's presence, who is perfect. An intercession was needed in our behalf - someone had to pay the price that we could not in order to reconcile us with God. That person is Jesus Christ. In order to access his atonement for us, we have to have faith in God and follow his commandments. Sinners can have faith. But faith is not merely an intellectual pursuit into whether or not God can logically be explained. Anybody can have faith - God's grace is open to all who seek after it. Ask and ye shall receive. Seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened unto you. Faith is not an event, any more than living a Christian life is. It is a process that constantly has to be attended to.


I fail to see why I should have to worship God, or why I'm not worthy of being in God's presence.

1. Didn't ask for God to create me.
2. Didn't ask to be given a sinful nature or to be born into a sinful world.
3. Given that God made me sinful in nature and I live in a sinful world, it's impossible for me to not sin sometimes (as you have said, we are all sinners).

So what should I be asking forgiveness for, exactly? People sin because God made it that way. Making us sinful, then asking us to apologize for being sinful? God might as well just cut the crap and demand we worship him outright for no reason whatsoever. Don't insult us with this ridiculously contrived system of sin and atonement (and don't even get me started on _original_ sin). What kind of egomaniac creates people to praise and worship him?

Furthermore, I never asked Jesus to die on the cross for me, which in my opinion was a fairly cheap show of pointless spectacle because Jesus knew full well he would be risen 3 days later. I never knew Jesus, but it was remarkably arrogant that he thinks he can die for _my_ sins, or assume that I want him to die for my sins, or assume that I might even give a damn about him dying for my sins. For the record, I would have politely declined such an offer. In fact, if a man ever came up to me and declared he was going to allow himself to be executed for my sins, I would probably brush past him as fast as possible with my eyes fixed on the the pavement. Apparently others would worship him and write a book about it.

At the end of the day, God should be asking _me_ for forgiveness for the _stupidity_ inherent in this awful so-called plan he has going on here.


----------



## Guest

Couchie said:


> I fail to see why I should have to worship God, or why I'm not worthy of being in God's presence.
> 
> 1. Didn't ask for God to create me.
> 2. Didn't ask to be given a sinful nature or to be born into a sinful world.
> 3. Given that God made me sinful in nature and I live in a sinful world, it's impossible for me to not sin sometimes (as you have said, we are all sinners).
> 
> So what should I be asking forgiveness for, exactly? People sin because God made it that way. Making us sinful, then asking us to apologize for being sinful? God might as well just cut the crap and demand we worship him outright for no reason whatsoever. Don't insult us with this ridiculously contrived system of sin and atonement (and don't even get me started on _original_ sin). What kind of egomaniac creates people to praise and worship him?
> 
> Furthermore, I never asked Jesus to die on the cross for me, which in my opinion was a fairly cheap show of pointless spectacle because Jesus knew full well he would be risen 3 days later. I never knew Jesus, but it was remarkably arrogant that he thinks he can die for _my_ sins, or assume that I want him to die for my sins, or assume that I might even give a damn about him dying for my sins. For the record, I would have politely declined such an offer. In fact, if a man ever came up to me and declared he was going to allow himself to be executed for my sins, I would probably brush past him as fast as possible with my eyes fixed on the the pavement. Apparently others would worship him and write a book about it.
> 
> At the end of the day, God should be asking _me_ for forgiveness for the _stupidity_ inherent in this awful so-called plan he has going on here.


I've stated my beliefs. Whether you accept them or not is really irrelevant to me and my faith. I offered them in answer to a question posed. If you don't like them, oh well.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> But we do believe that the complete truth lies in ours.


If I'm not mistaken, why is it that the Mormon church does not ordain women? I'm curious.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> I fail to see why I should have to worship God, or why I'm not worthy of being in God's presence.
> 
> 1. Didn't ask for God to create me.
> 
> At the end of the day, God should be asking _me_ for forgiveness for the _stupidity_ inherent in this awful so-called plan he has going on here.


At the end of the day I'd only suggest - _it is possible _you asked God to create you, but you just don't currently remember. It seems 'forgetting' what was before this is a prerequisite to coming here. Secondly, from the context we are in it may seem 'stupid' and pointless etc. But again I would just suggest hold on to the possibility that there is something of value to be gained in this experience, and that perhaps there really is a far better place beyond our imagination that exists.

For example if maybe we all were in training to become 'gods' of sorts of our own - to be able to create our own worlds etc. Don't you think some lessons may have to be learned first, before a 'God' just hands us over the keys to do anything we choose?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> If I'm not mistaken, why is it that the Mormon church does not ordain women? I'm curious.


Because that is the way that God set it up, and how he has instructed the church leaders.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> Because that is the way that God set it up, and how he has instructed the church leaders.


I greatly admire the way you have stood up to the many provocations in this thread from the atheistic camp, and the self-righteous. I have cringed on several occasions at some of the long-winded posts from one or two other members in attacking you. It is astonishing to me that the Administrator of this Forum is prepared to allow these attacks against you and other Christians to continue.


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> I greatly admire the way you have stood up to the many provocations in this thread from the atheistic camp, and the self-righteous. I have cringed on several occasions at some of the long-winded posts from one or two other members in attacking you. It is astonishing to me that the Administrator of this Forum is prepared to allow these attacks against you and other Christians to continue.


Nah, I've given as good as I got here. Water under the bridge.


----------



## Almaviva

Andy Loochazee said:


> I greatly admire the way you have stood up to the many provocations in this thread from the atheistic camp, and the self-righteous. I have cringed on several occasions at some of the long-winded posts from one or two other members in attacking you. It is astonishing to me that the Administrator of this Forum is prepared to allow these attacks against you and other Christians to continue.


Oh yeah, there are some problems that need to be fixed. For example - just a random example, don't think much of it...: multi-headed trolls - the kind of _agent provocateur_ who changes tactics over and over, and owns multiple registrations coming from the same cluster of IPs, with hit-and-run tactics: a violation of terms of service here, some baiting there... and then when challenged, disappears for a while and another head pops up... and so on and so forth. Sometimes we need more than one moderator to stop the abuse, as the multiple heads are spotted and the true nature of the hit and run emerges (such as, one moderator doesn't think much of a violation, but when alerted by another one that another head has just popped up, then it becomes clearer that it is a series of hits and runs). You see what I mean, Andy? Sounds familiar? Yep, the Internet is amazing, isn't it? Some trolls are so creative, I almost admire them.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> Nah, I've given as good as I got here. Water under the bridge.


Thanks, Dr. Mike. Oh, and don't bite a troll's bait. It's always good to know.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Almaviva said:


> In all walks of life I lead a rather exemplary life. I'm a good husband and father (my kids are doing great and are ethical and compassionate young people), love my wife, and don't cheat on her. I'm incapable of any cruelty while dealing with people and animals. I'm charitable and I always make sure to separate as much as I can safely afford to give to worthy causes such as the UNICEF (my favorite charity). I work pro bono when I can, for worthy causes. My finances are in order and I have a credit score of about 800. I have never engaged in any criminal activity and the worst behavior I've ever had regarding laws are a couple of speeding tickets decades ago. I drink alcohol in moderation (wine while entertaining friends) and don't get drunk and obnoxious. I don't use illegal drugs. I'm a hardworker, and in my work I do my best to help people as much as I can with no consideration of race, color, gender, national origin, or ability to pay. I'm not greedy and have often worked overtime (unpaid) to get the job well done. I have made real contributions to my field and I am a published author in my field (including articles, a chapter in a textbook, and a textbook). I have founded and directed an institution that benefits hundreds of trainees in my field. I relate friendly to people at work from the most humble janitor to the most powerful administrator. This extends to my personal friends too - I have had parties at home that had in the list of invitees people of all races and economic status, from a lady who is a maid in a hotel to CEOs of large local businesses. I'm convivial and loyal to my friends and always prompt to help them in case of need. My hobbies couldn't be more benign, listening to opera being the most important one. I try to refrain from polluting the environment as much as I can. I actively participate of the political life in my community, trying to steer people into fair and balanced actions to support our citizens in need.
> 
> Basically, I lead a more "Christian" life than that of many Christians (e.g., I have never seduced young boys like many Catholic priests have).


I am amazed at this self-proclamation of virtuosity.

Who actually told you that you lead an exemplary life?

Personally speaking, if ever I came across another person who stated these things about themselves (as above) I would be very sceptical.

As for your view that you lead a more Christian life than many Christians, what exactly do you mean by "many"?

Why have the Administrators of this Forum stood aside and allowed this nasty innuendo against the RC Church - implying that seducing young boys by Catholic priests is both common and endorsed by the authorities - to go unedited?


----------



## Almaviva

Andy Loochazee said:


> I am amazed at this self-proclamation of virtuosity.
> 
> Who actually told you that you lead an exemplary life?
> 
> Personally speaking, if ever I came across another person who stated these things about themselves (as above) I would be very sceptical.
> 
> As for your view that you lead a more Christian life than many Christians, what exactly do you mean by "many"?
> 
> Why have the Administrators of this Forum stood aside and allowed this nasty innuendo against the RC Church - implying that seducing young boys by Catholic priests is both common and endorsed by the authorities - to go unedited?


Sorry buddy, bait as much as you want, I'm not biting. Have a nice day.:tiphat:


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Almaviva said:


> Oh yeah, there are some problems that need to be fixed. For example - just a random example, don't think much of it...: multi-headed trolls - the kind of _agent provocateur_ who changes tactics over and over, and owns multiple registrations coming from the same cluster of IPs, with hit-and-run tactics: a violation of terms of service here, some baiting there... and then when challenged, disappears for a while and another head pops up... and so on and so forth. Sometimes we need more than one moderator to stop the abuse, as the multiple heads are spotted and the true nature of the hit and run emerges (such as, one moderator doesn't think much of a violation, but when alerted by another one that another head has just popped up, then it becomes clearer that it is a series of hits and runs). You see what I mean, Andy? Sounds familiar? Yep, the Internet is amazing, isn't it? Some trolls are so creative, I almost admire them.


Are you being fair, calling me a troll?

You are incorrect about my owning multiple registrations. What proof do you have? I would like to see it. What other regstration names do you believe I have?

When I'm away from my home, I use proxy IPs. I live in the UK, but I'm currently in Germany, and I'm using a proxy that lots of my colleagues have used. I have used various other proxies in the past from other venues.

I would imagine that other people use proxies as it's a safer and often more reliable way of getting on line, where a password is involved, than using the wi-fi available in hotels, cafes etc.


----------



## Almaviva

Andy Loochazee said:


> Are you being fair, calling me a troll?
> 
> You are incorrect about my owning multiple registrations. What proof do you have? I would like to see it. What other regstration names do you believe I have?
> 
> When I'm away from my home, I use proxy IPs. I live in the UK, but I'm currently in Germany, and I'm using a proxy that lots of my colleagues have used. I have used various other proxies in the past from other venues.
> 
> I would imagine that other people use proxies as it's a safer and often more reliable way of getting on line, where a password is involved, than using the wi-fi available in hotels, cafes etc.


What? Did I call you a troll??
Did I say anything about *you* having multiple registrations, Andy?
Why are you taking this upon yourself? Why do you feel the need to explain all that? Strange... 
Read again, buddy, I was talking about a random example... something that experienced Internet people like you may be familiar with. It's an amazing network, isn't it?
There are all sorts of creative people out there. Yep!
Again, have the nicest of nicest days, and good bye now. It's getting late in my corner of the woods.
Oh, and I repeat, I wish you the nicest of nicest of days. Don't let your wife work too hard.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Almaviva said:


> Sorry buddy, bait as much as you want, I'm not biting. Have a nice day.:tiphat:


I don't see why you think I'm "baiting". I am simply passing comment on your views, which I find disagreeable.


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> At the end of the day I'd only suggest - _it is possible _you asked God to create you, but you just don't currently remember. It seems 'forgetting' what was before this is a prerequisite to coming here. Secondly, from the context we are in it may seem 'stupid' and pointless etc. But again I would just suggest hold on to the possibility that there is something of value to be gained in this experience, and that perhaps there really is a far better place beyond our imagination that exists.
> 
> For example if maybe we all were in training to become 'gods' of sorts of our own - to be able to create our own worlds etc. Don't you think some lessons may have to be learned first, before a 'God' just hands us over the keys to do anything we choose?


The asking before birth/Gods after death are both interesting ideas, but I was speaking of the Christian God, and there are are no hints in the Bible that either of those are the case. According to the Bible, the ultimate prize after death is that you are allowed to worship and fawn over God forever.

Yes, from my context, aka what reality is as far as I am able to discern from my surroundings and what I know, God's plan is pointless. It is certainly possible that in the grand scope of things, beyond my context, that there is a bigger picture - but I am unwilling to make the leap of faith that Christianity is that picture, or that Islam is that picture, or that Judaism is that picture without further, concrete information allowing preferential selection of one faith over another. Some people, such as yourself and Dr.Mike are willing to make such a leap (and the particular faith selected to leap into is highly correlated with geography and family's beliefs), but others of us realize that such faith-based arguments not rooted in logic or evidence (such as personal revelation, feelings, or miracles) are _the one thing common to every religion_. You really think the 13 million (to reference an earlier number) or so Muslims don't feel powerful religion conviction when they circle the Kaaba during Hajj? The facts are:

1. Millions of both Christians and Muslims claim to experience divine religious feeling reassuring them of their faiths; they both claim personal relationships with deities. 
2. Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive faiths: Jesus is the _only_ way to heaven, which directly conflicts with the teaching that Allah is the One True Undivided God. 
3. In light of (2) it is an indisputable fact that either the Christians are wrong, or that the Muslims are wrong, or that both are wrong.
4. In light of (1), we know at LEAST one of these groups, representing about 1 billion people apiece, are having totally false and delusional religious experiences. 
5. In light of (4), we conclude that it is a certainty that false and delusional religious feelings are very common in humans.

This succinctly invalidates all arguments from personal experiences, feelings, inspirations, etc, because there is no way of knowing whether they are simple delusions. We are then left with the physical evidence and logical proofs. The only physical thing of substance either religion offers are books filled with authors relating their own personal experiences and feelings. These books also contain contradictions, scientific inaccuracies, and theology that doesn't stand up to logical examination.

On this basis, I've been unable to adopt any single religion. I'd be interested in hearing why you (or anybody else) are Christian and not Muslim. I'm not asking why you have belief: I'm asking why you're the adherent of a particular belief out of so many.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Almaviva said:


> What? Did I call you a troll??
> Did I say anything about *you* having multiple registrations, Andy?
> Why are you taking this upon yourself? Why do you feel the need to explain all that? Strange...
> Read again, buddy, I was talking about a random example... something that experienced Internet people like you may be familiar with. It's an amazing network, isn't it?
> There are all sorts of creative people out there. Yep!
> Again, have the nicest of nicest days, and good bye now. It's getting late in my corner of the woods.
> Oh, and I repeat, I wish you the nicest of nicest of days. Don't let your wife work too hard.


I think that any reasonable person reading your post to which I replied would infer that you consider me to be a troll with multiple registrations. I am not a troll, and I do not have multiple registrations. If you care to look back at my previous involvement, I think you'll find that I hardly fit the description of "troll". I haven't posted anything for several months because I hardly find anything worth commenting upon, as it's all usually material that's been done many times previously


----------



## Couchie

Andy Loochazee said:


> Why have the Administrators of this Forum stood aside and allowed this nasty innuendo against the RC Church - implying that seducing young boys by Catholic priests is both common and endorsed by the authorities - to go unedited?


I would like to think that it's because the terms of service of this site states that although its members may not be personally attacked, it says nothing of criticizing religion. However, the way things are going, they might as well clear the air and add it. I don't like people who mock religion or its adherents, but the idea that religion is above criticism is such a dangerous one.

As an aside, it is well-known that more than a few priests have molested young children, and consulting any major newspaper or journal will tell you that church's response (even that of the Pope himself) has been widely criticized for not doing enough about it. So I don't know why you're so up in arms as if the idea is some unimaginable blasphemy against the church.


----------



## peeyaj

The thread is going nowhere.  Mods, I trust your judgment, if you want to lock the thread. People can't seem to be civil with each other.  :'(


----------



## Rasa

And this is what distasteful OPs lead to.


----------



## jhar26

peeyaj said:


> The thread is going nowhere.  Mods, I trust your judgment, if you want to lock the thread. People can't seem to be civil with each other.  :'(


Each time a thread of a political or religious nature gets posted we know WW III is about to break out. We could I suppose outlaw threads of this nature, which would definitely make this a more peaceful place. On the other hand, it could also be argued that this wouldn't be fair towards well intentionned members interested in discussing those topics. But in allowing those topics to be discussed we all know the risk that things will get overheated, people will sometimes missunderstand each other and members who get along perfectly when discussing Bach or Mozart will take a dislike to each other when they find out that the other guy is a leftie or a conservative, or a believer or non-believer. And take my word for it - threads of this nature nearly always put mods in a no win situation because no matter what a mod's ruling is on any given post there will always be someone who doesn't agree and think that said rulings are influenced by our own opinions about religion or politics. Do we get it wrong sometimes? Could be. We're human so we're not perfect. But we're doing the best we can on what in particularly these type of threads is not exactly the easiest job in the world.


----------



## peeyaj

Rasa said:


> And this is what distasteful OPs lead to.


In what way my opening post was distasteful? I said what were in my thoughts regarding religion and I have spoken my heart truthfully. Is speaking my own thoughts about my deconversion, distasteful enough for your own taste? I'm very conflicted in the first few weeks of being an Atheist.. I haven't said a word to my family, because, frankly, they would skin me to death. Living your 18 years of life, full of charade and lies is an agonizing experience.

Like I said, if someone convinced me rationally on getting back to religion, I would go back. But seeing the Theist' arguments here in the board, I don't think I would.


----------



## peeyaj

jhar26 said:


> Each time a thread of a political or religious nature gets posted we know WW III is about to break out. We could I suppose outlaw threads of this nature, which would definitely make this a more peaceful place. On the other hand, it could also be argued that this wouldn't be fair towards well intentionned members interested in discussing those topics. But in allowing those topics to be discussed we all know the risk that things will get overheated, people will sometimes missunderstand each other and members who get along perfectly when discussing Bach or Mozart will take a dislike to each other when they find out that the other guy is a leftie or a conservative, or a believer or non-believer. And take my word for it - threads of this nature nearly always put mods in a no win situation because no matter what a mod's ruling is on any given post there will always be someone who doesn't agree and think that said rulings are influenced by our own opinions about religion or politics. Do we get it wrong sometimes? Could be. We're human so we're not perfect. But we're doing the best we can on what in particularly these type of threads is not exactly the easiest job in the world.


Thank you for the very erudite reply. Some of the posts here especially by Chris, Couchi, Almaviva, and Harp, are really thoughtful and intelligent. These posts are all gems and shows the vast intellectual diversity of TC's members which are very heart-warming. I think, if we could just respect each other opinions, this thread will become one of the better ones in TC. Frankly, its fun reading the intellectual debate of TC's members..


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Elgarian, religion is more than just a lifestyle. I'm sure you know that but were kindly pointing out the difference as the source of debate and misunderstanding as seen in this thread.


The quotation you picked out, HC, was offered in reference to one particular point that Alamaviva raised concerning my earlier posts. It wasn't intended to stand alone, but in reference to points I'd made earlier about pragmatism, faith, and intellectual discussion. Anyone who takes the trouble to read all of them (#171, 181, 195 and 211) should, I think, be clear about my meaning, and would be entirely reassured that I _don't_ suggest that religion is 'just a lifestyle'.

Enough on this. Over and out.


----------



## TxllxT

Being neither atheist nor religious (both I consider to be philosophical self-projections) I just listen to the words spoken, whether they are being accompanied by humour or not. Rowan Atkinson did this classic sketch on hell:




To both the atheists and religious minded I would like to say: are you still able to laugh at yourself?


----------



## Couchie

jhar26 said:


> Each time a thread of a political or religious nature gets posted we know WW III is about to break out. We could I suppose outlaw threads of this nature, which would definitely make this a more peaceful place. On the other hand, it could also be argued that this wouldn't be fair towards well intentionned members interested in discussing those topics. But in allowing those topics to be discussed we all know the risk that things will get overheated, people will sometimes missunderstand each other and members who get along perfectly when discussing Bach or Mozart will take a dislike to each other when they find out that the other guy is a leftie or a conservative, or a believer or non-believer. And take my word for it - threads of this nature nearly always put mods in a no win situation because no matter what a mod's ruling is on any given post there will always be someone who doesn't agree and think that said rulings are influenced by our own opinions about religion or politics. Do we get it wrong sometimes? Could be. We're human so we're not perfect. But we're doing the best we can on what in particularly these type of threads is not exactly the easiest job in the world.


This is true, and I've never seen a forum where religious and political discussion doesn't take place - people LOVE to discuss such things online because such discussions are so taboo is real life. If there aren't a couple of threads dedicated to religion/politics, then the discussion takes place off-topic in threads where it shouldn't be. And this way, anybody who does not wish to partake in the discussion can simply choose to not click on the link.


----------



## Chris

Couchie said:


> Yes, from my context, aka what reality is as far as I am able to discern from my surroundings and what I know, God's plan is pointless. It is certainly possible that in the grand scope of things, beyond my context, that there is a bigger picture


The big picture is that everything exists for the glory of God, and the reason for the plan of redemption through the sacrifice of Christ is that God is glorified more through redemption than through creation.



Couchie said:


> 1. Millions of both Christians and Muslims claim to experience divine religious feeling reassuring them of their faiths; they both claim personal relationships with deities.
> 2. Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive faiths: Jesus is the _only_ way to heaven, which directly conflicts with the teaching that Allah is the One True Undivided God.
> 3. In light of (2) it is an indisputable fact that either the Christians are wrong, or that the Muslims are wrong, or that both are wrong.
> 4. In light of (1), we know at LEAST one of these groups, representing about 1 billion people apiece, are having totally false and delusional religious experiences.
> 5. In light of (4), we conclude that it is a certainty that false and delusional religious feelings are very common in humans.
> 
> This succinctly invalidates all arguments from personal experiences, feelings, inspirations, etc, because there is no way of knowing whether they are simple delusions.


You are making too much of feelings. I have been reading a book of sermons by the great baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon. He regularly told his congregation to pay no attention to their feelings but to believe the promises in the written word. He told his people that if they exercised repentance and believed in Christ as their Saviour their sins were forgiven even if they felt absolutely nothing.



Couchie said:


> We are then left with the physical evidence and logical proofs. The only physical thing of substance either religion offers are *books filled with authors relating their own personal experiences and feelings.*


There may be biographical works with this sort of thing but most Christian books (decent ones, I mean) are about applying the Bible to current situations, arguing doctrinal positions, expounding the Bible verse by verse, that sort of thing. There are plenty of books which seek to answer the sort of questions and logical conundrums which have been posed on this thread. Little of my reading deals with people's inner experiences and feelings.



Couchie said:


> These books also contain contradictions, scientific inaccuracies, and theology that doesn't stand up to logical examination.


That depends who is doing the examining


----------



## Chris

TxllxT said:


> Being neither atheist nor religious (both I consider to be philosophical self-projections) I just listen to the words spoken, whether they are being accompanied by humour or not. Rowan Atkinson did this classic sketch on hell:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To both the atheists and religious minded I would like to say: are you still able to laugh at yourself?


I didn't laugh at myself, but I did laugh. Saul would love the bit about the Jews.


----------



## Chris

peeyaj said:


> In what way my opening post was distasteful? I said what were in my thoughts regarding religion and I have spoken my heart truthfully. Is speaking my own thoughts about my deconversion, distasteful enough for your own taste? I'm very conflicted in the first few weeks of being an Atheist.. I haven't said a word to my family, because, frankly, they would skin me to death. Living your 18 years of life, full of charade and lies is an agonizing experience.
> 
> Like I said, if someone convinced me rationally on getting back to religion, I would go back. But seeing the Theist' arguments here in the board, I don't think I would.


I agree there is nothing wrong with the original post. If you have become embittered with what you have been brought up with, better to say it straight and from the heart.


----------



## Couchie

Chris said:


> The big picture is that everything exists for the glory of God, and the reason for the plan of redemption through the sacrifice of Christ is that God is glorified more through redemption than through creation.


Slime mold and herpes exist for the glory of God? 
And I am wary of any God that needs to be glorified by human torture and sacrifice.



Chris said:


> You are making too much of feelings. I have been reading a book of sermons by the great baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon. He regularly told his congregation to pay no attention to their feelings but to believe the promises in the written word. He told his people that if they exercised repentance and believed in Christ as their Saviour their sins were forgiven even if they felt absolutely nothing.


Fair enough. But it my experience, many Christians feel that feeling is the most import aspect of their faith, and tout that until you've made a personal connection with God you won't understand where they're coming from with the whole blind faith thing. People who can't tell the difference between praying to God and praying to their ceiling generally stop bothering fairly quickly.



Chris said:


> There may be biographical works with this sort of thing but most Christian books (decent ones, I mean) are about applying the Bible to current situations, arguing doctrinal positions, expounding the Bible verse by verse, that sort of thing. There are plenty of books which seek to answer the sort of questions and logical conundrums which have been posed on this thread. Little of my reading deals with people's inner experiences and feelings.
> 
> That depends who is doing the examining


I think it'd be very interesting and good for this thread if you would share some such arguments from these books with us. There are after all books arguing every viewpoint about everything ever argued.


----------



## Chris

Couchie said:


> Slime mold and herpes exist for the glory of God?
> And I am wary of any God that needs to be glorified by human torture and sacrifice.


I think I have been guilty of over-summarisation with that 'everything'. If I go out and hit an old lady over the head and steal her pension I have hardly glorified God. Although...come to think of it...if I am forgiven for it, God is glorified in his mercy and Christ is glorified in his grace in suffering the penalty due to that sin on the cross. Had I been an unsaved person, God would have been glorified in his justice when he condemned me.
Slime mould most certainly glorifies God. The July 2009 Field Mycologist magazine had an article on British slime moulds which held me spellbound. The metamorphic lifecycle of these living things is like nothing else and I found myself praising the heavenly Designer as I read.



Couchie said:


> Fair enough. But it my experience, many Christians feel that feeling is the most import aspect of their faith, and tout that until you've made a personal connection with God you won't understand where they're coming from with the whole blind faith thing. People who can't tell the difference between praying to God and praying to their ceiling generally stop bothering fairly quickly.


I know what you mean. Most of these folk tend to congregate in what are known as Charismatic churches. I have little contact with them. I can assure you there are slightly more hard headed believers to be found.



Couchie said:


> I think it'd be very interesting and good for this thread if you would share some such arguments from these books with us. There are after all books arguing every viewpoint about everything ever argued.


I will try, as far as my brontosauran typing speed allows. How Almaviva and others generate enormous posts seemingly in no time at all strikes me dumb. Are these people professional pianists, approaching the computer keyboard like Mikhail Pletnev at his favourite Steinway?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Chris said:


> Are these people professional pianists, approaching the computer keyboard like Mikhail Pletnev at his favourite Steinway?


Pletnev huh? I had almost forgotten this was a music forum.

But it appears to me as if you are deciding what glorifies god and what does not?


----------



## Chris

emiellucifuge said:


> Pletnev huh? I had almost forgotten this was a music forum.
> 
> But it appears to me as if you are deciding what glorifies god and what does not?


I think I am saying that God is glorified in everything he does, and in particular in how he deals with sin.


----------



## kmisho

I am tired of the usual run of religious words so I've decided to invent some new ones. We'll start with this one:

glorified = specialnated


----------



## dmg

The whole concept of 'God' just doesn't make any sense to me. The more biblical text one quotes and the more interpretations one recites, the more nonsensical it gets. Same with the concepts of 'sin' and 'hell'. All interpretations of those concepts come across as nothing more than babbling gibberish. It makes just as much sense to me as a witchdoctor throwing some bones on the ground and mumbling something about channeling spirits and reading the future. None whatsoever.


----------



## Chris

kmisho said:


> I am tired of the usual run of religious words so I've decided to invent some new ones. We'll start with this one:
> 
> glorified = specialnated


I'm not sure 'specialnated' quite does justice to the pictures in the book of Revelation of endless praise being offered to God.


----------



## Almaviva

Andy Loochazee said:


> I think that any reasonable person reading your post to which I replied would infer that you consider me to be a troll with multiple registrations. I am not a troll, and I do not have multiple registrations. If you care to look back at my previous involvement, I think you'll find that I hardly fit the description of "troll". I haven't posted anything for several months because I hardly find anything worth commenting upon, as it's all usually material that's been done many times previously


Yeah, yeah, right. Sure. Have a nice day.:tiphat:


----------



## kmisho

Chris said:


> I'm not sure 'specialnated' quite does justice to the pictures in the book of Revelation of endless praise being offered to God.


If there were only God, there would be no glory. At least I doubt he would sit around glorifying himself. Or if he did, it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. I for one wouldn't glorify a God who glorifies himself but would instead hold it against him. So to glorify is to make special only if the special-making is not done by the object thus special-ized. And since the word specialized is already taken and means something else, I went with specialnated. It seems to capture the essence quite well.


----------



## Chris

kmisho said:


> If there were only God, there would be no glory. At least I doubt he would sit around glorifying himself. Or if he did, it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. I for one wouldn't glorify a God who glorifies himself but would instead hold it against him. So to glorify is to make special only if the special-making is not done by the object thus special-ized. And since the word specialized is already taken and means something else, I went with specialnated. It seems to capture the essence quite well.


Not sure I have totally grasped what you are saying but you may be anthropomorphising God a bit too much. Are you thinking of something like Reginald in the G&S opera Patience, who spends his time looking in a mirror and descanting on his own perfection? I agree that is an unattractive picture. But there is a doctrine of God's 'essential glory' (that is, the glory which he has in himself and is independent of whether his creation is praising him or not) from which follows the doctrine that God is entirely self-satisfied. This is not as outrageous as it might sound. Since God is absolute perfection he can be nothing other than self-satisfied. Anything other would be a lie, and thus sin.

More generally, people have sometimes had problems with the idea of God being praised at all. The writer Augustus Hare was a religious man who conducted household prayers every morning. Somerset Maugham was present at one of these occasions, and noticed that Hare's Book of Common Prayer had lines inked out. Maugham asked why. 
"I've crossed out all the passages in glorification of God," said Hare. "God is certainly a gentleman, and no gentleman cares to be praised to his face." 
I think he was sadly mistaken. God is not a 'gentleman' but the supreme being whose perfection must be praised, because that is what truth and righteousness demand.


----------



## kmisho

Chris said:


> Not sure I have totally grasped what you are saying but you may be anthropomorphising God a bit too much. Are you thinking of something like Reginald in the G&S opera Patience, who spends his time looking in a mirror and descanting on his own perfection? I agree that is an unattractive picture. But there is a doctrine of God's 'essential glory' (that is, the glory which he has in himself and is independent of whether his creation is praising him or not) from which follows the doctrine that God is entirely self-satisfied. This is not as outrageous as it might sound. Since God is absolute perfection he can be nothing other than self-satisfied. Anything other would be a lie, and thus sin.
> 
> More generally, people have sometimes had problems with the idea of God being praised at all. The writer Augustus Hare was a religious man who conducted household prayers every morning. Somerset Maugham was present at one of these occasions, and noticed that Hare's Book of Common Prayer had lines inked out. Maugham asked why.
> "I've crossed out all the passages in glorification of God," said Hare. "God is certainly a gentleman, and no gentleman cares to be praised to his face."
> I think he was sadly mistaken. God is not a 'gentleman' but the supreme being whose perfection must be praised, because that is what truth and righteousness demand.


You're a fine one for making accusations. I may as well say it. Post after post you try to have your cake and eat it to. There are so many conflicts in the claims you make that erasing them would leave you with nothing. I know you see yourself as a warrior for God, or else you would not feel so compelled to go on and on about it. The almost-hysterical tenor of your conflicting defenses indicate that the main target of your commentary is yourself.


----------



## Chris

kmisho said:


> You're a fine one for making accusations. I may as well say it. Post after post you try to have your cake and eat it to. There are so many conflicts in the claims you make that erasing them would leave you with nothing. I know you see yourself as a warrior for God, or else you would not feel so compelled to go on and on about it. The almost-hysterical tenor of your conflicting defenses indicate that the main target of your commentary is yourself.


beg pardon  I didn't think I was making accusations. I suppose I am 'going on and on' but that's what happens in a discussion. I am surprised I come across as 'almost hysterical'...I thought I was like Mycroft in the Sherlock Holmes books, the chap who has to be prised out of his favourite armchair at the club. I wish I had some of the animation of spirit you imply.


----------



## Guest

kmisho said:


> You're a fine one for making accusations. I may as well say it. Post after post you try to have your cake and eat it to. There are so many conflicts in the claims you make that erasing them would leave you with nothing. I know you see yourself as a warrior for God, or else you would not feel so compelled to go on and on about it. The almost-hysterical tenor of your conflicting defenses indicate that the main target of your commentary is yourself.



Where on earth did that come from? Did you click the wrong post to quote? Because I'm not sure what part of Chris' posts have been anywhere near hysterical. Could you please elaborate?


----------



## starthrower

Chris, can you recommend any good books on the history of the bible? Something that chronicles the preservation, translation, and ultimate compilation that exists today. I'm also interested in the decision making process that determined which books were included, and which ones were left out, and who had the power? Thanks!


----------



## Chris

starthrower said:


> Chris, can you recommend any good books on the history of the bible? Something that chronicles the preservation, translation, and ultimate compilation that exists today. I'm also interested in the decision making process that determined which books were included, and which ones were left out, and who had the power? Thanks!


I'll get back to you on this Starthrower, I think the stuff on my shelves is largely out of print


----------



## starthrower

Chris said:


> I'll get back to you on this Starthrower, I think the stuff on my shelves is largely out of print


I'd still be interested. We have a pretty good library system here. Thanks!


----------



## science

I've got your back, starthrower.

- Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible - I would recommend starting here
- Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus - critical point of view
- Pelikan, Whose Bible is It? - the greatest historian of theology who ever wrote in English
- Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 1 - great summary of the theology behind the process
- Bruce, The Canon of Scripture - popular with Evangelical Christians
- Chadwick, The Early Church - something like a classic

I haven't read Ehrman or Bruce, so I make those recommendations on reputation alone. The Pelikan is a bit wordy, but if you're willing to read slowly and unpack his sentences, there is no one better.

Edit: On the Church history front, if you're willing to see great scholarship blend with Eastern Orthodox Christian faith, St. Vladimir's Seminary has a series called "The Church in History." The best book seems to be Meyendorff's on 450-680, but Kesich's volume "Formation and Struggles" is more relevant to this question. I wish I'd read it, because I suspect it would be better than Chadwick....


----------



## starthrower

Thanks for the suggestions! I actually read Ehrman's book a few years ago but I'm drawing a blank on many of the details. I'll have to revisit.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> I have been reading a book of sermons by the great baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon. He regularly told his congregation to pay no attention to their feelings but to believe the promises in the written word. He told his people that if they exercised repentance and believed in Christ as their Saviour their sins were forgiven even if they felt absolutely nothing.


I would have liked to meet this great preacher you admire. His advice was no more than attempts at asking his audience to be "brain-dead"/in suspension of reasoning while he orated the written words.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I would have liked to meet this great preacher you admire. His advice was no more than attempts at asking his audience to be "brain-dead"/in suspension of reasoning while he orated the written words.


Quite the opposite. He was telling them to use their reasoning faculties and not trust their emotions. People were saying 'I have trusted what I read in the Bible and I have asked God to forgive my sins and believe in Christ as my saviour, but having done so I don't feel any different'. Spurgeon was urging them to trust the scriptural promises rather than their feelings.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> Quite the opposite. He was telling them to use their reasoning faculties and not trust their emotions. People were saying 'I have trusted what I read in the Bible and I have asked God to forgive my sins and believe in Christ as my saviour, but having done so I don't feel any different'. Spurgeon was urging them to trust the scriptural promises rather than their feelings.


:lol: The usual 360 degrees full circle. I'm beginning to get dizzy.


----------



## science

Certainly the 19th century preachers on the whole trusted the intellect more than 20th century preachers have been able to. There was also a moral seriousness in Anglo-American culture that has been degraded a bit - with both good and bad results. I don't know that Spurgeon himself meets these generalizations.

But in the late 19th century it all fell apart, and intellectually Anglo-American Christianity has been on the defensive from that point.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: The usual 360 degrees full circle. I'm beginning to get dizzy.


 I am bewildered. What is the problem with the C.H. Spurgeon posts? Spurgeon said 'Trust the promises, not your feelings'. I can't see any contradiction between the posts.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> I am bewildered. What is the problem with the C.H. Spurgeon posts? Spurgeon said 'Trust the promises, not your feelings'. I can't see any contradiction between the posts.


In blue font quoted above: "trust the promises".


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> In blue font quoted above: "trust the promises".


Sorry, I've stared at the blue bits and I can't see the problem. Maybe I've been up too long, it's coming up to midnight here.

I hope this doesn't keep me awake. Goodnight all.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

It's no nightmare for me. I'm brewing my English breakfast tea, and seeing the beautiful blue sky outside of my window and being very thankful I live in a peaceful and beautiful city. (It's Friday morning here, right now).


----------



## Almaviva

peeyaj said:


> The thread is going nowhere.  Mods, I trust your judgment, if you want to lock the thread. People can't seem to be civil with each other.  :'(


Nah, peeyaj, this thread is going OK. There was a trolling attempt but nobody engaged with the troll, who then left. If he/she comes back, we'll deal with him,her.


----------



## Almaviva

kmisho said:


> You're a fine one for making accusations. I may as well say it. Post after post you try to have your cake and eat it to. There are so many conflicts in the claims you make that erasing them would leave you with nothing. I know you see yourself as a warrior for God, or else you would not feel so compelled to go on and on about it. The almost-hysterical tenor of your conflicting defenses indicate that the main target of your commentary is yourself.


No, no, no. This is not nice. Over here we discuss with civility and we don't engage in personal attacks or ad-homs. Please don't derail the thread. By the way, when I mentioned a troll above, I wasn't referring to you. But still, I need you to use a move civil tone. Thanks.


----------



## science

If possible, I'd like to change the nature of the discussion. 

What, in your view, is the meaning of life? Like, why do you matter? Why do your actions and character matter? Why does your life have value, significance? Is it compatible with atheism, or indifferent to a/theism, or does atheism enhance it? 

This is really a deep, personal question for me. Since I lost my faith, I've felt the "meaning" of my life to be a much more tenuous thing, a kind of challenge. It would be easy to slip into simple hedonism, but unfulfilling. So I find that I have to try harder to be a good person, to make a positive difference in the world, than I felt I had to when I was a believer - not that I was a jerk then, necessarily. Just that it is harder now. And when I first lost my faith, I was really, really depressed for a few months because I couldn't answer this question convincingly for a long time. I still miss the challenge of Eastern Orthodox Christian spirituality, sometimes rather sharply, and wish I had a stronger introspective tradition to replace it with.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I believe the meaning of life for most organisms is the struggle for survival, and to propagate your genetic material.

As this is no longer such a challenge for humans, we can just have fun I suppose.


----------



## Rasa

The meaning of life is a human construct. Life just happens. 

Survival is not meaning. It's simply the reason we're here (reason, not implying a goal). It's logical for organisms that have a mechanism to surive that they will over those that don't.

Most organisms don't "struggle", since they don't have a strain of tought.


----------



## science

I wonder if your answers would be different if I asked, what is _your_ purpose, or the purpose of _your_ life? Subjectively, how do you legitimize your existence? What makes you and your actions, your thoughts, your experiences, your deeds significant? What gives them value?


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> If possible, I'd like to change the nature of the discussion.
> 
> What, in your view, is the meaning of life? Like, why do you matter? Why do your actions and character matter? Why does your life have value, significance?


Since this is an entirely different question (and one that deeply interests me), I'd like to respond to it (despite having extricated myself from the atheism v Christianity battleground).

Perception, one might say, is the crucial issue. It's not so much a matter of what the facts are, as the way we see them - bottle half full, or half empty - that sort of thing. It seems to me that how we 'read' the universe is a matter of choice. On the one hand we can choose to see the universe as so vast, and so indifferent to us and our concerns, and consequently feel so appallingly insignificant, as to get depressed and feel as if nothing matters.

But there's another way of looking at it, one that fills it with meaning (if we choose to take it) that's independent of religious belief (or lack of it). In the course of the last 14 billion years or so, the universe has evolved in the most astonishing and complicated ways. Matter itself (whatever 'matter' is) - even time itself (whatever 'time' is) - has come into being. Galaxies have swirled into existence. Stars have been formed, and have died. Planets too. And at the end of this 14 billion year extravaganza, on a tiny planet, nowhere special, a bunch of people called humans stand up and look around and ask 'what's all this about then?' And if we fine tune this, and zoom really close right into the here and now, we find someone who calls himself 'Elgarian' responding to a question about the meaning of life posed by someone who calls himself 'science' on an internet forum. And we don't understand very much about our predicament, you and I; and we don't know what's going to happen from this moment; but we _do_ know that it's in our hands. Here and now, we're at the cutting edge of the entire 14-billion-year Universe Development Project, and it all comes right down to this: _what happens next depends on us._


----------



## Rasa

science said:


> I wonder if your answers would be different if I asked, what is _your_ purpose, or the purpose of _your_ life? Subjectively, how do you legitimize your existence? What makes you and your actions, your thoughts, your experiences, your deeds significant? What gives them value?


 Ofcourse the answer is different. But there is a distinction between why my purpose in life is and wether my being around is legitimate/valuable.

I think here we can touch on a core idea of humanism: It is up to ourselves to make the best of it. While there is no intricate legitimacy to it, we can try to have a pleasant time at it while we're here. Do what we enjoy, meet who we want to meet etc. Doing the opposite would be illogical.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> I wonder if your answers would be different if I asked, what is _your_ purpose, or the purpose of _your_ life? Subjectively, how do you legitimize your existence? What makes you and your actions, your thoughts, your experiences, your deeds significant? What gives them value?


To increase the number of classical music CDs/DVDs I own in my collection. One by one.


----------



## Rasa

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> To increase the number of classical music CDs/DVDs I own in my collection. One by one.


Righteous shout.


----------



## peeyaj

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> To increase the number of classical music CDs/DVDs I own in my collection. One by one.


I'm more techie than HC! To digitalize my music with flac and fill up my 1TB hdd of Schubert's music. That's my purpose.


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> To increase the number of classical music CDs/DVDs I own in my collection. One by one.


Such a trivial answer. Life is fleeting! You should be buying them at least 2 or 3 at a time!


----------



## science

peeyaj said:


> I'm more techie than HC! To digitalize my music with flac and fill up my 1TB hdd of Schubert's music. That's my purpose.


A terabyte!? Dear Lord! It would take ten years to listen to it all once!

Edit: I take it back. I looked up "flac" as I hadn't heard of it before, and it turns out that I'm wrong. You could probably listen to a terabyte of that in a year. Innarestin'.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Rasa said:


> The meaning of life is a human construct. Life just happens.
> 
> Survival is not meaning. It's simply the reason we're here (reason, not implying a goal). It's logical for organisms that have a mechanism to surive that they will over those that don't.
> 
> Most organisms don't "struggle", since they don't have a strain of tought.


All the actions an organism undertakes are taken with the intention of surviving, so there is definitely a purpose.

This is often very hard with a lot of competition for natural resources, breeding partners, predation, disease etc... so It is safe to say that survival is indeed a struggle for most.


----------



## Rasa

Plants do not have intent.


----------



## peeyaj

@science

FLAC is the holy grail of an audiophile's digital music. You should try it. The only problem is size. A minute of encoded .flac easily tops 5mb. Schubert's Winterriese is 400mb, when encoded to highest quality .flac format.

Back to topic!


----------



## Chris

starthrower said:


> Chris, can you recommend any good books on the history of the bible? Something that chronicles the preservation, translation, and ultimate compilation that exists today. I'm also interested in the decision making process that determined which books were included, and which ones were left out, and who had the power? Thanks!


Just two to add to Science's list:

Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, edited by Don Kistler (Soli Deo Gloria Ministries 1997). It is actually a collection of essays by various evangelical bigwigs. There are reviews on Amazon (including one critical review written in Latin!):

http://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Protestant-Position-Reformation/dp/1573580287

The Word of Truth: Scripture - its Origin, Sufficiency and Relevance by Robert Sheehan (Evangelical Press 1998). I am not sure about the availability of this. It is listed on various sites but not the publisher's website.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Rasa said:


> Plants do not have intent.


Then why do their stems grow up and their roots grow down?


----------



## Rasa

Because if at one point a mutation would happen where it's turned around it would vansih because of the conditions of it's surroundings.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Rasa said:


> Because if at one point a mutation would happen where it's turned around it would vansih because of the conditions of it's surroundings.


You're right.

I interpret this as a purpose. You dont.


----------



## kmisho

DrMike said:


> Where on earth did that come from? Did you click the wrong post to quote? Because I'm not sure what part of Chris' posts have been anywhere near hysterical. Could you please elaborate?


The endless series of accusations that switch between various conflicting perspectives depending on which one is most effective at the moment reeks of a mentality desperately trying to keep intact a foundation that's coming apart at the seams. I thought it was quite obvious.


----------



## kmisho

Almaviva said:


> No, no, no. This is not nice. Over here we discuss with civility and we don't engage in personal attacks or ad-homs. Please don't derail the thread. By the way, when I mentioned a troll above, I wasn't referring to you. But still, I need you to use a move civil tone. Thanks.


You are simply being fooled by a practiced surface civility that is in fact insulting.


----------



## kmisho

emiellucifuge said:


> You're right.
> 
> I interpret this as a purpose. You dont.


And all interpretations are equally valid. So we can all be right and all be wrong at the same time.


----------



## Guest

kmisho said:


> The endless series of accusations that switch between various conflicting perspectives depending on which one is most effective at the moment reeks of a mentality desperately trying to keep intact a foundation that's coming apart at the seams. I thought it was quite obvious.


I think the biggest problem is that all the questioning and answering is trying to explain some Christian doctrines in a piecemeal fashion. Take any single point, and it is very difficult to simply answer the question - hence when someone questions one point that Chris makes, he then needs to go into further detail, which might seem like he is constantly shifting his explanations. But to people who have a lengthy background in Christianity, it is not quite as confusing.

Whether you believe in its validity or not, Christianity is not a simplistic religion. The basics can be simply stated, but to delve into specifics, as so many people are asking of Chris, requires more than what can be neatly compressed into a posting on an internet forum. I don't think the flaws in Chris' explanations come from the doctrines themselves, rather from the noble attempt to try to explain complex issues succinctly to an audience that doesn't necessarily have the same background understanding of those doctrines. In other words, things get lost in translation.


----------



## Almaviva

kmisho said:


> You are simply being fooled by a practiced surface civility that is in fact insulting.


Please read your PM that I just sent you.
And I'm not being fooled by anything. If you read the previous posts in this thread you'll see that I have also reacted strongly to one of the user's statements. However I did that, unlike you, without engaging in personal attacks. That's the difference.


----------



## dmg

'Purpose' is a man-made concept. Things do not have inherent purpose unless we give it to them. They just 'are' or 'are not'. Likewise people don't serve a purpose unless they give one to themselves. And if you create a 'God', give that 'God' the ability to assign purpose, and have that 'God' assign purpose to you, you're still assigning purpose to yourself - you're just going about it the long way.


----------



## Rasa

dmg said:


> 'Purpose' is a man-made concept. Things do not have inherent purpose unless we give it to them. They just 'are' or 'are not'. Likewise people don't serve a purpose unless they give one to themselves. And if you create a 'God', give that 'God' the ability to assign purpose, and have that 'God' assign purpose to you, you're still assigning purpose to yourself - you're just going about it the long way.


this +1...


----------



## Guest

dmg said:


> 'Purpose' is a man-made concept. Things do not have inherent purpose unless we give it to them. They just 'are' or 'are not'. Likewise people don't serve a purpose unless they give one to themselves. And if you create a 'God', give that 'God' the ability to assign purpose, and have that 'God' assign purpose to you, you're still assigning purpose to yourself - you're just going about it the long way.


Unless, of course, God already existed, created us, and imbued purpose in us.


----------



## dmg

Which isn't the case. The concept of 'God' is so completely absurd without any observable evidence of existence to the point that it isn't even considered.


----------



## starthrower

Chris said:


> Just two to add to Science's list:
> 
> Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, edited by Don Kistler (Soli Deo Gloria Ministries 1997). It is actually a collection of essays by various evangelical bigwigs. There are reviews on Amazon (including one critical review written in Latin!):
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Sola-Scriptura-Protestant-Position-Reformation/dp/1573580287
> 
> The Word of Truth: Scripture - its Origin, Sufficiency and Relevance by Robert Sheehan (Evangelical Press 1998). I am not sure about the availability of this. It is listed on various sites but not the publisher's website.


OK, thanks to both of you for the suggestions. I'll add one title for those pondering the meaning of life. This is a great little book that can be read in a couple of days.

Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl


----------



## Serge

The concept of God IS a concept! I am not even sure if any evidence is needed to prove that.


----------



## Guest

dmg said:


> Which isn't the case. The concept of 'God' is so completely absurd without any observable evidence of existence to the point that it isn't even considered.


Why? Because you say so?

Maybe God is not a scientific concept for consideration, but certainly God is a philosophical and religious concept.

And I would ask what the audience is that finds the concept of God so completely absurd that he need not be considered? Would not the concept of cloning a sheep been considered absurd a few centuries ago? Or of flight? Or space travel? Or setting foot on the moon? Or the concept of black holes? Or the big bang? The concept that our universe began from a single point of infinitely small size and infinite mass? That still seems a bit fantastical to me.


----------



## starthrower

DrMike said:


> Why? Because you say so?
> 
> Maybe God is not a scientific concept for consideration, but certainly God is a philosophical and religious concept.


Exactly! Why does the "no evidence" factor keep popping up? Of course there's no evidence. God is not going to register on your spiritmeter. It's a matter of faith, not subject to scientific inquiry.


----------



## Guest

starthrower said:


> Exactly! Why does the "no evidence" factor keep popping up? Of course there's no evidence. God is not going to register on your spiritmeter. It's a matter of faith, not subject to scientific inquiry.


Agreed. Absence of proof does not mean proof of absence. And before anybody jumps on that statement, I'll say up front that I am not arguing that God exists until you can prove otherwise. But obviously there is something to religion that has captivated millions of people, if not more. So to dismiss the concept of God outright as absurd, unless specifically talking from a scientific context, just is not correct, because the concept of God is a very real thing in other contexts.


----------



## Guest

Incidentally, I have a couple of books that talk about the history of the Bible (that is, the history of how the book we call the Bible came to us in the present day ) - one on the Bible in general, the other focusing specifically on the NT. I took a class back in my undergraduate days on the history of the Bible. I'll try to find those references this evening and post them on here.

I also had one on studying Revelation, but don't know where it is - it has been over a decade.


----------



## Polednice

It's a shame that discussion has moved away from the question of 'purpose' again, that was much more interesting! Having read the above few posts though, I am drawn to wonder why people think that accepting ideas on 'faith' is virtuous or even valid.


----------



## dmg

I can make up anything I want and nobody here can disprove it. If I say that there's an invisible, ethereal unicorn that follows me to and from work every day, who can prove it doesn't exist? Evidence of existence has to be present before something can be legitimately accepted as truth, fact or even sound theory, scientific or not. This is why I do not, and will not, ever accept the concept of 'God'. It is a made up fairy tale to both control the masses and to 'fill in the gaps' in what we do not know. There is no logical basis for the existence of such a being outside of fantasy.

It's the old teapot concept. I say there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. We do not have the instruments capable of detecting such a thing, so how can you prove my statement wrong? That does not make my statement fact; it actually makes my statement essentially false, since the probability of such a thing existing, and the logic of it existing, make such a thing very, very unlikely to the point that it is essentially 'not true'.


----------



## Chris

dmg said:


> It's the old teapot concept. I say there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. We do not have the instruments capable of detecting such a thing, so how can you prove my statement wrong? That does not make my statement fact; it actually makes my statement essentially false, since the probability of such a thing existing, and the logic of it existing, make such a thing very, very unlikely to the point that it is essentially 'not true'.


Are you saying someone has calculated the probability of the existence of God?


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> It's a shame that discussion has moved away from the question of 'purpose' again, that was much more interesting! Having read the above few posts though, I am drawn to wonder why people think that accepting ideas on 'faith' is virtuous or even valid.


Oh come now, we all accept some things on faith. There is simply too much that is not known for us to rely on direct observations alone. To some degree we accept that we can't personally observe everything, and lay some measure of faith in the unseen or unobserved. For those who claim a life led by reason and science, I seriously doubt that they all have perfect understanding of all areas of science, rather at some point they have had to concede faith that what the scientists report was accurately observed and interpreted. We all have faith that when we lie down at night, we will awake the next morning, or else nobody would sleep for fear that they might miss out on more life. That man is capable of faith is not a fantastic concept in the least, or that he can live so much of his life based on faith. I suspect your real question is why people think that accepting RELIGIOUS ideas on faith is virtuous or valid.

That is an individual thing. Each person comes to their religious faith on a different road. For some it is a passive thing - they have always believed it, and have never seen a reason to believe otherwise. For some, it is an active thing - something specifically happened to them that justified in their minds either a beginning or a continuation of religious faith.

Personally, and this is not a scientific observation - I think that people are imbued with a desire to believe. It is what causes us to strive for more. In the untold ages since man diverged from his most closely related species, the chimpanzee, man has erected numerous civilizations, harnessed the power of the atom and the gene, broken free of the confines of our atmosphere, and even walked on the moon. We have created Beethoven's 9th symphony, the works of Shakespeare, the theory of relativity, etc. The chimpanzee has not.

But when you boil it all down, I suppose it comes to a positive feedback loop. No matter how many poor examples of people not following the dictates of their faith, the pedophile priests, the crusaders, terrorists, etc., there are numerous people whose religions have taught them to lead virtuous lives, and they have been happy for it. I know people like to quote the obscure scripture from the Bible and point out how zany Christians are, but those aren't typically the verses that most Christians live by. They look more to verses along the lines of love your neighbor as yourself, blessed are the peacemakers, turn the other cheek, honor your father and mother. And they are genuinely happy. They put their faith in these teachings, and led happy lives. So for them, that is just as much a proof of principle as any scientific observation. How do you gain scientific knowledge? By experimentation and observation. Think of this as spiritual experimentation and observation. If they were to have poor experiences when testing the teachings of scripture, then no doubt they would very quickly turn away. But most people who live their lives in accordance with the scriptures find that their lives are the better for it.

So why does accepting ideas on faith seem virtuous and valid to so many people? Because those ideas have helped guide their lives for good. You may propose to them some other reason for the same outcome, just as scientists may formulate alternative hypotheses to explain the same observation, but if they have no reason to reject their faith, why should they? Just because you present an alternate hypothesis to a scientist to explain his findings, as long as his hypothesis still holds, and yours is no more plausible, why should he reject his?


----------



## starthrower

Polednice said:


> It's a shame that discussion has moved away from the question of 'purpose' again, that was much more interesting! Having read the above few posts though, I am drawn to wonder why people think that accepting ideas on 'faith' is virtuous or even valid.


I don't know? I stated the distinction between science and religion, but did not address the virtuousness of faith. As for myself, I tend to be skeptical and do not accept many biblical dogmas.

As far as purpose is concerned, that would be dependent on one's values.


----------



## emiellucifuge

DrMike makes a valid point when he says it is nearly impossible for someone to lead a completely logical and reasoned life. Indeed there are many things we take on faith.
But should the answer to perhaps the greatest question mankind can ask be one of those things?


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> I think the biggest problem is that all the questioning and answering is trying to explain some Christian doctrines in a piecemeal fashion. Take any single point, and it is very difficult to simply answer the question - hence when someone questions one point that Chris makes, he then needs to go into further detail, which might seem like he is constantly shifting his explanations. But to people who have a lengthy background in Christianity, it is not quite as confusing.
> 
> Whether you believe in its validity or not, Christianity is not a simplistic religion. The basics can be simply stated, but to delve into specifics, as so many people are asking of Chris, requires more than what can be neatly compressed into a posting on an internet forum. I don't think the flaws in Chris' explanations come from the doctrines themselves, rather from the noble attempt to try to explain complex issues succinctly to an audience that doesn't necessarily have the same background understanding of those doctrines. In other words, things get lost in translation.


This is a very good point. I have had similar problems in trying to explain scientific concepts to those unfamiliar with how science or a specific science works (not here but in general). Without having a better understanding of the field in general one can make too many assumptions that are not valid within the field.


----------



## Guest

dmg said:


> I can make up anything I want and nobody here can disprove it. If I say that there's an invisible, ethereal unicorn that follows me to and from work every day, who can prove it doesn't exist? Evidence of existence has to be present before something can be legitimately accepted as truth, fact or even sound theory, scientific or not. This is why I do not, and will not, ever accept the concept of 'God'. It is a made up fairy tale to both control the masses and to 'fill in the gaps' in what we do not know. There is no logical basis for the existence of such a being outside of fantasy.
> 
> It's the old teapot concept. I say there's a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars. We do not have the instruments capable of detecting such a thing, so how can you prove my statement wrong? That does not make my statement fact; it actually makes my statement essentially false, since the probability of such a thing existing, and the logic of it existing, make such a thing very, very unlikely to the point that it is essentially 'not true'.


You are more than welcome to put your faith in whatever you want. But just because you can conceive of some false thing that is unable to be disproven does not mean that anything unable to be disproven is false. I can't disprove that all life didn't come from a single ancient source. Neither can you. Does that mean it isn't true? Can you produce for me the first person to have created the concept of God? Because in your unicorn example, I can. You say that God is a made up fairy tale, but that is your own theory, and the theories of others who want to disprove him, or at least deny his existence. But you cannot know that. The fact that you can't prove it isn't proof that he does exist, but if it was a made up fairy tale, then show to me who made it up. How is it illogical that a God should exist? A being that is vastly advanced as compared to us. A being that could create us. Put things into perspective. How is that illogical? Scientists, knowing the genetic code, can reconstruct viruses, can clone sheep, can manipulate organisms in numerous ways. The very object of science is to understand the laws that govern how everything is how it is, and how it came to be. So if man ever reaches that point, would he not have all the powers that are attributed to God? If man knew all the laws that govern how a universe is formed, and were to try to use those laws to prove the concept, just as we are using genetics to create new life, then would not this power be godlike? And suppose we aren't talking about the religious concept of God. Just suppose that, in the infinite space out there, a being exists who has existed much longer than we have, and has already arrived at all of this knowledge, and could use that knowledge to shape things. Is that illogical? Given what we know about biology and genetics, how far off do you suppose that we are, from a technological standpoint, from being able to clone a human? Decades? Centuries? And if a being existed that was a few more centuries further along in the evolutionary scale - which would not even register on the timescale of evolution - that person could create enough people to populate a planet?

If you say that the concept of a God is illogical, then is it so hard to say that science must stop, for there is no way that mankind can ever really understand all the natural laws? Honestly, would not someone who fully understood those and could utilize them seem like a God? Who knew how to create a universe? Who knew how to create a solar system? Who knew how to create a planet capable of sustaining life? Who knew how to create simple life, and allow it to evolve? Or who knew how to create any permutation of life desired? Those are merely all exercises of laws that scientists are currently trying to fully understand. And the ultimate goal of any scientist is proof of principle. Once they think they know how something works, they go out and seek to replicate it. Such a scientist could never exist, because he would be illogical, from what you say. Merely a fairy tale figure.


----------



## Guest

emiellucifuge said:


> DrMike makes a valid point when he says it is nearly impossible for someone to lead a completely logical and reasoned life. Indeed there are many things we take on faith.
> But should the answer to perhaps the greatest question mankind can ask be one of those things?


But even your assumption that there is a "greatest" question is more a religious or philosophical concept than a scientific one. What is that question? Is it the same for all mankind? If so, why? For science, the creation of a rock is just as fantastical as the creation of life. Something causes us to put questions in a hierarchy. Not science, which only focuses on logic and reason and observation.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Oh come now, we all accept some things on faith. There is simply too much that is not known for us to rely on direct observations alone. To some degree we accept that we can't personally observe everything, and lay some measure of faith in the unseen or unobserved. For those who claim a life led by reason and science, I seriously doubt that they all have perfect understanding of all areas of science, rather at some point they have had to concede faith that what the scientists report was accurately observed and interpreted.


You may be slightly misinterpreting what I meant by the question and thus giving faith in religious ideas a validity I don't think it deserves. In response to the above, I would say first of all that you are absolutely right - as far as living practically is concerned, it is _impossible_ to function if we try to assess every waking situation from first principles. So, yes, we take things such as waking up the next day on 'faith', but such examples tend to be of events that have repeated millions of times (so that we can reasonably take them for granted), or, as with waking up, they are more-so ideas of 'hope' rather than 'faith', in that they inform our _behaviour_ rather than our fundamental view of the world.

So, in the case of science, it is most certainly true that I and many others take things on faith. When I read a cognitive musicology journal article, I trust that the research was carried out as written, and that the results occurred described, and the interpretation of the results is sound, so that I do not have to go through the trouble of getting a degree and doing it myself. But here again is an important distinction with religious faith: at least _someone_ has done the leg-work, and in such a way that it _can_ be repeated and validated by anyone with the resources. As such, we need only have faith in the _people_, not in the _ideas_.



DrMike said:


> Personally, and this is not a scientific observation - I think that people are imbued with a desire to believe.


That's certainly a conceivable idea, though having the impulse to think or do something is not reason enough to support the thought or action.

The rest of your post seemed to suggest that people may think of faith as a virtuous quality if practising it leads to a better quality of life, or some net gain in happiness. I have no doubt that a lot of people think that this is true due to personal experiences, but I think this is not a reflection of reality, and rather displays the susceptibility of human perception to focus on the parochial and insular aspects of our individual lives, rather than concern itself with the entire world as it is now, or as it has been in the past.

If some people were more capable of viewing the full scope of world history, then they'd view the morality bestowed on individuals by faith as much more dubious and unstable, at least in a large number of instances. Of course, even given that, there still seems to be a recurring argument that faith almost ought to be assessed on an _individual_ basis and that, if it works well for Person X, then leave them to it. However - forgetting the validity of the actual god hypothesis anyway - given the potential for the spread of ambiguous religious claims to cause segregation or conflict, we ought to ask whether or not Person X would function just as well introspectively and socially if they had an atheistic world-view. A lot of people might argue that they would be depressed or even immoral without a god, but I imagine this is exaggeration as they haven't actually had to confront the idea properly (that would move the argument onto whether morality is innate or divine, and I don't want to talk about too much in one post before people have a chance to respond).


----------



## dmg

I completely disagree with what you're saying in regards to belief. Belief does not lead to new discoveries, and most scientists do not conduct research around beliefs. Their drive is fuelled by curiosity. Not belief, not the desire to improve mankind; pure curiosity. Once something is discovered through research, the engineers take over and make something useful out of it.

Belief, on the other hand, inhibits research and progress. You believe things are a certain way, what's the point of researching it? Why expose your beliefs to disproof? You're steadfast in your faith, you are not going to try and disprove your faith. It is your 'comfort zone', and research and curiosity can only remove one from that.

Yes, humans are often subject to irrational and illogical thoughts. The evolutionary process does not produce perfect beings. It does not have a goal; it is just a process that happens. If an organism works, there's no need to improve upon it. It is not a process that cares about anything, including whether the organism adheres to logic. We are not perfect beings in this regard. We are not even close to anything remotely resembling perfect. 

I brought up the concept of religious beliefs as a possible genetic trait and you mocked me - yet you talk about it being an 'imbued trait'. What's the difference? Evolution does not care if such an illogical thought process is in our genes. We reproduce, the process continues. That's it. And if being illogical increases those chances, then so be it.


----------



## mmsbls

DrMike said:


> Oh come now, we all accept some things on faith. There is simply too much that is not known for us to rely on direct observations alone. To some degree we accept that we can't personally observe everything, and lay some measure of faith in the unseen or unobserved. For those who claim a life led by reason and science, I seriously doubt that they all have perfect understanding of all areas of science, rather at some point they have had to concede faith that what the scientists report was accurately observed and interpreted. We all have faith that when we lie down at night, we will awake the next morning, or else nobody would sleep for fear that they might miss out on more life. That man is capable of faith is not a fantastic concept in the least, or that he can live so much of his life based on faith. I suspect your real question is why people think that accepting RELIGIOUS ideas on faith is virtuous or valid.


I think there is a difference between "faith" and "faith alone". We usually don't have first person documentation of most things in life. We believe a chair will be built properly so when we sit down, we will not break it. We believe medications are properly tested and have been shown to have good effects. We can't provide the evidence ourselves for many things we believe to be true. However, in many of these cases we do have some reasons to believe what we believe. We have sat in many other chairs and understand the process of building chairs and selling products. We read how medications are tested, know the FDA requires detailed testing, etc. There is much empirical evidence from ourselves and others that when we go to sleep, we will wake up. I have thought in some detail about whether there is anything I believe without any reasons. I have not been able to think of anything. Of course there have been many things I've believed for reasons that turned out to be faulty.

The thing that I find interesting for some religious people (I mentioned this before) is that they apparently believe that one MUST have faith alone in believing in God. Perhaps to believe something on evidence is too easy. A true believer needs only faith. I don't know, but I have been told this on many occasions.


----------



## Serge

Chris said:


> Are you saying someone has calculated the probability of the existence of God?


I don't know if anybody has done that as of yet, considering that God is pretty hard to put a finger on, let alone quantify, but have you caught a glimpse of a scientific study that suggests that religion is on the way to extinction in quite a number of countries?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12811197


----------



## Polednice

mmsbls said:


> The thing that I find interesting for some religious people (I mentioned this before) is that they apparently believe that one MUST have faith alone in believing in God. Perhaps to believe something on evidence is too easy. A true believer needs only faith. I don't know, but I have been told this on many occasions.


I don't have any quotations, but that point always reminds me of Christopher Hitchens' account of Mother Theresa, as he said that she wrote letters expressing her doubt in god and her complete lack of feeling, but was reassured that the less she was convinced by religion, the more virtuous it was of her to believe in it.


----------



## mmsbls

Several people have posted on the issue of purpose. Is there a purpose to life? It is not surprising that the non-believers feel there is no inherent purpose. Believers feel there is a purpose put there by God. I would like to ask a question related to that purpose.

I have read a large number of books discussing reasons for believing in God. Some of these were metaphysical proofs, many described personal journeys, and others pointed to events or features of the world that the author could not explain without a God (or could explain best with a God). My favorite by far was a book by Charles Hartshorne, a theologian who had distinctly non-classical views of God. 

In discussing how we know God exists Hartshorne setup a parallel between religion and science (ethics as well). He said the reason we believe in science is that we see overwhelming inherent order in the world. That order leads to a belief in laws of nature which can be discovered. The parallel with religion involves inherent purpose. Hartshorne said we see inherent purpose in reality, and that purpose then leads to a belief in a creator of the universe.

Unfortunately, although he was explicit in describing some of the order he did not give examples of the inherent purpose. I did ask a former student of his about examples of purpose, but he simply said they were there and didn't elaborate. 

I have always felt that Harshorne's attempt to give reasons for believing in God was superior too all others I've heard. I am not aware of any clear or inherent purpose that one can see in reality. If there were a clear purpose, I would think differently about God (or god or something beyond what I believe now). 

My question for those here is: Do you believe there is a readily apparent purpose in or for reality? This is not the same as believing there is a purpose for reality. Do you believe that that purpose is clear to those who look in the same way that the obvious order in reality is clear?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

mmsbls said:


> The thing that I find interesting for some religious people (I mentioned this before) is that they apparently believe that one MUST have faith alone in believing in God. Perhaps to believe something on evidence is too easy. A true believer needs only faith. I don't know, but I have been told this on many occasions.


I must correct that. Yes, one only needs faith in Jesus to be saved, as opposed to good works achieving righteousness. But Christianity in no way prohibits believers from looking for physical evidence of its authenticity. There is a whole realm of thought called Christian Apologetics, which is the study of the world to give faith a foundation. The Christian life isn't about taking a leap of faith into the darkness, _hoping_ we are right. No, we _know_ we are right, and every Christian has the right to know the historical and scientific support for the existence of God.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

dmg said:


> Belief, on the other hand, inhibits research and progress. You believe things are a certain way, what's the point of researching it? Why expose your beliefs to disproof? You're steadfast in your faith, you are not going to try and disprove your faith. It is your 'comfort zone', and research and curiosity can only remove one from that.


You might like to know that the origin of the word "heretic" came from the Greek work _hairetikós_, meaning able to choose / have a different opinion. Interesting indeed.


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> Are you saying someone has calculated the probability of the existence of God?


The answer is apparently, "yes".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1 gives 67%.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I must correct that. Yes, one only needs faith in Jesus to be saved, as opposed to good works achieving righteousness. But Christianity in no way prohibits believers from looking for physical evidence of its authenticity. There is a whole realm of thought called Christian Apologetics, which is the study of the world to give faith a foundation. The Christian life isn't about taking a leap of faith into the darkness, _hoping_ we are right. No, we _know_ we are right, and every Christian has the right to know the historical and scientific support for the existence of God.


So the Jews and the Muslims are damned? They don't believe in Jesus. Everyone loves to promote their own brand, at the end of the day.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

mmsbls said:


> My question for those here is: Do you believe there is a readily apparent purpose in or for reality? This is not the same as believing there is a purpose for reality. Do you believe that that purpose is clear to those who look in the same way that the obvious order in reality is clear?


YES!!!! Of course life manifests purpose!!
(but I won't go into that huge debate here as to why)

But do you mean to say that if you *don't* believe life has purpose, you will see purpose anyway because it's so clear? Not exactly. It is possible to be blind to the meaning of life, and not even be willing to think otherwise. I've met people like that. But it's also possible for them to change. Most are just in denial.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> So the Jews and the Muslims are damned? They don't believe in Jesus. Everyone loves to promote their own brand, at the end of the day.


I could get into a big discussion on that, I can defend my claim. But I just hate getting in fights although everyone else here likes it.
Not likely anyone would listen either


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I could get into a big discussion on that, I can defend my claim. But I just hate getting in fights although everyone else here likes it.
> Not likely anyone would listen either


I am sure you can defend your claim. And I am also sure the Jews and Muslims can also defend theirs.

But I will give you kudos for bringing peace to the table, as you said, you hate getting into fights. And you certainly don't even need to believe in Jesus to know that you have just made a sensible decision.


----------



## Chris

mmsbls said:


> The answer is apparently, "yes".
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1 gives 67%.


Great fun. Confusing though. He says the formula starts with an initial assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, which is odd as that's what it's supposed to be calculating. I like the bit at the end which says that William Hill is offering odds of 1,000 to 1 on the Second Coming occurring, the Archbishop of Canterbury being the arbiter of whether the event has taken place or not. I can see a problem with collecting your winnings.


----------



## mmsbls

Huilunsoittaja said:


> YES!!!! Of course life manifests purpose!!
> (but I won't go into that huge debate here as to why)
> 
> But do you mean to say that if you *don't* believe life has purpose, you will see purpose anyway because it's so clear? Not exactly. It is possible to be blind to the meaning of life, and not even be willing to think otherwise. I've met people like that. But it's also possible for them to change. Most are just in denial.


I may not understand what you mean. I also may not have been clear as to what I was asking.

By inherent purpose I mean a purpose put into reality before or as it was created (which is what Hartshorne meant I think). I have many purposes to my life (seeking knowledge, making others happier, etc.), but these are likely not inherent in reality in that they came about through my own thoughts (probably). Living things are often described as goal oriented, but the question would be what created the goals.

You say "of course life manifests purpose", but then go on to say that you won't go into the huge debate. I'm not sure if you meant the "of course" in jest. If it's obvious, there might not be a huge debate. Or maybe you think the huge debate comes from the fact that many people are "blind"?


----------



## science

I'm persuaded by Platinga's neo-ontological argument (which IMO amounts to) that if it's possible for God to exist, then he exists. So if there is even a .000001% chance, then there is a 100% chance that God exists. 

I'm not persuaded, though, that it's possible for the God (of traditional monotheism) to exist.


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> Oh come now, we all accept some things on faith.


Maybe, but I try not to. I try to "believe" in things only to the degree that evidence requires and justifies. If I find out that my belief in a claim exceeds the bounds of reason and evidence, then I become more skeptical of that claim. If you can point out to me that I believe anything beyond the bounds of reason and evidence, I would be grateful.

You give some examples:



DrMike said:


> There is simply too much that is not known for us to rely on direct observations alone. To some degree we accept that we can't personally observe everything, and lay some measure of faith in the unseen or unobserved. For those who claim a life led by reason and science, I seriously doubt that they all have perfect understanding of all areas of science, rather at some point they have had to concede faith that what the scientists report was accurately observed and interpreted.


I'm genuinely unaware of "laying" any faith in anything unseen or unobserved. I don't need to trust that scientists report accurately: scientists check each other. I don't put anything like absolute trust in a single observation, and it almost never surprises me to find out that an observation was flawed. There is no faith here: it is observation after observation after observation, until observations become redundant.



DrMike said:


> We all have faith that when we lie down at night, we will awake the next morning, or else nobody would sleep for fear that they might miss out on more life.


We have to sleep anyway, but that's not the real point. The real point is that we can do a rough calculation of the odds of dying in our sleep, so we've got a rough sense of the risk. We can weigh that against the rewards of sleep, and it turns out to be a risk worth taking.

In fact, natural selection has made this calculation throughout history, and thus sleep has evolved!



DrMike said:


> That man is capable of faith is not a fantastic concept in the least, or that he can live so much of his life based on faith. I suspect your real question is why people think that accepting RELIGIOUS ideas on faith is virtuous or valid.
> 
> That is an individual thing. Each person comes to their religious faith on a different road. For some it is a passive thing - they have always believed it, and have never seen a reason to believe otherwise. For some, it is an active thing - something specifically happened to them that justified in their minds either a beginning or a continuation of religious faith.
> 
> Personally, and this is not a scientific observation - I think that people are imbued with a desire to believe. It is what causes us to strive for more. In the untold ages since man diverged from his most closely related species, the chimpanzee, man has erected numerous civilizations, harnessed the power of the atom and the gene, broken free of the confines of our atmosphere, and even walked on the moon. We have created Beethoven's 9th symphony, the works of Shakespeare, the theory of relativity, etc. The chimpanzee has not.


I don't see how those things are related to "faith."



DrMike said:


> But when you boil it all down, I suppose it comes to a positive feedback loop. No matter how many poor examples of people not following the dictates of their faith, the pedophile priests, the crusaders, terrorists, etc., there are numerous people whose religions have taught them to lead virtuous lives, and they have been happy for it. I know people like to quote the obscure scripture from the Bible and point out how zany Christians are, but those aren't typically the verses that most Christians live by. They look more to verses along the lines of love your neighbor as yourself, blessed are the peacemakers, turn the other cheek, honor your father and mother. And they are genuinely happy. They put their faith in these teachings, and led happy lives. So for them, that is just as much a proof of principle as any scientific observation. How do you gain scientific knowledge? By experimentation and observation. Think of this as spiritual experimentation and observation. If they were to have poor experiences when testing the teachings of scripture, then no doubt they would very quickly turn away. But most people who live their lives in accordance with the scriptures find that their lives are the better for it.
> 
> So why does accepting ideas on faith seem virtuous and valid to so many people? Because those ideas have helped guide their lives for good. You may propose to them some other reason for the same outcome, just as scientists may formulate alternative hypotheses to explain the same observation, but if they have no reason to reject their faith, why should they? Just because you present an alternate hypothesis to a scientist to explain his findings, as long as his hypothesis still holds, and yours is no more plausible, why should he reject his?


To me, the question is, how can I find out what the facts are? If faith was a useful tool for that project, I would endorse it. But obviously it is counterproductive: among the most useful tools for finding out the facts is the precise opposite of faith, skepticism.

Skepticism is a virtue, and its corresponding vice is faith.

A synonymous statement: Correlating our confidence that something is a fact to the weight of evidence and reason is a virtue; making up our mind to hold some arbitrary opinion without sufficient evidence or reason is a vice.


----------



## science

Anybody see the news about Pastor Terry Jones burning the Koran, and Afghan mobs killing UN workers? 

Both sides have to rein in our extremists. 

On the other hand, perhaps the thing to do is for all of us to burn a bunch of holy books so that we can get this religious war over with and move on. I don't mean to advocate this, but I wonder what actually is the effective way for us to end this crap.

This makes me so angry. The guy can hate Islam all he wants, as far as I am concerned, but he is knowingly and intentionally endangering the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and Europeans living in Muslim countries, for the sake of a publicity stunt. To me, that's even worse than the Westboro Baptist Church's stuff.

The sad thing is, I really believe that throughout most of the USA Jones's worldview has more support than mine. We worry, rightly enough, about Muslims in the USA being radicalized - but the rest of us are being radicalized too.

Evil men are succeeding, good men are doing nothing.

Extremists everywhere are winning; peace is losing.

If we really aren't better than this, I hope there is a God, and a judgment, and a damnation, and if not an eternal hell then at least a really painful purgatory.


----------



## Almaviva

science said:


> Anybody see the news about Pastor Terry Jones burning the Koran, and Afghan mobs killing UN workers?
> 
> Both sides have to rein in our extremists.
> 
> On the other hand, perhaps the thing to do is for all of us to burn a bunch of holy books so that we can get this religious war over with and move on. I don't mean to advocate this, but I wonder what actually is the effective way for us to end this crap.
> 
> This makes me so angry. The guy can hate Islam all he wants, as far as I am concerned, but he is knowingly and intentionally endangering the lives of tens of thousands of Americans and Europeans living in Muslim countries, for the sake of a publicity stunt. To me, that's even worse than the Westboro Baptist Church's stuff.
> 
> The sad thing is, I really believe that throughout most of the USA Jones's worldview has more support than mine. We worry, rightly enough, about Muslims in the USA being radicalized - but the rest of us are being radicalized too.
> 
> Evil men are succeeding, good men are doing nothing.
> 
> Extremists everywhere are winning; peace is losing.
> 
> If we really aren't better than this, I hope there is a God, and a judgment, and a damnation, and if not an eternal hell then at least a really painful purgatory.


Yes, I saw it, and was pondering whether I should post this here or not, because I didn't want to disrupt a discussion that, for a change, is going very well with civility and respect from all (most?) parties.

But since you brought it up, this is exactly what I was saying when I was commenting upon the fine line that exists between "only Jesus Christ can save" and "my God is better than your God" and "death to the infidels."

On the same newspaper that brought me these unfortunate news in which a public display of "my God is better than your God" did lead to killings of innocent people (like I told you above, it's *still* happening) had two other news/letters to the editor that relate to the topic we've been discussing.

In one, a woman was saying that only Jesus Christ can save people and send them to Heaven, and *all* others (this includes perfectly pious people who are adherents of other religions) will go to Hell, which she describes as "a terrible lake of fire where unbelievers will spend eternity in torment." I of course know that this woman doesn't speak for the entirety of the Christian community - before anyone here will accuse me of generalization which I very carefully avoid. But it is this kind of sentiment, in my humble opinion, that may on occasion make of religion - something that also has undeniably positive aspects - a dangerous force.

The other one was front page news about outdoors paid for by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Real local people have posted their pictures on huge outdoors with messages such as "Science is my co-pilot. [real name][location], free thinker." "Freethinking moves America forward. [real name][location], parent, nontheist." "We've got the whole world in our hands. [real name][location], retiree, atheist." "Another happy, humanist family." And so on. The heading of the news reads "Just Ordinary People - All Smiles, But No Gods." The news reads that "atheists are coming out of the closet with a new billboard campaign that attempts to project a friendly, wholesome image of a group long stigmatized for its unconventional beliefs. [my edit - I don't think these views are that unconventional, by the way]. A spokesperson for the organization says "our biggest intent is not to disenfranchise anyone with religious beliefs but to make ourselves known to people who don't know us and feel they need to get together with others who have the same thoughts."

I like these developments. They are certainly a lot better than burning other people's holy books, and retaliating by killing innocents for revenge. Oh, and before someone calls me inflammatory, I think that Christian messages (or any other religious group's messages) on billboards are fine too, and I repeat, I am in no way shape or form implying that many, most, or all religious people act like the pastor who burned the Koran or the Afghans who killed UN workers.

It's just, like I said, that this idea of "my God is better than your God" is really, really, really a dangerous one.

Opinions?


----------



## starthrower

All this stuff makes me nostalgic for the good ol' days of the Swaggart sex scandal.


----------



## Polednice

Almaviva said:


> I like these developments. They are certainly a lot better than burning other people's holy books, and retaliating by killing innocents for revenge. Oh, and before someone calls me inflammatory, I think that Christian messages (or any other religious group's messages) on billboards are fine too, and I repeat, I am in no way shape or form implying that many, most, or all religious people act like the pastor who burned the Khoran or the Afghans who killed UN workers.
> 
> It's just, like I said, that this idea of "my God is better than your God" is really, really, really a dangerous one.
> 
> Opinions?


You're absolutely right on the mark. One of the major reasons for the likes of Richard Dawkins _et. al._ labelling themselves as 'anti-theists' - against all forms of religion, not just extremist ones - is that the ambiguity of religious texts and the magnitude of possible interpretations will always inherently carry a precedent for conflict on the basis of one sect's idea of god being better than another's.

If people of faith wilfully deny any kind of skeptical approach to religion in order to make room for their interpretation of the supernatural, then the door must automatically open to a plethora of other interpretations, and, whether or not god exists, no one on this planet has the authority to actually declare which interpretations are closer to the truth than others. So, if one interpretation demands the killing of innocent people, while it may be ostentatiously dangerous and 'immoral' to most people, it is no less _valid_ than other interpretations. That is why, on the spectrum of belief, you can't just hope to chop off the extremist ends; those ends will always be there so long as the moderate portion of the spectrum still exists.


----------



## science

Almaviva said:


> Yes, I saw it, and was pondering whether I should post this here or not, because I didn't want to disrupt a discussion that, for a change, is going very well with civility and respect from all (most?) parties.
> 
> But since you brought it up, this is exactly what I was saying when I was commenting upon the fine line that exists between "only Jesus Christ can save" and "my God is better than your God" and "death to the infidels."
> 
> On the same newspaper that brought me these unfortunate news in which a public display of "my God is better than your God" did lead to killings of innocent people (like I told you above, it's *still* happening) had two other news/letters to the editor that relate to the topic we've been discussing.
> 
> In one, a woman was saying that only Jesus Christ can save people and send them to Heaven, and *all* others (this includes perfectly pious people who are adherents of other religions) will go to Hell, which she describes as "a terrible lake of fire where unbelievers will spend eternity in torment." I of course know that this woman doesn't speak for the entirety of the Christian community - before anyone here will accuse me of generalization which I very carefully avoid. But it is this kind of sentiment, in my humble opinion, that may on occasion make of religion - something that also has undeniable positive aspects - a dangerous force.
> 
> The other one was front page news about outdoors paid for by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Real local people have posted their pictures on huge outdoors with messages such as "Science is my co-pilot. [real name][location], free thinker." "Freethinking moves America forward. [real name][location], parent, nontheist." "We've got the whole world in our hands. [real name][location], retiree, atheist." "Another happy, humanist family." And so on. The heading of the news reads "Just Ordinary People - All Smiles, But No Gods." The news reads that "atheists are coming out of the closet with a new billboard campaign that attempts to project a friendly, wholesome image of a group long stigmatized for its unconventional beliefs. [my edit - I don't think these views are that unconventional, by the way]. A spokesperson for the organization says "our biggest intent is not to disenfranchise anyone with religious beliefs but to make ourselves known to people who don't know us and feel they need to get together with others who have the same thoughts."
> 
> I like these developments. They are certainly a lot better than burning other people's holy books, and retaliating by killing innocents for revenge. Oh, and before someone calls me inflammatory, I think that Christian messages (or any other religious group's messages) on billboards are fine too, and I repeat, I am in no way shape or form implying that many, most, or all religious people act like the pastor who burned the Khoran or the Afghans who killed UN workers.
> 
> It's just, like I said, that this idea of "my God is better than your God" is really, really, really a dangerous one.
> 
> Opinions?


I didn't know whether I should bring it up or not, but I just got angry....

To me, the gap between "my God is better than yours" and killing is fairly large. It's possible to get from point A to point B, but not in a step or two.

I'm really glad nonbelievers are coming out of the closet. As soon as my mother dies, I will come out too. But for now, for her sake, I'd better stay right in here!


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> Yes, I saw it, and was pondering whether I should post this here or not, because I didn't want to disrupt a discussion that, for a change, is going very well with civility and respect from all (most?) parties.
> 
> But since you brought it up, this is exactly what I was saying when I was commenting upon the fine line that exists between "only Jesus Christ can save" and "my God is better than your God" and "death to the infidels."


With all due respect, I think you are way off here. We have firm evidence that such things don't lead to this kind of violence with Christians. We have artists who display as art crucifixes (or is it crucifi, I don't know) in urine. How many people were killed when that happened? How many beheaded? Sinead O'Connor tore a picture of the pope (not my religious leader, but the leader for a large portion of Christianity) - no reprisals, other than maybe some lost endorsements. Do you know how many Bibles are destroyed each year? Neither do I, because it doesn't get reported, because it doesn't have any kind of repercussions. My own particular faith - the Mormons - are mocked incessantly. Whether it is the show Big Love on HBO, or the new Book of Mormon musical on Broadway. How many people have been killed as a result? Mock Christians, and the most you might get is a botched attempt at a boycott - we can't even effectively mount one of those. We may feel that such things are wrong, but we are clear that it isn't for us to punish.


----------



## starthrower

science said:


> Anybody see the news about Pastor Terry Jones burning the Koran, and Afghan mobs killing UN workers?
> 
> Both sides have to rein in our extremists.


Maybe it's the Pentagon that needs reining in? I bet if polled, most members of congress would identify themselves as believers/Christians, yet they continue to fund the war machine and death merchants in the name of nation building in places like Afghanistan.

As for this character Terry Jones, it's rather ironic that he heads an organization called Dove World Outreach. What a joke!


----------



## Toccata

DrMike said:


> With all due respect, I think you are way off here.


I think you are correct there.


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> With all due respect, I think you are way off here. We have firm evidence that such things don't lead to this kind of violence with Christians. We have artists who display as art crucifixes (or is it crucifi, I don't know) in urine. How many people were killed when that happened? How many beheaded? Sinead O'Connor tore a picture of the pope (not my religious leader, but the leader for a large portion of Christianity) - no reprisals, other than maybe some lost endorsements. Do you know how many Bibles are destroyed each year? Neither do I, because it doesn't get reported, because it doesn't have any kind of repercussions. My own particular faith - the Mormons - are mocked incessantly. Whether it is the show Big Love on HBO, or the new Book of Mormon musical on Broadway. How many people have been killed as a result? Mock Christians, and the most you might get is a botched attempt at a boycott - we can't even effectively mount one of those. We may feel that such things are wrong, but we are clear that it isn't for us to punish.


But Dr. Mike, I'm not saying that the Christians are (currently) doing the killing (although in the past as you well know, they did - crusades, inquisition - and some rare Christians who belong to a very small and disgruntled fringe still do, like the recent killing of a doctor who use to practice - legal, last time I've checked - abortions showed - warning: no generalization is implied). And I'm not blaming the Christians *as a group* for the killings that have just happened in the UN office in Afghanistan.

*I'm blaming the *idea* that "my God is better than your God."*

This idea has lead the Florida pastor to burn the Koran. Then the burning of the Koran sparkled outraged feelings among Muslims. Then extremists among those Muslims did the killing.

This is a *clear* slippery slope. Idea A leads to act B. Act B leads to idea C. Idea C leads to act D. Consequently, Idea A has - at least indirectly - lead to act D.

Idea A - "The Christian God is better than the Muslim God"
Act B - The Koran gets burned
Idea C - "The infidels disrespected our God by burning our Holy Book"
Act D - UN workers get killed for revenge

Like I said in another thread, I regret *all* loss of human life. I don't care if the life being lost is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, whatever.

During the crusades, the Christians have actively killed those *they* considered to be infidels, based on their beliefs that their God was better than the pagans' gods.
Now, a Christian - again,* I'm not implying any generalization here* - has acted in a way that lavishly demonstrates the same idea (My God is better than your God) and the end result was more killing, even though the Christian pastor didn't do the killing with his hands, and even though no Christian was involved in the killing.

The loved ones of those who died from a domino effect initiated by the pastor would be right in blaming BOTH the pastor AND the extremists who killed their loved ones.

Is killing worse than burning a holy book? Yes, absolutely. But what was the triggering event that has ultimately lead to the killing? It was the burning of said holy book. What was the idea behind the burning of the book? "My God is better than your God."

QED.

Now, I am not religious, you know it. I'm, nevertheless, willing to respect those who are, and their ideas. But the very least I'd expect from religious people would be something like this: "We believe in God. We understand that God manifests Himself to other good pious people around the world in different forms. We welcome different aspects in the way different people haved focused on, in the matter of divine manifestations. We appreciate the fact that they worship God in whatever form they want to do it, as long as the end result fosters the brotherhood of Men, and promotes peace and understanding between fellow humans who share the spiritual feeling of connection with God, regardless of the form this connection assumes." Is this too much to ask for???

Don't you all have institutions like the Interfaith Council?

Why do you need to claim superiority over other religions? Don't you see that this idea can only lead to hatred and misunderstanding?

Clarification: by "you" I mean religious people of all faiths. The Christians say that only Christ saves. The Jews say that they are the Chosen People. The Muslims say that people of other monotheistic faiths are infidels. And so on and so forth. They all try to position themselves as the sole holders of the truth.

In my humble opinion, if there is a God, he must be looking at this behavior with profound dismay.

It's like the saying goes: "God, please, protect me from your followers."

PS, oh well, we made peace, kissed kissed hugged hugged through PMs, and I said I wouldn't discuss religion with you any longer... and here we are again.

We should better stop, buddy...:tiphat: As you know, I do like you. But we will never agree in religious matters.


----------



## Guest

Almaviva said:


> But Dr. Mike, I'm not saying that the Christians are (currently) doing the killing (although in the past as you well know, they did - crusades, inquisition - and some rare Christians who belong to a very small and disgruntled fringe still do, like the recent killing of a doctor who use to practice - legal, last time I've checked - abortions showed - warning: no generalization is implied). And I'm not blaming the Christians *as a group* for the killings that have just happened in the UN office in Afghanistan.
> 
> *I'm blaming the *idea* that "my God is better than your God."*
> 
> This idea has lead the Florida pastor to burn the Koran. Then the burning of the Koran sparkled outraged feelings among Muslims. Then extremists among those Muslims did the killing.
> 
> This is a *clear* slippery slope. Idea A leads to act B. Act B leads to idea C. Idea C leads to act D. Consequently, Idea A has - at least indirectly - lead to act D.
> 
> Idea A - "The Christian God is better than the Muslim God"
> Act B - The Koran gets burned
> Idea C - "The infidels disrespected our God by burning our Holy Book"
> Act D - UN workers get killed for revenge
> 
> Like I said in another thread, I regret *all* loss of human life. I don't care if the life being lost is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, whatever.
> 
> During the crusades, the Christians have actively killed those *they* considered to be infidels, based on their beliefs that their God was better than the pagans' gods.
> Now, a Christian - again,* I'm not implying any generalization here* - has acted in a way that lavishly demonstrates the same idea (My God is better than your God) and the end result was more killing, even though the Christian pastor didn't do the killing with his hands, and even though no Christian was involved in the killing.
> 
> The loved ones of those who died from a domino effect initiated by the pastor would be right in blaming BOTH the pastor AND the extremists who killed their loved ones.
> 
> Is killing worse than burning a holy book? Yes, absolutely. But what was the triggering event that has ultimately lead to the killing? It was the burning of said holy book. What was the idea behind the burning of the book? "My God is better than your God."
> 
> QED.
> 
> Now, I am not religious, you know it. I'm, nevertheless, willing to respect those who are, and their ideas. But the very least I'd expect from religious people would be something like this: "We believe in God. We understand that God manifests Himself to other good pious people around the world in different forms. We welcome different aspects in the way different people haved focused on, in the matter of divine manifestations. We appreciate the fact that they worship God in whatever form they want to do it, as long as the end result fosters the brotherhood of Men, and promotes peace and understanding between fellow humans who share the spiritual feeling of connection with God, regardless of the form this connection assumes." Is this too much to ask for???
> 
> Don't you all have institutions like the Interfaith Council?
> 
> Why do you need to claim superiority over other religions? Don't you see that this idea can only lead to hatred and misunderstanding?
> 
> Clarification: by "you" I mean religious people of all faiths. The Christians say that only Christ saves. The Jews say that they are the Chosen People. The Muslims say that people of other monotheistic faiths are infidels. And so on and so forth. They all try to position themselves as the sole holders of the truth.
> 
> In my humble opinion, if there is a God, he must be looking at this behavior with profound dismay.
> 
> It's like the saying goes: "God, please, protect me from your followers."
> 
> PS, oh well, we made peace, kissed kissed hugged hugged through PMs, and I said I wouldn't discuss religion with you any longer... and here we are again.
> 
> We should better stop, buddy...:tiphat: As you know, I do like you. But we will never agree in religious matters.


But Alma, don't you realize that, to those extremists over there who killed the UN workers, if the comments posted here regarding religion in general were posted specifically regarding Islam, it would incite them to violence. These people allow no comments regarding their beliefs. Post a cartoon in Europe that speaks disparagingly of the prophet Muhammed, and they go into violent, homocidal fits. That group looks for any perceived offense. Partly because it is beneficial to their political leaders to point out "blasphemy" by the West to divert their attention from the squalid conditions their own leaders leave them in.

This entire thread - things that you and others have posted - could be perceived as rationale for violent protest by these particular extremists. In contrast, the Christians posting here just get irate and make some unpleasant comments.

Yes, this particular pastor didn't need to burn the Koran. Personally, when I share my faith with others, I try to build on common beliefs, not tear down what they hold true. Burning the Koran served no Christian purpose to that pastor, and if anything it was a very un-Christian act. I think the guy is a moron. I wouldn't think of doing something that has no beneficial effect for me, and could potentially cause harm to others. On the other hand, are we going to *****-foot around and walk on eggshells with these homicidal maniacs who, if it hadn't been this, there would have been some other weak rationale for going out and perpetrating violence on others?


----------



## starthrower

DrMike;153644
Burning the Koran served no Christian purpose to that pastor said:


> Terry Jones is a pathetic crank and a racist with an active membership of 30 people. He's having his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe if the so called news media did some worthwhile reporting instead of combing the internet for this sensationalist crap, the violence could have been avoided?


----------



## Almaviva

DrMike said:


> But Alma, don't you realize that, to those extremists over there who killed the UN workers, if the comments posted here regarding religion in general were posted specifically regarding Islam, it would incite them to violence. These people allow no comments regarding their beliefs. Post a cartoon in Europe that speaks disparagingly of the prophet Muhammed, and they go into violent, homocidal fits. That group looks for any perceived offense. Partly because it is beneficial to their political leaders to point out "blasphemy" by the West to divert their attention from the squalid conditions their own leaders leave them in.
> 
> This entire thread - things that you and others have posted - could be perceived as rationale for violent protest by these particular extremists. In contrast, the Christians posting here just get irate and make some unpleasant comments.
> 
> Yes, this particular pastor didn't need to burn the Koran. *Personally, when I share my faith with others, I try to build on common beliefs, not tear down what they hold true. Burning the Koran served no Christian purpose to that pastor, and if anything it was a very un-Christian act. I think the guy is a moron.* I wouldn't think of doing something that has no beneficial effect for me, and could potentially cause harm to others. On the other hand, are we going to *****-foot around and walk on eggshells with these homicidal maniacs who, if it hadn't been this, there would have been some other weak rationale for going out and perpetrating violence on others?


Dr. Mike, that's why nothing that *you* do or say will incite violence, and I'm fine with people like you. Obviously I'm not fine with people like that pastor, and not fine with the extremists who did the killing.

What I'm advocating for is that more people think like you and be tolerant of others' beliefs or lack thereof.

We are actually on the same boat here, methinks.:tiphat:

At least, regarding the desirability of dialogue and understanding between people of different faiths and those who are non-believers.

Obviously we are not on the same boat regarding our beliefs, but this is just fine.


----------



## Almaviva

starthrower said:


> Terry Jones is a pathetic crank and a racist with an active membership of 30 people. He's having his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe if the so called news media did some worthwhile reporting instead of combing the internet for this sensationalist crap, the violence could have been avoided?


Sure. It could also have been avoided if he hadn't done it in the first place.
And I'm fully aware that he represents a crazy fringe, and like I said, I'm not generalizing. It's just that I am using this rare and anomalous event to show how the idea of "My God is better than your God" can lead to regretable consequences, as rarely as it happens. I'm sure that for the families of the victims, the fact that this is a rare event is no consolation.


----------



## sospiro

starthrower said:


> Terry Jones is a pathetic crank and a racist with an active membership of 30 people. He's having his 15 minutes of fame. Maybe if the so called news media did some worthwhile reporting instead of combing the internet for this sensationalist crap, the violence could have been avoided?


I usually stay away from religious/political discussions but I got curious. Reading this I thought you were referring to one of my all time favourite actors who I could not believe was being described as pathetic crank & a racist. 






Wrong Terry Jones


----------



## Toccata

Almaviva said:


> Dear, you and I know what I'm talking about. Have a nice day. Cheers.


As I said, if you say you are a medical doctor that's fine by me. I wish you a nice day too. Cheers.


----------



## Chris

Almaviva said:


> The loved ones of those who died from a domino effect initiated by the pastor would be right in blaming BOTH the pastor AND the extremists who killed their loved ones.
> 
> Is killing worse than burning a holy book? Yes, absolutely. But what was the triggering event that has ultimately lead to the killing? It was the burning of said holy book. What was the idea behind the burning of the book? "My God is better than your God."
> 
> QED.


'QED' implies a watertight proof but I spot a leak.

If I can first convert "My God is better than your God" into something that sounds a little less like a playground taunt....the Bible actually says unbelievers are not worshipping a god at all, because:

'There is *one God* and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5)

Thus one God and one means to be reconciled to him. All Christians are under obligation to take this message into the world in whatever situation is available to them. For example, the Apostle Paul preaching to the pagans (in the midst of all their idols) in Athens said:

'Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone - an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed'.

Paul used the means of preaching. He did not burn their pagan books. No such course is ordained in scripture. The only reference I can find to bookburning is in Acts 19 where some newly converted pagans who had been involved in sorcery made a bonfire of their scrolls, such was their joy in finding Christ.

So turning to our Koran-burning pastor. What he did was not authorised by the Bible. It was authorised by the pastor himself. It was all him. This is why you are wrong in pursuing a trail of moral blame through him to Christianity's exclusive claims. The trail does not exist. The hounds sniff the burning Koran, and follow the scent back to the pastor, but that is where they must stay.



Almaviva said:


> Now, I am not religious, you know it. I'm, nevertheless, willing to respect those who are, and their ideas. But the very least I'd expect from religious people would be something like this: "We believe in God. We understand that God manifests Himself to other good pious people around the world in different forms. We welcome different aspects in the way different people haved focused on, in the matter of divine manifestations. We appreciate the fact that they worship God in whatever form they want to do it, as long as the end result fosters the brotherhood of Men, and promotes peace and understanding between fellow humans who share the spiritual feeling of connection with God, regardless of the form this connection assumes." Is this too much to ask for???
> 
> Don't *you all *have institutions like the Interfaith Council?


That '*you all*' encapsulates so much of the confusion on this thread. The idea that there is Set 1, Religious People, standing at one end of the room and Set 2, Non-Religious People, standing at the other end. Do not misunderstand me. I know you accept the Koran burner will be seen as thoroughly reprehensible and his actions condemned by all decent religious people....but you seem to think of 'religious people' as a fractious family who have fallen out over an inheritance or something and just need to shake hands and get back together. I just want to point out that in the Bible there is indeed division. We have Sheep/Goats; Saved/Lost; At the Banquet/Excluded from the Banquet; mystical Jerusalem/mystical Babylon. But the division never means religious / non-religious. The Pharisees were intensely religious but Jesus said things to them like 'You belong to your father the devil'. So if we're talking sets, they actually belong with the atheists....


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> ... I just want to point out that in the Bible there is indeed division. We have Sheep/Goats; Saved/Lost; At the Banquet/Excluded from the Banquet; mystical Jerusalem/mystical Babylon. But the division never means religious / non-religious. The Pharisees were intensely religious but Jesus said things to them like 'You belong to your father the devil'. So if we're talking sets, they actually belong with the atheists....


Am I going to hell after I die?


----------



## Guest

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Am I going to hell after I die?


Any Christian who tells you yes or no should be questioned about their adherence to doctrine, because judgment is for God alone. It is not merely about outward signs. It is about your heart, your mind, etc. Only God can know those things.

But I would suggest this - if you went your whole life, choosing to believe there was no God, and not caring for a religious doctrine, when you died, if you were to find out you were wrong, and that there really was a God, do you really think you would suddenly want to spend the rest of eternity with Him? I don't believe in the paradigm of heaven/hell. My religion has a different understanding of the scriptures, and perhaps what many consider as hell is a temporary state, following which you go on to a different state, depending on your situation. But in general, the highest state, eternal life in God's presence, is reserved for those who were most valiant in their faith and lived according to God's requirements of them.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> But I would suggest this - if you went your whole life, choosing to believe there was no God, and not caring for a religious doctrine, when you died, if you were to find out you were wrong, and that there really was a God, do you really think you would suddenly want to spend the rest of eternity with Him?


I imagine he would make for terribly interesting conversation, especially regarding this obscene prank called 'life', throughout which he has hidden himself so well


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> Any Christian who tells you yes or no should be questioned about their adherence to doctrine, because judgment is for God alone. It is not merely about outward signs. It is about your heart, your mind, etc. Only God can know those things.
> 
> But I would suggest this - if you went your whole life, choosing to believe there was no God, and not caring for a religious doctrine, when you died, if you were to find out you were wrong, and that there really was a God, do you really think you would suddenly want to spend the rest of eternity with Him? I don't believe in the paradigm of heaven/hell. My religion has a different understanding of the scriptures, and perhaps what many consider as hell is a temporary state, following which you go on to a different state, depending on your situation. But in general, the highest state, eternal life in God's presence, is reserved for those who were most valiant in their faith and lived according to God's requirements of them.


Interesting, especially your belief where I quoted in blue colour about the temporary state. That seems to agree with the New Testament's interpretation of your God as a loving and forgiving one, in light of the many, many genuinely good atheists there are on this planet, which I know even you would agree with.


----------



## Almaviva

Chris said:


> 'QED' implies a watertight proof but I spot a leak.
> 
> If I can first convert "My God is better than your God" into something that sounds a little less like a playground taunt....the Bible actually says unbelievers are not worshipping a god at all, because:
> 
> 'There is *one God* and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus' (1 Timothy 2:5)
> 
> Thus one God and one means to be reconciled to him. All Christians are under obligation to take this message into the world in whatever situation is available to them. For example, the Apostle Paul preaching to the pagans (in the midst of all their idols) in Athens said:
> 
> 'Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone - an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed'.
> 
> Paul used the means of preaching. He did not burn their pagan books. No such course is ordained in scripture. The only reference I can find to bookburning is in Acts 19 where some newly converted pagans who had been involved in sorcery made a bonfire of their scrolls, such was their joy in finding Christ.
> 
> So turning to our Koran-burning pastor. What he did was not authorised by the Bible. It was authorised by the pastor himself. It was all him. This is why you are wrong in pursuing a trail of moral blame through him to Christianity's exclusive claims. The trail does not exist. The hounds sniff the burning Koran, and follow the scent back to the pastor, but that is where they must stay.
> 
> That '*you all*' encapsulates so much of the confusion on this thread. The idea that there is Set 1, Religious People, standing at one end of the room and Set 2, Non-Religious People, standing at the other end. Do not misunderstand me. I know you accept the Koran burner will be seen as thoroughly reprehensible and his actions condemned by all decent religious people....but you seem to think of 'religious people' as a fractious family who have fallen out over an inheritance or something and just need to shake hands and get back together. I just want to point out that in the Bible there is indeed division. We have Sheep/Goats; Saved/Lost; At the Banquet/Excluded from the Banquet; mystical Jerusalem/mystical Babylon. But the division never means religious / non-religious. The Pharisees were intensely religious but Jesus said things to them like 'You belong to your father the devil'. So if we're talking sets, they actually belong with the atheists....


The above makes sense! Kudos!:tiphat:


----------



## starthrower

Almaviva said:


> Sure. It could also have been avoided if he hadn't done it in the first place.
> And I'm fully aware that he represents a crazy fringe, and like I said, I'm not generalizing. It's just that I am using this rare and anomalous event to show how the idea of "My God is better than your God" can lead to regretable consequences, as rarely as it happens. I'm sure that for the families of the victims, the fact that this is a rare event is no consolation.


Yes, it's tragic, and I'm in complete agreement with you. The guy is jerk, and his organization was designated a hate group. He's also running some type of shady boarding school. Religion is a convenient front for racketeers like Jones.

And for those of you wondering about Hell. You might want to take a look at this site.
http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/ And hell, don't be afraid. It's good news!


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Am I going to hell after I die?


Church pastors are often approached by anxious people within the church who are uncertain of their spiritual state. A former pastor of mine, in these situations, would put on a stony face and say 'I do not know if you are saved or not'. He might quote one of the scriptures that promise eternal life to those who put their faith in Christ. But even if the enquirer gave a positive answer, how could the pastor know whether the answer was genuine or the person if front of him was a Judas? When it comes to salvation there is a sense in which we are on our own.


----------



## TxllxT

emiellucifuge said:


> Then why do their stems grow up and their roots grow down?


It reminded me of this:
Ecclesiastes 3:21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?


----------



## Polednice

Ælfric in Dominica II. In Aduentum Domini from the 'Catholic Homilies' said:


> Ne gewurðe hit la, þæt ænig geleafful, seðe gewilnað God to geseonne, þæt he heofige for middangeardes hryrum; hit is soðlice awriten, "Swa hwa swa wile beon freond þyssere worulde, he bið Godes feond geteald." Witodlice se ðe ne blissað on nealæcunge middangeardes geendunge, se geswutelað þæt he his freond wæs, and bið þonne oferstæled þæt he Godes feond is.


"Oh let it not be, that any believer, who desires to see God, mourn for the fall of the world; for it is written, "Whosoever will be a friend of this world, will be accounted a foe of God." But he who rejoices not at the approach of the ending of the world, manifests that he was its friend, and will then be convicted that he is God's foe."

I was reminded of this snippet of 1000-year-old wisdom earlier today, having studied a fair bit of Anglo-Saxon eschatology, and I was wondering about others' takes on it. It's an idea still present today, and, arguably, ought to be the default position of any religious person. There are a lot of people in the world who strive for it to end, and hope to see some kind of armageddon so that mankind is brought closer to god in heaven - after all, when there's eternal bliss on offer, earth looks pretty damn crap!

As such, shouldn't the religious be _hoping_ to die as soon as possible? And, if not, is that not a sign of an inner doubting of their beliefs, just in case this life is indeed all we have?


----------



## Weston

I have not read this thread yet and I don't intend to participate in the discussion. I'm not being cowardly, I would just rather spew my own admittedly weird beliefs on my own dime. But I must say a hearty "bravo," to all of you for not getting the thread locked yet. You must have been civil or nearly so all this time. :tiphat:


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Weston said:


> I have not read this thread yet and I don't intend to participate in the discussion. I'm not being cowardly, I would just rather spew my own admittedly weird beliefs on my own dime. But I must say a hearty "bravo," to all of you for not getting the thread locked yet. You must have been civil or nearly so all this time. :tiphat:


:lol:

POST 372

:tiphat:


----------



## Chris

starthrower said:


> And for those of you wondering about Hell. You might want to take a look at this site.
> http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/ And hell, don't be afraid. *It's good news!*


I like good news so I had a look at this site.

The first words I met were 'This site is dedicated to the eradication of the myth of Hell from the face of this earth. This pagan myth, invented by men and women-NOT God-has been a great stain upon the nature and character of our Creator for thousands of years. It.....' etc. etc.

Too heavy in the brass section, I think. Too much fortissimo. Like the preacher's sermon notes that said 'dubious point here: raise voice'. You will sound more convincing, Mr. webpage author, if you do not shout in my ear.

But I carried on and went to the section about Matthew 25:46. This is the end of the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats:

'Then they [the wicked] will go away to *eternal punishment*, but the righteous to *eternal life*' 

This is the only place in the Bible, we are told, where the words 'eternal' and 'punishment' occur together. But, assures the website, there is nothing to worry about. The reasoning is based on analysis of the underlying Greek and amounts to this:

* the word 'eternal', sometimes translated 'everlasting' does not have to be translated that way
* the root of the word is 'aion', corresponding to our 'eon' 
* an 'aion' (eon) is a block of time and the other 'aion's in the Bible are all limited, e.g. 'this current wicked aion'
* the word 'eternal' is an adjective of the noun aion.....
* ...so the adjective of a finite quantity cannot be infinite.

The first bit is actually not in dispute. The most reliable of my commentaries says 'eternal' can be translated 'without beginning' or 'without end'. Translators generally go for the latter so as not to conflict with parallel passages, of which more later. But as for the rest of it....to my admittedly monoglot mind that reasoning is flimsy. Why can't the final 'aion' last for ever? It is special. It is the LAST one. And notice 'eternal' appears twice in our verse. If hell is cut short, so is heaven.

But all this is of pretty limited significance when we consider the first claim that 'eternal' and 'punishment' only occur in combination in this one verse. We are told:

'The entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily
on a single verse of Scripture-Matthew 25:46. This is the only
place in the entire Bible where we find these two words together
AND only in some Bibles. '

But what about *these* verses?

'He will burn up the chaff [the wicked] with unquenchable fire' (Matthew 3:12)

'...and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched'' (Mark 9:48)

'...and the smoke of their torment [i.e. of the wicked in hell] rises for ever and ever' (Revelation 14:11)

Eternity is not so easily disposed of. I would not gamble my soul on the reassurances given by this website.


----------



## science

The Greek Orthodox Church, which has always understood Greek very well, has never ruled out the possibility of universal salvation, or declared with finality that punishment in hell is necessarily eternal. Quite a few Greek Orthodox theologians over the centuries have claimed that even the devil will be saved eventually - but that is not an official doctrine either.


----------



## mmsbls

I'm interested in how people interpret religious text. Certainly we all know that there are many different interpretations of religious works. Within some circles there are heated debates (discussions?) about the meaning of various texts or passages. I assume some people come to change their view of specific meanings. Are there any here who have changed their view of an important passage or piece of text? if so, what caused that change? Do you feel this is an ongoing process of better understanding the true meaning of scripture?

I'm not asking about those who changed from belief to disbelief (or vice versa), but those who came to realize that some specific important question, issue, command, etc. had a truly different meaning to them. I also realize that this could seem to be a rather naive question, but so far I have only had experience with two views to this question - 1) believers that the religious text comes from God and they know the one true meaning, and 2) believers who do NOT believe the religious text comes specifically from God and that the meaning is more part of a philosophical question to be answered. I guess there has been a third group believing that they don't really know exactly what the religious text is. but this group has not seemed concerned with the details of the text.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

mmsbls said:


> I'm interested in how people interpret religious text. Certainly we all know that there are many different interpretations of religious works. Within some circles there are heated debates (discussions?) about the meaning of various texts or passages ...


In other words, with much inconsistency to be greeted with some skepticism to say the least, although warranting apparent respect amongst the different believers of the same text.


----------



## gurthbruins

*Grand Entry to the Fray*



mmsbls said:


> I'm interested in how people interpret religious text. Certainly we all know that there are many different interpretations of religious works. Within some circles there are heated debates (discussions?) about the meaning of various texts or passages. I assume some people come to change their view of specific meanings. Are there any here who have changed their view of an important passage or piece of text? if so, what caused that change? Do you feel this is an ongoing process of better understanding the true meaning of scripture?
> 
> I'm not asking about those who changed from belief to disbelief (or vice versa), but those who came to realize that some specific important question, issue, command, etc. had a truly different meaning to them. I also realize that this could seem to be a rather naive question, but so far I have only had experience with two views to this question - 1) believers that the religious text comes from God and they know the one true meaning, and 2) believers who do NOT believe the religious text comes specifically from God and that the meaning is more part of a philosophical question to be answered. I guess there has been a third group believing that they don't really know exactly what the religious text is. but this group has not seemed concerned with the details of the text.


As this is my first post on this thread, let me announce once and for all that I know nothing at all, and all my words must be taken as mere expressions of opinion. I am NOT going to waste words with phrases like "I think...", IMHO, etc.

All religious texts, of all religions, come from God, as does everything else in the universe.
Whatever the agency or middleman involved, all texts are put there to further God's mysterious purposes, about which we do not know much.

A cursory look at the universe will see that the principle of conflict is very prevalent in God's plans. Lions kill lambs, and men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme, to tell God that we know better than him how to run this universe: the first key essential for any man at all interested in religion is to submit to the will of God, and to accept what is.

I knew the Religiosity thread had been stopped, I didn't know it had been resumed here - you foxed the moderators, and you foxed me too. But don't worry about this thread ever being stopped: if that happens, you can all simply continue the discussion on one of my sites. ::: I see that on page one and two already contributors were raring to go, but wanted assurance that the thread will not be closed. So don't worry!

If it should ever come to that, and manners became too offensive on my site, the topic would not be closed: one should be able to put up with words on any level of hate, but if the *vote* against any contributor (not my personal prejudice!) were close to unanimous, he would be banned.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> A cursory look at the universe will see that the principle of conflict is very prevalent in God's plans. Lions kill lambs, and men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme, to tell God that we know better than him how to run this universe: the first key essential for any man at all interested in religion is to submit to the will of God, and to accept what is.


I think that requires a very bleak, degrading, even masochistic view of mankind. I like to think of humanity as better than that :/


----------



## Almaviva

Wow, I'm thrilled! 378 posts and civility has prevailed! I'm proud of you guys!:tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

gurthbruins said:


> All religious texts, of all religions, come from God, as does everything else in the universe.
> Whatever the agency or middleman involved, all texts are put there to further God's mysterious purposes, about which we do not know much.


This seems to make it extremely hard to learn anything whatsoever about God as there are so may distinctly different books about religion (including those that expressly state that God does not exist).



gurthbruins said:


> A cursory look at the universe will see that the principle of conflict is very prevalent in God's plans. Lions kill lambs, and men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme, to tell God that we know better than him how to run this universe: the first key essential for any man at all interested in religion is to submit to the will of God, and to accept what is.


This seems to suggest that everything that happens is right including rape, murder, torture, etc. The religious texts that say these things are wrong are then very hard to understand.


----------



## gurthbruins

Hi, Polednice:
Your reply does not make sense to me. You use the word "bleak". What exactly is it you find bleak? Is it the fact that men kill men in wars? If you find this bleak, then how can you say you have a higher opinion of mankind? Higher than what? Higher than being a murderous race?

If the fact that men are murderers does not appear bleak to you, then what does?

Re your word "degrading", I take that as meaning that reducing your opinion of man as much better than that, to being exactly that, would represent a considerable degrading process.

I don't experience anything as bleak or degrading, as I am used to facing facts, not burying my head in the sand: that could cause a worse shock when you take it out.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> I don't experience anything as bleak or degrading, as I am used to facing facts, not burying my head in the sand: that could cause a worse shock when you take it out.


Sorry, were you trying to quote me? After all, I'd accuse you of the same! 

I find it bleak to suggest that mankind ought to accept wars, unjust deaths, violence, conflict, segregation, racism, discrimination _et. al._, as unquestionable inevitabilities - ordained by god and, so, though harsh to our eyes, we're supposed to accept them. The way I see it is that man is equally capable of seeing the horror of those things, and establishing in their place peace, justice, harmony, democracy, acceptance, and tolerance. Even if god _does_ exist, and _has_ decided that our world ought to be filled with grim terrors, then I and countless others would proclaim man to be superior to god, a barbarian.


----------



## gurthbruins

Hi *mmsbls*:
It's a long way to Tipperary, it's a long way to go: or a short one.
You say:
This seems to make it extremely hard to learn anything whatsoever about God as there are so may distinctly different books about religion (including those that expressly state that God does not exist).

It's impossible, let along extremely hard, to learn anything from books. God is definitely beyond books. As Meister Eckhart said: "Anything you say about God is false."

God has to be experienced. But how to reach that experience is also not easy to describe.
That is indeed a huge subject, perhaps best confined to those who are genuine seekers of God, rather than debaters about god on an "Atheist" topic.

You say:
This seems to suggest that everything that happens is right including rape, murder, torture, etc. The religious texts that say these things are wrong are then very hard to understand. 

The religious texts are unfortunately not more use in understanding right and wrong than they are in telling about the nature of God. In fact I'd go so far as to say that the religious texts place such impossible demands one one's credulity that they must be held responsible for the creation of many atheists.

If one learns to see the world in a holistic way, being a single spiritual entity with a coherent pattern of functioning, then one sees that all the dualities, Pain/joy, good/evil, right/wrong etc are relative to the points of view of the separate parts seen in isolation.

What is right for the lion, is wrong for the lamb. But escape from the narrow, isolated viewpoint is to see beyond dualities. To realise the essential perfection and inevitability of the whole. God and the universe have their laws, which they never transgress. But they are not our parochial laws.


----------



## gurthbruins

Polednice said:


> Sorry, were you trying to quote me? After all, I'd accuse you of the same!
> 
> I find it bleak to suggest that mankind ought to accept wars, unjust deaths, violence, conflict, segregation, racism, discrimination _et. al._, as unquestionable inevitabilities - ordained by god and, so, though harsh to our eyes, we're supposed to accept them. The way I see it is that man is equally capable of seeing the horror of those things, and establishing in their place peace, justice, harmony, democracy, acceptance, and tolerance. Even if god _does_ exist, and _has_ decided that our world ought to be filled with grim terrors, then I and countless others would proclaim man to be superior to god, a barbarian.


There is no problem here, Polednice, no problem at all. I'm saying accept what is. That does not only mean accept what you see as horrible, it also means accept your own desires to correct those things, and your own right to do as you please about them. Accept the horrors as a fact in the first place: as a fact, present time. But the nature of the game is *change*, not immutability: it's quite possible that you (plus your friends) might be God's chosen agents to make a change for what *you* consider to be the better.

And whether or not I agree with you on what would be an ideal world to live in, is neither here nor there.


----------



## science

I used to interpret various lines in Paul in line with the "substitutionary atonement" theology I'd been taught growing up - that a righteous God requires satisfaction for sin, that God became man to accept the punishment in our place. In college I found out that until Anselm's _Cur Deus homo_, that wasn't the soteriology of any Christian churches, and that the Eastern churches still reject it.

But because I'd grown up hearing scriptures quoted in support of it, and always read them in that light, it took a lot of study, thought, and prayer to change my mind. Ultimately, the "new perspective on Paul" scholars were key for me.

After about 2 years, I'd changed my mind, and today I am not persuaded that there are any scriptural texts that require a belief in the substitutionary atonement, and to the best of my knowledge there are none in the New Testament that imply one.

It was a huge thing for me - changing my soteriology was like a new birth - the "Gospel" actually became "Good News," I fell in more deeply in love with Christianity and its God than I'd ever been as an Evangelical Christian.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> There is no problem here, Polednice, no problem at all. I'm saying accept what is. That does not only mean accept what you see as horrible, it also means accept your own desires to correct those things, and your own right to do as you please about them. Accept the horrors as a fact in the first place: as a fact, present time. But the nature of the game is *change*, not immutability: it's quite possible that you (plus your friends) might be God's chosen agents to make a change for what *you* consider to be the better.
> 
> And whether or not I agree with you on what would be an ideal world to live in, is neither here nor there.


So you're saying that there is no actual argument here? You were just saying - admittedly in a convoluted way - that 'the world is as the world is + God'?

If so, then I'd have to ask if you were exaggerating a little when you said: "... men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme." Is it blasphemy to declare the atrocities committed by Hitler as evil?


----------



## mmsbls

gurthbruins said:


> It's impossible, let along extremely hard, to learn anything from books. God is definitely beyond books. As Meister Eckhart said: "Anything you say about God is false."
> 
> God has to be experienced. But how to reach that experience is also not easy to describe.
> That is indeed a huge subject, perhaps best confined to those who are genuine seekers of God, rather than debaters about god on an "Atheist" topic.


One can certainly learn much about experience from books and even sites such as this one. I assume you meant to say, "But how to reach that experience is impossible to describe."

I agree that debating about god is useless. Who cares who "wins'? I don't like debates about free will, evolution, or other important topics. I'd much rather learn about them and see where that leads me. I find some others views interesting because sometimes I can see mistakes in my thinking or better understand others views.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> It was a huge thing for me - changing my soteriology was like a new birth - the "Gospel" actually became "Good News," I fell in more deeply in love with Christianity and its God than I'd ever been as an Evangelical Christian.


Did you actively go about questioning what you were taught before college? Or did you come upon some new views as you were studying issues you thought you understood? Do you actively question other religious views now? I don't mean question in the sense "Is the Bible right" but rather "Is what I know about the Bible correct?"


----------



## emiellucifuge

science said:


> But because I'd grown up hearing scriptures quoted in support of it, and always read them in that light, it took a lot of study, thought, and prayer to change my mind.


Sounds like the whole of your religion could be changed just as easily as this soteriology.


----------



## Couchie

gurthbruins said:


> All religious texts, of all religions, come from God, as does everything else in the universe.
> Whatever the agency or middleman involved, all texts are put there to further God's mysterious purposes, about which we do not know much.





gurthbruins said:


> A cursory look at the universe will see that the principle of conflict is very prevalent in God's plans. Lions kill lambs, and men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme, to tell God that we know better than him how to run this universe: the first key essential for any man at all interested in religion is to submit to the will of God, and to accept what is.


But see, these two statements are in direct contradiction. If we accept that everything comes from god, then so must the concepts of _unacceptance and blasphemy_, and you have no way of knowing whether outspoken blasphemy of god is not in fact an intended component of god's "mysterious plan". Very quickly your kind of thinking boils down to a whole lot of nothing as a universe with such a god and a universe without such a god are inherently indistinguishable to everyone within that universe, therefore the only difference between this kind of "religiosity" and atheism is that the former is sheer philosophical ************.


----------



## science

mmsbls said:


> Did you actively go about questioning what you were taught before college? Or did you come upon some new views as you were studying issues you thought you understood? Do you actively question other religious views now? I don't mean question in the sense "Is the Bible right" but rather "Is what I know about the Bible correct?"


I always sort-of questions religious teachings, but until the end of my junior year of high school, I was safely within the bounds of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianity.

I don't know whether I thought I understood the issues I was studying. I guess my assumption was that my brand of Christianity was correct, but that I didn't know why, and I was trying to find out.

I still study the Bible and other religious stuff occasionally now, almost entirely from a historical point of view. It's much less emotionally fraught for me now than it was then, because I can change my mind about a passage of scripture or a point of theology without endangering my religious identity or my welcome in the community.

But in general my interests have moved on. At that time, theology was my major interest, and history was just a part of that; and now history is my major interest, and theology is just a part of it.


----------



## science

emiellucifuge said:


> Sounds like the whole of your religion could be changed just as easily as this soteriology.


Yes; soteriology is the very center of the Christian religion (at least IMO). When I began to believe a new soteriology, it meant nothing less than changing confessional identity and allegiance.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> A cursory look at the universe will see that the principle of conflict is very prevalent in God's plans. Lions kill lambs, and men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme, to tell God that we know better than him how to run this universe: the first key essential for any man at all interested in religion is to submit to the will of God, and to accept what is.


Yes, the usual token of complete submission to the will of God, irrespective of all else; even the _blasphemy_ of men killing men in wars. 

I'm rather glad I haven't yet read an equally absurd comment from an atheist.


----------



## gurthbruins

Polednice said:


> So you're saying that there is no actual argument here? You were just saying - admittedly in a convoluted way - that 'the world is as the world is + God'?
> 
> If so, then I'd have to ask if you were exaggerating a little when you said: "... men kill men in wars. To call these events evil is to blaspheme." Is it blasphemy to declare the atrocities committed by Hitler as evil?


As long as you realise that evil is a subjective concept, that your sense of evil is purely your personal prejudice and not seen as such in the eyes of God, then you may freely indulge in your subjectivity.

Then you will not blame God for the present state of affairs that you dislike, but may accept it as a necessary phase in the development of the divine drama. It is only when you call something evil while feeling critical towards God for allowing that state of affairs, that you verge on blasphemy, set yourself up as knowing better than God. Many people use the cop-out argument (to absolve God of the responsibility)that God has given us free-will to make our own choices, but that is not true. God IS all-powerful (within the limits of his own always-logical laws, which never contradict each other) and so CAN be held responsible for everything, but to call God's judgement in question can only harm your rapport with the divine plans.

An analogy that may be helpful is to consider the dramas created by humans, e.g. Shakespeare, also the excellent soapies of today: These would be boring without conflict and the "evil" roles played by some of the characters. Those "evil" roles are useful to the drama, and so they cannot really be evil. This already casts doubt on the concept of evil as an absolute.

We should look to see where our feeling of "evil" comes from. In the first place, it comes from our basic instinct of survival which makes us see death as evil. But this is nothing but a hormonal emotion devised to protect life, so that animals will at least take some trouble to survive. Looked at more objectively, there is nothing wrong with death, it serves a vital role in allowing the replacement of old vehicles by new. You look after your car while it is still new, but when it gets past it, you scrap it and buy a new one.

One can reach a state beyond seeing evil as an absolute, but that might not be possible for everyone. "Beyond Good and Evil" is the English title of Nietzsche's book, called "Jenseits der Bose" by him, a subtle difference that, more positively, suggests that you can get beyond evil, but that you can't get beyond good. I like that. Life (and the world) is not evil, it is not neutral, it is positively good. It's up to you to see that.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> As long as you realise that evil is a subjective concept, that your sense of evil is purely your personal prejudice and not seen as such in the eyes of God, then you may freely indulge in your subjectivity.
> 
> Then you will not blame God for the present state of affairs that you dislike, but may accept it as a necessary phase in the development of the divine drama. It is only when you call something evil while feeling critical towards God for allowing that state of affairs, that you verge on blasphemy, set yourself up as knowing better than God. Many people use the cop-out argument (to absolve God of the responsibility)that God has given us free-will to make our own choices, but that is not true. God IS all-powerful (within the limits of his own always-logical laws, which never contradict each other) and so CAN be held responsible for everything, but to call God's judgement in question can only harm your rapport with the divine plans.
> 
> An analogy that may be helpful is to consider the dramas created by humans, e.g. Shakespeare, also the excellent soapies of today: These would be boring without conflict and the "evil" roles played by some of the characters. Those "evil" roles are useful to the drama, and so they cannot really be evil. This already casts doubt on the concept of evil as an absolute.
> 
> We should look to see where our feeling of "evil" comes from. In the first place, it comes from our basic instinct of survival which makes us see death as evil. But this is nothing but a hormonal emotion devised to protect life, so that animals will at least take some trouble to survive. Looked at more objectively, there is nothing wrong with death, it serves a vital role in allowing the replacement of old vehicles by new. You look after your car while it is still new, but when it gets past it, you scrap it and buy a new one.
> 
> One can reach a state beyond seeing evil as an absolute, but that might not be possible for everyone. "Beyond Good and Evil" is the English title of Nietzsche's book, called "Jenseits der Bose" by him, a subtle difference that, more positively, suggests that you can get beyond evil, but that you can't get beyond good. I like that. Life (and the world) is not evil, it is not neutral, it is positively good. It's up to you to see that.


I must admit I find your opinions on this matter utterly bizzare.

In light of what you wrote, let me ask you this question (and in light of the apparent fact that you are from Cape Town, South Africa): do you lock your residence's door at night to protect your home / family from the relatively high crime likelihood of say, an unwanted home invasion? If so, then why do you protect your home / family from a possible undesirable consequence of not locking, in light of what you wrote regarding _subjective perceptions _of evil?


----------



## gurthbruins

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I must admit I find your opinions on this matter utterly bizzare.
> 
> In light of what you wrote, let me ask you this question (and in light of the apparent fact that you are from Cape Town, South Africa): do you lock your residence's door at night to protect your home / family from the relatively high crime likelihood of say, an unwanted home invasion? If so, then why do you protect your home / family from a possible undesirable consequence of not locking, in light of what you wrote regarding _subjective perceptions _of evil?


Dear HC,
I don't understand why you find my propositions bizarre. They are all simple and logical.

I wrote:
As long as you realise that evil is a subjective concept, that your sense of evil is purely your personal prejudice and not seen as such in the eyes of God, then you may freely indulge in your subjectivity.

The red part answers your question.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> Dear HC,
> I don't understand why you find my propositions bizarre. They are all simple and logical.
> 
> I wrote:
> As long as you realise that evil is a subjective concept, that your sense of evil is purely your personal prejudice and not seen as such in the eyes of God, then you may freely indulge in your subjectivity.
> 
> The red part answers your question.


I think you have avoided answering the question I asked. Thanks for your efforts. I presume you do lock your doors at night in Cape Town, based on objective reasons that I feel sure you know what they are.


----------



## gurthbruins

Couchie said:


> But see, these two statements are in direct contradiction. If we accept that everything comes from god, then so must the concepts of _unacceptance and blasphemy_, and you have no way of knowing whether outspoken blasphemy of god is not in fact an intended component of god's "mysterious plan". Very quickly your kind of thinking boils down to a whole lot of nothing as a universe with such a god and a universe without such a god are inherently indistinguishable to everyone within that universe, therefore the only difference between this kind of "religiosity" and atheism is that the former is sheer philosophical ************.


There is no contradiction. Of course outspoken blasphemy of god, like everything else, is a part of god's plan: we DO know that. So I find your argument mistaken.

You are right about a universe with such a god and a universe without such a god being indistinguishable TO EVERY ONE WITHOUT DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF GOD, but it does not apply to those with direct experience of god, who are the only ones qualified to talk about god anyway.

A VERY BIG difference between this kind of "religiosity" and atheism. Much bigger than philosophical ************.


----------



## gurthbruins

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think you have avoided answering the question I asked. Thanks for your efforts. I presume you do lock your doors at night in Cape Town, based on objective reasons that I feel sure you know what they are.


As you think I have avoided answering your question, let me try to answer more fully: yes, I do lock my doors, but not for objective reasons. It's only my PURELY SUBJECTIVE fear of death and loss, which I am free to indulge in, that motivates me. Without that fear, I certainly wouldn't bother to lock my doors, even if I knew objectively that I could well be robbed or murdered.

If I was to think OBJECTIVELY, I might well think of things more from the robber's point of view, and put a notice on my gate inviting them to be my guests.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> As you think I have avoided answering your question, let me try to answer more fully: yes, I do lock my doors, but not for objective reasons. It's only my PURELY SUBJECTIVE fear of death and loss, which I am free to indulge in, that motivates me. ...


Therefore an act of blasphemy? Surely not ...


----------



## gurthbruins

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Therefore an act of blasphemy? Surely not ...


Sorry, you've lost me there. You'll have to spell it out a bit more if you want me to understand that. But in any case, I'm quite cool with blasphemy. It's part of freedom of expression. To be praised if honest. Better than thinking it secretly. Even if it costs you your head, or the rack, or the stake. Unless of course you prefer to stay alive.

Really, we do enjoy a lot of freedom. We're not just puppets. As parts of God, we can all partake in creation. Yes, we are parts of God. God is not something outside of us, separate from us. Everything, in fact, is part of God. This is where the Jewish theologians went wrong, saying that God's creation was separate from God.

We are in God, and of course too, God is in us. The "kingdom of heaven."


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> But in any case, I'm quite cool with blasphemy....


... and therefore hypocrisy.


----------



## gurthbruins

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ... and therefore hypocrisy.


"therefore"?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> "therefore"?


Your "Grand Entry to the Fray" (your description) at post #377, you condemned blasphemy.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> As long as you realise that evil is a subjective concept.


That's obvious enough, of course.



gurthbruins said:


> It is only when you call something evil while feeling critical towards God for allowing that state of affairs, that you verge on blasphemy, set yourself up as knowing better than God.


Assuming the above is correct, and that god exists, then I would proudly blaspheme and set myself up as being better than god, and would have no respect for people who submitted themselves as slaves to his whimsical schemes.



gurthbruins said:


> In the first place, it comes from our basic instinct of survival which makes us see death as evil ...


This, plus the rest, seems like an oversimplification. I'd be surprised if anyone actually thought of death itself as evil, it is certain methods and ideas that lead to death which people consider to be evil.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> You are right about a universe with such a god and a universe without such a god being indistinguishable TO EVERY ONE WITHOUT DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF GOD, but it does not apply to those with direct experience of god, who are the only ones qualified to talk about god anyway.
> 
> A VERY BIG difference between this kind of "religiosity" and atheism. Much bigger than philosophical ************.


Oh dear, I suppose I'd better shut up then. I hadn't realised that anecdotes and delusions had suddenly become reliable in assessments of universal reality.


----------



## dmg

Everyone has an equal amount experience with 'God': None. 

I used to be religious, and thought the wave of satisfying emotion that came over me during religious moments were the acts of 'God' or 'Jesus' or whoever, but they're not. It's simply me creating the release of euphoric chemicals in my brain / body through thought. God did not inject me with these things; they already exist in glands or whatever in my body, and I simply facilitated their release.

What's interesting is that I've learned to do that without having to imagine God or Jesus or angels or whatever. It's called 'meditation'.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

dmg said:


> *Everyone* (emphasis mine) has an equal amount experience with 'God': None.


You can speak authoritatively about YOUR experience(s). 
Unless conducting a lifelong direct monitoring and observation project, 
you CANNOT speak authoritatively about the experiences of others.

So please don't.


----------



## Polednice

Chi_townPhilly said:


> You can speak authoritatively about YOUR experience(s).
> Unless conducting a lifelong direct monitoring and observation project,
> you CANNOT speak authoritatively about the experiences of others.
> 
> So please don't.


But dmg can state that if he thinks that there is no god. After all, particularly in these discussions, _everyone_ states their opinions as facts, even if they don't mean them to sound that way because it would be laborious to begin every sentence with "in my opinion...".


----------



## science

I don't doubt that people subjectively experience "God" and gods and many other things - ghosts, spirits, saints, angels, demons, aliens, supernatural energies, etc.... 

I doubt that the best explanation of those experiences is that those things are real. If the people who had such experiences could agree... but the inconsistency of the reports calls for some other explanation.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I don't doubt that people subjectively experience "God" and gods and many other things - ghosts, spirits, saints, angels, demons, aliens, supernatural energies, etc....
> 
> I doubt that the best explanation of those experiences is that those things are real. If the people who had such experiences could agree... but the inconsistency of the reports calls for some other explanation.


A mixture of the true and the false will not produce consistency.


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> I doubt that the best explanation of those experiences is that those things are real. If the people who had such experiences could agree... but the inconsistency of the reports calls for some other explanation.


Interesting new phase of the discussion.

Inconsistent reports of a single real phenomenon are a pretty normal aspect of human experience, and in this case are only to be expected, one would think - given the combined effects of the complexity of human perception (/psychology?) and the possible complexity of the phenomenon under observation. In fact, let's turn the tables for a moment: if the reports _were_ all the same, wouldn't one be inclined to dismiss them as almost certainly the predictable products of brain chemistry? Indeed, isn't that what's said about those tunnel-with-white-light episodes in near-death experiences? Their similarity is regarded as evidence that they're generated by oxygen-starvation in the brain, etc.. Looks to me like a case of such reports being damned if they're different, and damned if they're not. In other words, to find _real _evidence 'for' or 'against', we need to look elsewhere.

Wouldn't a genuine experience of a divine presence (assuming such a thing to be possible) be overwhelming, leaving one extremely confused about what had happened? The pluralistic view has a great deal to commend it: namely - that if there is indeed 'something real' there, then those experiencing it are very understandably getting imperfect, and therefore different, perceptions of it. (I'm inclined to apply this way of thinking to _all_ human experience, not just the religious aspects.) Certainly I don't think the _difference_ in reported religious experience has any evidential value one way or the other concerning the _reality_ of what was experienced.


----------



## TxllxT

A Biblical God-experience is being witnessed like this: (Exodus 3:14) God said to Moshe, "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh [I am/will be what I am/will be]," and added, "Here is what to say to the people of Isra'el: 'Ehyeh [I Am or I Will Be] has sent me to you.'" In this thread all the emphasis is put on whether God exists or not. In biblical Hebrew the verb 'Ehyeh' has more in common with the English verb 'to happen' than with the philosophical lollipop 'to exist' / 'not-exist'. There are even Rabbi's who let the verb part away: God reveals hinself as "I!" (not "I *am*"). This "I!" with emphasis is also heard in the very beginning of the 10 commandments: I! the LORD. So the secret of 'God' is not hidden in ontology & ontological proof but in his speaking as first person. Notice the open vowels of "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" --- there is music in this!


----------



## science

Chris said:


> A mixture of the true and the false will not produce consistency.


An arbitrary refusal to respect anyone else's experiences would.


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> Interesting new phase of the discussion.
> 
> Inconsistent reports of a single real phenomenon are a pretty normal aspect of human experience, and in this case are only to be expected, one would think - given the combined effects of the complexity of human perception (/psychology?) and the possible complexity of the phenomenon under observation. In fact, let's turn the tables for a moment: if the reports _were_ all the same, wouldn't one be inclined to dismiss them as almost certainly the predictable products of brain chemistry? Indeed, isn't that what's said about those tunnel-with-white-light episodes in near-death experiences? Their similarity is regarded as evidence that they're generated by oxygen-starvation in the brain, etc.. Looks to me like a case of such reports being damned if they're different, and damned if they're not. In other words, to find _real _evidence 'for' or 'against', we need to look elsewhere.
> 
> Wouldn't a genuine experience of a divine presence (assuming such a thing to be possible) be overwhelming, leaving one extremely confused about what had happened? The pluralistic view has a great deal to commend it: namely - that if there is indeed 'something real' there, then those experiencing it are very understandably getting imperfect, and therefore different, perceptions of it. (I'm inclined to apply this way of thinking to _all_ human experience, not just the religious aspects.) Certainly I don't think the _difference_ in reported religious experience has any evidential value one way or the other concerning the _reality_ of what was experienced.


If ten people tasted a cup of coffee, and they couldn't even agree about whether it was salty, bitter, sweet, bland, or spicy - couldn't agree about whether it was black or gray or purple or pink - couldn't agree about how warm it was - but they all were confident they'd had a real experience of coffee - you'd know something funny must be going on.

Especially when other observers can't find any sign that there was ever any coffee in the cup, and they go on drinking it and arguing about what it tastes like. Then they explain that you have to have faith to know that the coffee even exists.


----------



## MJTTOMB

Personally I'm not ashamed to admit that I actually don't know all of the answers to the universe. I don't know why everyone always gets so sassy about religion. Everyone always has to be right about everything, there's no allowance for productive and positive discourse.


----------



## Ravellian

I never get too involved in these discussions... after all, I've made my choice about what I believe, and nothing is going to change that. And I don't think this thread will change anyone's convictions... but for those who wish to try, please proceed...........


----------



## dmg

Chi_townPhilly said:


> You can speak authoritatively about YOUR experience(s).
> Unless conducting a lifelong direct monitoring and observation project,
> you CANNOT speak authoritatively about the experiences of others.
> 
> So please don't.


It is my belief that there is no God and therefore nobody can have an experience with God. That is what I believe - and if you want to threaten me, go right ahead. It won't change anything.


----------



## mmsbls

Chi_townPhilly said:


> You can speak authoritatively about YOUR experience(s).
> Unless conducting a lifelong direct monitoring and observation project,
> you CANNOT speak authoritatively about the experiences of others.
> 
> So please don't.


Are you speaking as a moderator? Is what dmg said against TC TOS? If so, how? I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but requesting information.


----------



## Serge

Ravellian said:


> I've made my choice about what I believe, and nothing is going to change that.


Wow, but isn't this just another way of saying that you are close-minded? (Whatever those beliefs of yours are, which is really irrelevant here of course.) You chose to believe in something and that's it? But what if you've made a wrong choice? I, for instance, do not "believe" that there is no God, I know that there is no God because none of my life experiences caused me to know any better. But my knowledge is adjustable as I go along. And I also know that I have been wrong about things many times before, sometimes because of a lack of information and at other times because of a failure to process information properly. Although, quite frankly, with the knowledge that I've accumulated up to this point, if any of my personal experiences started all of a sudden to tell me about the existence of God any differently, I'd be much more likely to question my own sanity rather than accepting any of those as facts of reality. And it would take a lot of people in white coats to assure me otherwise.


----------



## Sid James

dmg said:


> Everyone has an equal amount experience with 'God': None...


Well it depends who or what your 'God' is. During the Nazi era, Hitler was a 'God' to many Germans. & I think that the almighty dollar is really the 'God' of our world today. Almost everything of consequence on this planet is run according to the (often) unwritten rules & laws of the holy dollar. It's more powerful than any organised religion or any political party...


----------



## Almaviva

mmsbls said:


> Are you speaking as a moderator? Is what dmg said against TC TOS? If so, how? I'm not suggesting you are wrong, but requesting information.


I can't speak for CTP, but from what I know of him, I believe that the answer is no. First of all, I don't think CTP was threatening dmg. Do you all see the smiley? CTP like many others here has strong ideas about religion and talks about it with lots of energy, that's all. Second, when CTP talks as a moderator, he usually uses red font. Third, I don't see any violation of TC TOS, and I believe CTP doesn't see one either.


----------



## Almaviva

dmg said:


> It is my belief that there is no God and therefore nobody can have an experience with God. That is what I believe - and if you want to threaten me, go right ahead. It won't change anything.


Whoa, dmg, I don't think CTP was threatening you, he even used a smiley!


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> If ten people tasted a cup of coffee, and they couldn't even agree about whether it was salty, bitter, sweet, bland, or spicy - couldn't agree about whether it was black or gray or purple or pink - couldn't agree about how warm it was - but they all were confident they'd had a real experience of coffee - you'd know something funny must be going on.


But that's not a realistic parallel to the situation we're considering - and actually doesn't address the point I was making, which I'll therefore repeat: if we can apparently argue that
(a) a wide difference of responses to a phenomenon, and also
(b) a close similarity of responses (eg the near-death experiences)

are both evidence against the reality of the phenomenon, then we can safely conclude that the issue of similarity or difference has no evidential value in the discussion, and disregard it. (It's very like the case of the old 'argument from design' for the existence of God. If William Paley in the early C19th could use the apparent design of the universe to prove the existence of a divine creator, and also Richard Dawkins can use it in the C20th to show that the existence of a divine creator is unnecessary, then that's a pretty clear indication that the apparent design of the universe has no evidential value in a philosophical discussion about the existence of God.)



> Especially when other observers can't find any sign that there was ever any coffee in the cup, and they go on drinking it and arguing about what it tastes like. Then they explain that you have to have faith to know that the coffee even exists.


But that brings extra material to bear on the discussion, which needs to be considered on its own terms as a separate argument. I'm merely eliminating a red herring by pointing out the fruitlessness of trying to extract a particular type of evidence from a comparison of responses.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

*Member Elgarian, Member science*, take a look at this clip from about *20:00*. A research / experiment by a neuroscientist who believes God resides in one's brain, and he thinks he can show _where_ in the brain, in particular, the "sense-presence" of God.

Whatever your beliefs, this is fascinating. From about 20:00, exactly what you guys were discussing.


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> But that's not a realistic parallel to the situation we're considering - and actually doesn't address the point I was making, which I'll therefore repeat: if we can apparently argue that
> (a) a wide difference of responses to a phenomenon, and also
> (b) a close similarity of responses (eg the near-death experiences)
> 
> are both evidence against the reality of the phenomenon, then we can safely conclude that the issue of similarity or difference has no evidential value in the discussion, and disregard it. (It's very like the case of the old 'argument from design' for the existence of God. If William Paley in the early C19th could use the apparent design of the universe to prove the existence of a divine creator, and also Richard Dawkins can use it in the C20th to show that the existence of a divine creator is unnecessary, then that's a pretty clear indication that the apparent design of the universe has no evidential value in a philosophical discussion about the existence of God.)
> 
> But that brings extra material to bear on the discussion, which needs to be considered on its own terms as a separate argument. I'm merely eliminating a red herring by pointing out the fruitlessness of trying to extract a particular type of evidence from a comparison of responses.


But I wouldn't agree to (b). I didn't specifically address that earlier because I'm not familiar with the evidence or arguments for or against near-death experiences.

So I still think the invisible coffee analogy really is apt.

It is impossible to get away from the problem of religious diverstiy. At best maybe 1/6 of humanity could be right about the spiritual world. You either say with Chris that the rest of humanity is utterly wrong about their religious experiences, and arbitrarily believe in those of your own tradition or community; or you admit that there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the experiences.

Perhaps they're actually experiencing basically the same thing but failing to realize it, like the parable of the elephant and the blind men. I really think this is a fine theory, with several advantages relative to the "we're right and everyone else is wrong" kind of theory, but it amounts to saying that nearly all of humanity misunderstands their religious experience.

And once you go that far....


----------



## science

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *Member Elgarian, Member science*, take a look at this clip from about *20:00*. A research / experiment by a neuroscientist who believes God resides in one's brain, and he thinks he can show _where_ in the brain, in particular, the "sense-presence" of God.
> 
> Whatever your beliefs, this is fascinating. From about 20:00, exactly what you guys were discussing.


I promise to watch it later, but I don't have time just now. I anticipate being skeptical of it: we don't need to find "God" in the brain - we need to find "God," all the other gods, spirits, ghosts, angels, demons, ancestors, saints, boddhisatvas, and so on. "God" is the most common reference in our own culture, but not to the majority of humanity, nor even to our own culture for most of its history. Maybe that's what he means by "God" though.


----------



## Polednice

Elgarian said:


> if we can apparently argue that
> (a) a wide difference of responses to a phenomenon, and also
> (b) a close similarity of responses (eg the near-death experiences)
> 
> are both evidence against the reality of the phenomenon


I don't see that both (a) and (b) are evidences against the reality of a phenomenon, just that (a) provides no evidence of anything, and (b) provides evidence for a phenomenon _naturally explained_. What's really the problem here is that you can't have (a) or (b) as evidence in support of a supposedly _supernatural_ phenomenon, but that's understandable seeing as anything supernatural must function beyond the possibilities of universal physics, and so what use is human evidence anyway?


----------



## science

So I went ahead and watched it now. It is certainly interesting and I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the right path. I would nit-pick here and there, of course: his awareness of the diversity of religious experience is inconsistent; he endorses the ideas that religion is comforting and a response to consciousness of death, both of which I doubt; and his explanation for the development of the ability to have religious experiences doesn't appear to make evolutionary sense (or at least he didn't explain it in a way that did). Those are small points though; certainly we have the ability to induce religious experience with drugs and so on, and perhaps a magnetic stimulation would have a similar effect. If so, that would really help us focus our research.

The study of religion is actually my field, so I read a lot of scholarly stuff in it, and I think you might be interested in some of it. _Contemporary Theories of Religion: A Critical Companion_ considers about a dozen of the common academic and pop-intellectual theories of religion, including Scott Atran's and David Sloan Wilson's, which I believe are just about right. (They build on work by Pascal Boyer and E. O. Wilson, whose work you're more likely to be familiar with.)

They're terrible writers, unfortunately. In the near future, someone is going to write a popularization of these theories in respectable prose, and it'll be a best-seller.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> It is impossible to get away from the problem of religious diverstiy. At best maybe 1/6 of humanity could be right about the spiritual world. You either say with Chris that the rest of humanity is utterly wrong about their religious experiences, and arbitrarily believe in those of your own tradition or community; or you admit that there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the experiences.


I didn't mean that! I meant that if you take the whole mass of UFO sightings, near-death experiences, religious feelings etc from every source, you will inevitably have a mixture of truth, delusion and outright fraud. You cannot expect consistency from such a hotchpotch.


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> But I wouldn't agree to (b). I didn't specifically address that earlier because I'm not familiar with the evidence or arguments for or against near-death experiences.
> 
> So I still think the invisible coffee analogy really is apt.


Alas, that inevitably brings the discussion to an abrupt halt, though I'm surprised you think that ignorance of (b) constitutes reliable grounds for dismissing the point I'm making.

Jack: I believe all swans are white. 
Jill: But, actually, we know that some swans are black.
Jack: I'm not familiar with the evidence for that. So I'll continue to believe that all swans are white.


----------



## Polednice

Anybody fancy responding to #370 yet?


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> I don't see that both (a) and (b) are evidences against the reality of a phenomenon, just that (a) provides no evidence of anything, and (b) provides evidence for a phenomenon _naturally explained_. What's really the problem here is that you can't have (a) or (b) as evidence in support of a supposedly _supernatural_ phenomenon, but that's understandable seeing as anything supernatural must function beyond the possibilities of universal physics, and so what use is human evidence anyway?


But again, that isn't at all the point I'm making. My point is not a specific one, but a general one: that if we find that the same piece of information can be worked both ways to 'prove' mutually incompatible conclusions, then the supposed 'evidence' is either not being interpreted correctly, or doesn't possess the evidential value we thought it did. If I'm to be shot if I stand up, and shot if I sit down, then my subsequent shooting can't be explained by the fact that I stood up. (Or sat down.) We must look elsewhere for the real explanation of why I was shot. Similarly with the diversity of reported religious experience, insofar as the pure _diversity_ is the issue in question.

Again, speaking generally - these supposed rational arguments are mostly the methods we use to justify decisions we've already reached on other, usually intuitive, grounds. Often there's nothing wrong with the arguments themselves, given the premises, but usually we've chosen the premises to make sure we get to the conclusion we want. Then we tend to overlook the fact that we've done that (often because the choice was subconsciously made), and so in the consequent argument each party believes he's the one being entirely reasonable, and all the others mistaken.


----------



## Almaviva

Polednice said:


> As such, shouldn't the religious be _hoping_ to die as soon as possible? And, if not, is that not a sign of an inner doubting of their beliefs, just in case this life is indeed all we have?


Interesting. I wonder if religion would be as popular if the dogma went like this: "All believers will graciously agree with not having eternal life since they have already achieved their main purpose by finding God. Therefore once they die, they'll be dead for good. Non-believers on the other hand will be allowed to have an after-life so that they are given a second chance at finding God."


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> "Oh let it not be, that any believer, who desires to see God, mourn for the fall of the world; for it is written, "Whosoever will be a friend of this world, will be accounted a foe of God." But he who rejoices not at the approach of the ending of the world, manifests that he was its friend, and will then be convicted that he is God's foe."
> 
> I was reminded of this snippet of 1000-year-old wisdom earlier today, having studied a fair bit of Anglo-Saxon eschatology, and I was wondering about others' takes on it. It's an idea still present today, and, arguably, ought to be the default position of any religious person. There are a lot of people in the world who strive for it to end, and hope to see some kind of armageddon so that mankind is brought closer to god in heaven - after all, when there's eternal bliss on offer, earth looks pretty damn crap!
> 
> As such, shouldn't the religious be _hoping_ to die as soon as possible? And, if not, is that not a sign of an inner doubting of their beliefs, just in case this life is indeed all we have?


Since you ask, I'll respond, though I don't have anything valuable to say. I don't feel any need to defend that statement you quote (history is full of statements, both religious and anti-religious, that bear little inspection), but one thing that comes to mind is this: if I'm at the cinema watching an interesting movie, knowing that afterwards I'm going out for a slap-up feed, that doesn't mean I want to abandon the cinema in order to get started on the feed, even though I may be looking forward to the feed and even perhaps slightly hungry. It's nice to know the Big Feed lies ahead, but this is a good movie, and I'm glad to continue with it. (This is not MY religious viewpoint, I hasten to add; but I don't see anything illogical about it.)

I'm not sure why you think doubt is an issue. Certainly doubt is acknowledged within Christianity, for example. Thomas famously doubted, and so, according to the NT, did Christ himself. (Speaking purely personally, I'd say that anyone who didn't have some measure of doubt about their chosen world view is being unwise.)


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *Member Elgarian, Member science*, take a look at this clip from about *20:00*. A research / experiment by a neuroscientist who believes God resides in one's brain, and he thinks he can show _where_ in the brain, in particular, the "sense-presence" of God.
> 
> Whatever your beliefs, this is fascinating. From about 20:00, exactly what you guys were discussing.


What a bold spirit this scientist is. 'I have found their God!' he says, holding up a test tube to his admiring circle of white-coated colleagues. 'Two micrograms of neurotransmitter in the right parietal lobe!' Does this scientist not know that God created man body and soul? The mysterious intertwining of these two, and how the former mediates the latter, he cannot understand and neither can I. Nor do I expect the soul to register on his electronic gadgetry.

But perhaps I should envy him. His rationalist determinism must give him many comforts denied to me. Someone runs off with his wife? He can immediately rationalise his jealous rage as a flush of hormones washing through his central nervous system. One of his children dies? He shrugs his shoulders and reflects that a complex of biomolecules he used to call 'my boy' is now being rearranged. That person who shouted the insult at him? A mere wobbling of the air vibrating his aural apparatus, tickling the tiny hairs in his cochlea until they sent a tiny electrical throb into his brain, which at the end of its journey shifted thirty molecules of serotonin across a synapse. And as for that man who seduced his teenage daughter...not his fault if a rush of testosterone caused his body to act in a particular way....


----------



## Almaviva

Chris said:


> What a bold spirit this scientist is. 'I have found their God!' he says, holding up a test tube to his admiring circle of white-coated colleagues. 'Two micrograms of neurotransmitter in the right parietal lobe!' Does this scientist not know that God created man body and soul? The mysterious intertwining of these two, and how the former mediates the latter, he cannot understand and neither can I. Nor do I expect the soul to register on his electronic gadgetry.
> 
> But perhaps I should envy him. His rationalist determinism must *give him many comforts denied to me*. Someone runs off with his wife? He can immediately rationalise his jealous rage as a flush of hormones washing through his central nervous system. One of his children dies? He shrugs his shoulders and reflects that a complex of biomolecules he used to call 'my boy' is now being rearranged. That person who shouted the insult at him? A mere wobbling of the air vibrating his aural apparatus, tickling the tiny hairs in his cochlea until they sent a tiny electrical throb into his brain, which at the end of its journey shifted thirty molecules of serotonin across a synapse. And as for that man who seduced his teenage daughter...not his fault if a rush of testosterone caused his body to act in a particular way....


Actually I think that your second paragraph matches a lot what *I* believe in: that our bodies are just a somewhat clever (although deeply flawed) arrangement of biomolecules that got to be how they are thanks to evolution; that we make much ado about nothing regarding events in our life which amount to some neurotransmiter activity in our brains; and that once we die we'll be recycled. For me, the key word is "comfort" - religion delivers reassurance against this grim reality, with its offer of immortality. So actually I think that you are much more comfortable than I am (or this scientist is) because you get to avoid facing this grim reality while I don't. Sincerely, good for you, but unfortunately for me I haven't reached the same conclusions so I have to deal with my mortality in a much less hopeful way.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> "Oh let it not be, that any believer, who desires to see God, mourn for the fall of the world; for it is written, "Whosoever will be a friend of this world, will be accounted a foe of God." But he who rejoices not at the approach of the ending of the world, manifests that he was its friend, and will then be convicted that he is God's foe."
> 
> I was reminded of this snippet of 1000-year-old wisdom earlier today, having studied a fair bit of Anglo-Saxon eschatology, and I was wondering about others' takes on it. It's an idea still present today, and, arguably, ought to be the default position of any religious person. There are a lot of people in the world who strive for it to end, and hope to see some kind of armageddon so that mankind is brought closer to god in heaven - after all, when there's eternal bliss on offer, earth looks pretty damn crap!
> 
> As such, shouldn't the religious be _hoping_ to die as soon as possible? And, if not, is that not a sign of an inner doubting of their beliefs, just in case this life is indeed all we have?


The Anglo Saxon quote is not far from 2 Peter 3:11

'Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and *speed its coming*'.

I would expect every Christian to be looking forward to heaven. They may not necessarily want to go there immediately because there may be vital work to do on Earth, as there was for the Apostle Paul in Philippians 1:21-25. There is also human frailty. You are convinced the rope bridge is secure but when you see it swinging in the wind over the chasm you can be forgiven for dreading that first step onto it.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> *Member Elgarian, Member science*, take a look at this clip from about *20:00*. A research / experiment by a neuroscientist who believes God resides in one's brain, and he thinks he can show _where_ in the brain, in particular, the "sense-presence" of God.
> 
> Whatever your beliefs, this is fascinating. From about 20:00, exactly what you guys were discussing.


I wonder how you interpret this yourself, HC?

For myself, I can't quite see how this makes any difference to one's attitude to spiritual experience, any more than, say, the old experiments with electricity that make a frog's legs twitch as if it were alive, would make to one's attitude to living things. The frog's legs can twitch 
(a) if the frog is alive and (literally) kicking; and 
(b) if the frog is dead but subjected to electrical stimulus.

If we tried to deduce from (b) that the frog in (a) isn't really alive, we'd be seriously mistaken, wouldn't we?

That there exists in the brain a mechanism that can interpret sensory input as 'presence of other beings' - a mechanism that can be made to respond by providing it with fake sensory triggers - is hardly surprising. How could it possibly be otherwise? In other words, this result is what we'd expect to get if there really _are_ spiritual encounters with a divine being, and _also_ what we'd expect to get if there are not. If one is temperamentally inclined to the reductive approach to these things, one might find this kind of experiment impressive; if one is sceptical of the reductive approach, one will remain sceptical. From the point of view of someone who might seek to defend the reality of spiritual experience, it's another of those 'shot if I stand, and shot if I sit' situations.

Even so, I'm quite struck by the fact that the girl was not in any doubt about the significance of her experience (or rather, the lack of it). Her life was not in any sense changed. She seems to have been aware that her impressions were merely impressions. I'm inclined to observe that we can score high marks in an exam either by cheating or by learning the material, but the fact that we find examples of high scores achieved by cheating doesn't tell us anything about the real learning that went on in the non-cheating cases.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Almaviva said:


> ...when CTP talks as a moderator, he usually uses red font.


Now _there_'s an example of an authoritative observation. Thank you!

(And if I can speak personally, I think this thread is helped by Almaviva's recent involvement, as it's 
highly likely we're on opposing sides of this particular issue- so we'll keep each other honest!)


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> The Anglo Saxon quote is not far from 2 Peter 3:11
> 
> 'Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and *speed its coming*'.
> 
> I would expect every Christian to be looking forward to heaven. They may not necessarily want to go there immediately because there may be vital work to do on Earth, as there was for the Apostle Paul in Philippians 1:21-25. There is also human frailty. You are convinced the rope bridge is secure but when you see it swinging in the wind over the chasm you can be forgiven for dreading that first step onto it.


From this, as well as what Elgarian says on the previous page (though speaking from a perspective not his own), it seems as though the question is exactly how much of life one is allowed to _enjoy_. Certainly, one has to be involved in the world, and may do so by "speeding its [end]", but what does it take to sinfully be a 'friend of this world'? If you don't spend all your time bringing on armageddon, and instead sometimes watch trashy movies, is that too hedonistic to be virtuous?


----------



## gurthbruins

Almaviva said:


> Actually I think that your second paragraph matches a lot what *I* believe in: that our bodies are just a somewhat clever (although deeply flawed) arrangement of biomolecules that got to be how they are thanks to evolution; that we make much ado about nothing regarding events in our life which amount to some neurotransmiter activity in our brains; and that once we die we'll be recycled. For me, the key word is "comfort" - religion delivers reassurance against this grim reality, with its offer of immortality. So actually I think that you are much more comfortable than I am (or this scientist is) because you get to avoid facing this grim reality while I don't. Sincerely, good for you, but unfortunately for me I haven't reached the same conclusions so I have to deal with my mortality in a much less hopeful way.


Just reading this para, and forgetting everything else I know or have read about Chris and Almaviva, I would assume that Almaviva is an atheist and Chris a believer (in God).

And the talk about mortality makes me think I must be a very queer case indeed, a man who claims to have direct access to the divine and at the same time believes not at all in a future life, neither by reincarnation, resurrection, emigration to paradise, purgatory or hell, or any other means... of course I am talking about a future life of the ego, but isn't that what most believers in God believe in?

Nevertheless, death still does not appear as grim to me. Not at all grim. What is actually grim about it? I just can't see it.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> From this, as well as what Elgarian says on the previous page (though speaking from a perspective not his own), it seems as though the question is exactly how much of life one is allowed to _enjoy_. Certainly, one has to be involved in the world, and may do so by "speeding its [end]", but what does it take to sinfully be a 'friend of this world'? If you don't spend all your time bringing on armageddon, and instead sometimes watch trashy movies, is that too hedonistic to be virtuous?


The verse in your quote was James 4:4

'You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God'

The word for world is _kosmos_. _Kosmos_ has about seven shades of meaning in the New testament. In James 4:4 the meaning is 'Man in his state of hostility to God' or 'Man and his institutions and surroundings considered as penetrated and controlled by malignant moral influences'. Whether a 'trashy movie' comes under this category depends on the movie.


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> Alas, that inevitably brings the discussion to an abrupt halt, though I'm surprised you think that ignorance of (b) constitutes reliable grounds for dismissing the point I'm making.
> 
> Jack: I believe all swans are white.
> Jill: But, actually, we know that some swans are black.
> Jack: I'm not familiar with the evidence for that. So I'll continue to believe that all swans are white.


I'm sorry. Either you or I have lost the thread of the logic there, because I don't think I was making a response like Jack's.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> I didn't mean that! I meant that if you take the whole mass of UFO sightings, near-death experiences, religious feelings etc from every source, you will inevitably have a mixture of truth, delusion and outright fraud. You cannot expect consistency from such a hotchpotch.


I'm not sure why we couldn't expect consistency. We get consistency on most things. The power of the coffee analogy is the fact that we have consistency on coffee - as one among an infinite number of mundane examples.

All the same, I'm sorry that I cited you. It might not have been fair, so I hope you'll accept my apology, and I promise not to do that again.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> "Oh let it not be, that any believer, who desires to see God, mourn for the fall of the world; for it is written, "Whosoever will be a friend of this world, will be accounted a foe of God." But he who rejoices not at the approach of the ending of the world, manifests that he was its friend, and will then be convicted that he is God's foe."
> 
> I was reminded of this snippet of 1000-year-old wisdom earlier today, having studied a fair bit of Anglo-Saxon eschatology, and I was wondering about others' takes on it. It's an idea still present today, and, arguably, ought to be the default position of any religious person. There are a lot of people in the world who strive for it to end, and hope to see some kind of armageddon so that mankind is brought closer to god in heaven - after all, when there's eternal bliss on offer, earth looks pretty damn crap!
> 
> As such, shouldn't the religious be _hoping_ to die as soon as possible? And, if not, is that not a sign of an inner doubting of their beliefs, just in case this life is indeed all we have?


I hadn't seen this post earlier, but I will agree that, working from a certain set of doctrinal axioms, such conclusions would be rational.

It's fair to say that some Christians and most other religions don't have those beliefs, though, even in principle.


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> From this, as well as what Elgarian says on the previous page (though speaking from a perspective not his own), it seems as though the question is exactly how much of life one is allowed to _enjoy_.


I can't understand what I said that caused you to suppose I might be suggesting that? I've never understood there to be any incompatibility between the Christian faith and the idea of enjoying life. My (deliberately comic) comparison involved going to the cinema (present life) and following it with a Big Feed (Heaven), but my intention was to portray both as enjoyable. My point was that one doesn't have to desire an end to present pleasure merely because a better one is supposed to lie ahead. (I'm looking forward enormously to the holiday I have coming in a few weeks' time, but there's an awful lot of interesting/valuable/fun stuff to do in the meantime.)

Incidentally, whilst in many of these posts I defend some Christian or theist doctrines (when I think they're being swept aside by faulty argument), I wouldn't want it to be thought that I agree with Chris's responses. I respect his position, and defend his right to hold it, but often I disagree no less profoundly with what he says than with some of the arguments in support of atheism that I read here.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> Does this scientist not know that God created man body and soul?


I don't know that, and I won't believe anyone who claims to know that until they present evidence that withstands scientific scrutiny.



Chris said:


> But perhaps I should envy him. His rationalist determinism must give him many comforts denied to me. Someone runs off with his wife? He can immediately rationalise his jealous rage as a flush of hormones washing through his central nervous system. One of his children dies? He shrugs his shoulders and reflects that a complex of biomolecules he used to call 'my boy' is now being rearranged. That person who shouted the insult at him? A mere wobbling of the air vibrating his aural apparatus, tickling the tiny hairs in his cochlea until they sent a tiny electrical throb into his brain, which at the end of its journey shifted thirty molecules of serotonin across a synapse. And as for that man who seduced his teenage daughter...not his fault if a rush of testosterone caused his body to act in a particular way....


To me, this was a series of straw men. I didn't notice determinism in the portion of the video I watched (which I think was the entire part dealing with that scientist); not believing in a soul does not necessarily mean being a determinist; and being a determinist need not lead to the kind of conclusions you imagine here. I feel this was an unfair portrayal of the emotional lives of people who don't beileve in a soul.


----------



## dmg

Almaviva said:


> Whoa, dmg, I don't think CTP was threatening you, he even used a smiley!


Aha! Ok. My apologies. I will keep an eye out for the Red Text.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I'm not sure why we couldn't expect consistency. We get consistency on most things. The power of the coffee analogy is the fact that we have consistency on coffee - as one among an infinite number of mundane examples.
> 
> All the same, I'm sorry that I cited you. It might not have been fair, so I hope you'll accept my apology, and I promise not to do that again.


Thanks for this. I'm still confused by the coffee analogy though. In that, you have a controlled experiment in which the man in the white coat _knows_ everyone has drunk a cup of coffee, with all the cups made the same way. So when he is noting everyone's impressions on his clipboard he has a closed and regulated system. In the case of 'spiritual experiences', in which you were throwing the net widely, all sorts of things are hauled in including the fraudulent e.g. people possibly inventing stories about UFOs. Also, the scientist is recording experiences at the time, and first hand. 'Spiritual stories' are often reported much later and third or fourth hand.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> To me, this was a series of straw men. I didn't notice determinism in the portion of the video I watched (which I think was the entire part dealing with that scientist); not believing in a soul does not necessarily mean being a determinist; and being a determinist need not lead to the kind of conclusions you imagine here. I feel this was an unfair portrayal of the emotional lives of people who don't beileve in a soul.


I'm quite happy for this to be called a series of straw men. I was just musing on determinism...or what I thought was determinism. Perhaps I am not using the word precisely.


----------



## Polednice

Elgarian said:


> My (deliberately comic) comparison involved going to the cinema (present life) and following it with a Big Feed (Heaven), but my intention was to portray both as enjoyable. My point was that one doesn't have to desire an end to present pleasure merely because a better one is supposed to lie ahead.


Sorry about that, but what you intended to demonstrate with your analogy wasn't in line with the point I was making. Sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what you're talking about because you occasionally profess to be speaking from standpoints that are not your own, which makes everything a little more puzzling!


----------



## science

Chris said:


> Thanks for this. I'm still confused by the coffee analogy though. In that, you have a controlled experiment in which the man in the white coat _knows_ everyone has drunk a cup of coffee, with all the cups made the same way. So when he is noting everyone's impressions on his clipboard he has a closed and regulated system. In the case of 'spiritual experiences', in which you were throwing the net widely, all sorts of things are hauled in including the fraudulent e.g. people possibly inventing stories about UFOs. Also, the scientist is recording experiences at the time, and first hand. 'Spiritual stories' are often reported much later and third or fourth hand.


I wonder if you can clarify what your points are here. I'm reluctant to respond because I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I wonder if you can clarify what your points are here. I'm reluctant to respond because I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing.


My apologies, I find I have misunderstood the coffee analogy and my last post doesn't make sense. I'd still like to clarify what you are saying though.

From your earlier post:



science said:


> I don't doubt that people subjectively experience "God" and gods and many other things - ghosts, spirits, saints, angels, demons, aliens, supernatural energies, etc....
> 
> I doubt that the best explanation of those experiences is that those things are real. If the people who had such experiences could agree... but the inconsistency of the reports calls for some other explanation.


You put all these things under the umbrella of 'spiritual experience / existence' and expect a consistency of sorts between the stories, i.e. that if there is 'something spiritual' out there then a pattern will emerge. And since the praying Christian who said he felt the presence of God, which was highly comforting to him, brought back a very contrasting report compared with the person with the near-death experience who said it terrified him, then both parties are probably deluded, and the case for the existence of any kind of spirit-world is weakened.

...or that's what I thought you meant. Or are you only talking about the phenomena themselves? That their inconsistency casts doubt on the phenomena, without necessarily precluding spiritual realities that do not thus manifest theselves (ghosts, spirits, saints, angels, demons, aliens, supernatural energies, etc.)


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> Nor do I expect the soul to register on his electronic gadgetry.


I'm not really sure what people actually think the soul is and does. I have heard various things. If the soul interacts in any way with the body (e.g. has any effect on actions, words, etc. as the dualist mind supposedly does), then I think we should expect effects of the soul on potential measurements. If the soul can in some way cause muscles to move or people to talk, then its effects could in theory be measured.



Chris said:


> But perhaps I should envy him. His rationalist determinism must give him many comforts denied to me. Someone runs off with his wife? He can immediately rationalise his jealous rage as a flush of hormones washing through his central nervous system. One of his children dies? He shrugs his shoulders and reflects that a complex of biomolecules he used to call 'my boy' is now being rearranged.


I think you mean "rationalism" here rather than "ratioanlist determinism". Determinism is simply the view that given a current physical state all future states could in theory be calculated with 100% accuracy (i.e. there is only one potential set of future states). As you say, this is not important to your point.

In regard to envy, scientists don't cease being human once they understand something. There is the famous sentiment that it would be awful to understand rainbows because then you cannot appreciate them. The beauty of rainbows (as well as jealousy, mental anguish, and other emotions) don't cease when someone understands them. My body will react with pain when someone kicks me even though I might understand everything about pain receptors. Similarly I become jealous or heartbroken independent of my reason. Reason and emotion are two very different brain mechanisms.

As Almiviva suggested, religion probably better alleviates some of the painful emotions than reason does.


----------



## mmsbls

Elgarian said:


> That there exists in the brain a mechanism that can interpret sensory input as 'presence of other beings' - a mechanism that can be made to respond by providing it with fake sensory triggers - is hardly surprising. How could it possibly be otherwise? In other words, this result is what we'd expect to get if there really _are_ spiritual encounters with a divine being, and _also_ what we'd expect to get if there are not.


It certainly could be otherwise, and I think this is an important point. It could be that spiritual encounters act through truly supernatural means. In other words they do not interact with the senses or with neurons in the brain. Essentially this mechanism would be what we call true magic. When people say God is supernatural, there is huge disagreement about what this actually means. Does God act by magic or through physical laws in a way we don't understand?

Experiments such as the one discussed in the youtube video try to determine a physical cause for various phenomena. These experiments do not rule out supernatural phenomena or God, but they attempt to find physical explanations. Before people knew about gravity, everyone thought that God was directly responsible for the motion of the planets. After all what possible explanation was there? Now we have an explanation that not only precisely predicts the motion of the planets but also explains a large set of other phenomena. This does not rule out God, but it points to a physical explanation that does not rely on a mysterious cause. Essentially we don't have to resort to explanations that rely on things of which we have no understanding.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> My apologies, I find I have misunderstood the coffee analogy and my last post doesn't make sense. I'd still like to clarify what you are saying though.
> 
> From your earlier post:
> 
> You put all these things under the umbrella of 'spiritual experience / existence' and expect a consistency of sorts between the stories, i.e. that if there is 'something spiritual' out there then a pattern will emerge. And since the praying Christian who said he felt the presence of God, which was highly comforting to him, brought back a very contrasting report compared with the person with the near-death experience who said it terrified him, then both parties are probably deluded, and the case for the existence of any kind of spirit-world is weakened.
> 
> ...or that's what I thought you meant. Or are you only talking about the phenomena themselves? That their inconsistency casts doubt on the phenomena, without necessarily precluding spiritual realities that do not thus manifest theselves (ghosts, spirits, saints, angels, demons, aliens, supernatural energies, etc.)


If there were some non-circular way of establishing that some of the experiences reliably inform us about a spiritual world, then I would expect some general agreement to emerge in an essentially scientific manner. To the best of my knowledge (and that of the world at large) there is no such method, so we're stuck with the a priori equality of the amazingly diverse reports.

I'm not as interested in the differing emotional responses to the spirits or spirit-worlds, as in the intellectual incompatibility of the claims made about them: the number of deities, their personalities, other elements such as spirits, nature and animal spirits, ghosts, ancestors, angels, demons, saints, Buddhas, boddhisattvas, avatars of various deities, heavens and hells and other spiritual worlds, impersonal elements like chi and karma and luck and destiny, and so on.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> Even so, I'm quite struck by the fact that the girl was not in any doubt about the significance of her experience (or rather, the lack of it). Her life was not in any sense changed. She seems to have been aware that her impressions were merely impressions.


Sure, the experiment does not prove anything. It was just an experiment. I don't think the scientist suggested anything conclusive, but was offering it as a tangible basis for explaining the possibility of similar experiences that church-goers do profess to feel in a church for example - that there is a sense of presence, and where in the brian it may have come from. I find that basis far more convincing that the purported divine callings of messianic prophets, for exmple.

I would like to have seen the neuroscientist conduct the same experiement in a church amongst believers during a church service.


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> Sorry about that, but what you intended to demonstrate with your analogy wasn't in line with the point I was making.


Well yes, exactly. It didn't have _anything to do_ with the point you were making, which is why I couldn't understand why you associated my comment with Chris's.



> Sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what you're talking about because you occasionally profess to be speaking from standpoints that are not your own, which makes everything a little more puzzling!


These things aren't black and white. The fact that I'm not a Christian myself doesn't prevent me from trying to understand the Christian viewpoint better, nor from acknowledging the profound value of some of its doctrines and its mythology, nor from understanding that for a very large number of people it offers a deeply satisfying view of the world and their place in it. I don't need to work so hard on the other side of the fence because I'm a scientist myself, and so I understand how the world view of 'scientism' comes about (even though it, too, is a world view I don't share).


----------



## Elgarian

mmsbls said:


> It certainly could be otherwise, and I think this is an important point. It could be that spiritual encounters act through truly supernatural means.


That's an entirely different discussion. Let me clarify my point.

1. We know we're capable of sensing the presence of other human beings. That is, we know there must be a mechanism in the brain for receiving sensory information and transforming them into signals that tell us 'other beings are present'. 
2. So it must be possible to 'fool' the brain by feeding it with those signals, leading us to feel as if other beings are present when in fact they are not. 
3. That's what I meant by 'it can't be otherwise'. There _has to be a mechanism like that_ for us to function as we do in a normal human way. 
4. Therefore, if we want to decide on the reality of direct divine communication, we can't use the mere existence (and the 'foolability') of this mechanism as evidence one way or the other. We have to bring other considerations to bear - and that's what you're doing, in your own post. But that's a different discussion.

A fisherman might be fooled by someone swimming underwater and tugging on his float into believing that there's a fish nibbling at his bait, but the fact that the prankster can produce a fake float-bobbing effect doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there are real fish in the pond. _We have to look elsewhere_ if we want evidence of that.


----------



## Lukecash12

Elgarian said:


> That's an entirely different discussion. Let me clarify my point.
> 
> 1. We know we're capable of sensing the presence of other human beings. That is, we know there must be a mechanism in the brain for receiving sensory information and transforming them into signals that tell us 'other beings are present'.
> 2. So it must be possible to 'fool' the brain by feeding it with those signals, leading us to feel as if other beings are present when in fact they are not.
> 3. That's what I meant by 'it can't be otherwise'. There _has to be a mechanism like that_ for us to function as we do in a normal human way.
> 4. Therefore, if we want to decide on the reality of direct divine communication, we can't use the mere existence (and the 'foolability') of this mechanism as evidence one way or the other. We have to bring other considerations to bear - and that's what you're doing, in your own post. But that's a different discussion.
> 
> A fisherman might be fooled by someone swimming underwater and tugging on his float into believing that there's a fish nibbling at his bait, but the fact that the prankster can produce a fake float-bobbing effect doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there are real fish in the pond. _We have to look elsewhere_ if we want evidence of that.


Would you be interested in debating on the appearances after the "resurrection"?


----------



## Elgarian

Lukecash12 said:


> Would you be interested in debating on the appearances after the "resurrection"?


Oh gosh no, I wouldn't want to do that at all (and in any case I have nothing worthwhile to say about it). I only usually add comments here if I think I can usefully contribute, which is usually when I see an argument being put forward that isn't as clinching as it might seem at first sight. The point is that strong arguments can be made both for and against theism (of some kind); it seems to me to be a good idea to weed out those arguments which can be clearly shown to be defective, whichever way they point. I don't attempt to do more than that here, really.


----------



## mmsbls

Elgarian said:


> That's an entirely different discussion. Let me clarify my point.


I understand now and agree with your point.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I would like to have seen the neuroscientist conduct the same experiement in a church amongst believers during a church service.


In any church service I have ever been to the congregation would have been bewildered. 'Feeling the presence of something? what's the man talking about?' What struck me, watching the video, was how little this scientist knew about religion. He seemed to think all religious people were mystics sitting cross legged on the floor waiting for the numinous to descend. I thought at first he was confining his attentions to that sort, but then he dragged in Luther and his 95 theses. Luther, we were told, was once struck by lightning and this might have altered his brain chemistry and created a God delusion, inspiring the famous theses. I can't see any evidence for that in the theses themselves (their text readily locatable on Google). Their title was 'Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences' and they comprise a denunciation of the RC doctrine of papal indulgence. They read more like a lawyer's demolition of an opposing case than a mystic's transcendental meanderings. And the motivation for his writing them was discovery of the true meaning of the gospel as set out in the NT books Ephesians and Romans. This was a matter of the mind, not the feelings.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> A fisherman might be fooled by someone swimming underwater and tugging on his float into believing that there's a fish nibbling at his bait, but the fact that the prankster can produce a fake float-bobbing effect doesn't tell us anything at all about whether there are real fish in the pond. _We have to look elsewhere_ if we want evidence of that.


Are you agnostic?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> He seemed to think all religious people were mystics sitting cross legged on the floor waiting for the numinous to descend.


Presence, communication with God, guidance from God etc., you know, all the usual type of religious experiences that religious folks believe in, including those who believe they got cured by God's miracles without medical treatment ... 

Incidentally, do you believe in miracle cures?


----------



## science

Chris said:


> In any church service I have ever been to the congregation would have been bewildered. 'Feeling the presence of something? what's the man talking about?' What struck me, watching the video, was how little this scientist knew about religion. He seemed to think all religious people were mystics sitting cross legged on the floor waiting for the numinous to descend. I thought at first he was confining his attentions to that sort, but then he dragged in Luther and his 95 theses. Luther, we were told, was once struck by lightning and this might have altered his brain chemistry and created a God delusion, inspiring the famous theses. I can't see any evidence for that in the theses themselves (their text readily locatable on Google). Their title was 'Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences' and they comprise a denunciation of the RC doctrine of papal indulgence. They read more like a lawyer's demolition of an opposing case than a mystic's transcendental meanderings. And the motivation for his writing them was discovery of the true meaning of the gospel as set out in the NT books Ephesians and Romans. This was a matter of the mind, not the feelings.


The Luther bit was strange.

I don't remember hearing that he was struck by lightning before. I heard he was stuck in a thunderstorm, but not struck by lightning.

But I don't think his characterization of religious experience was as unfair as you say.


----------



## jurianbai

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Incidentally, do you believe in miracle cures?


miracle cures is not only about pastor praying. I've witnessed in Indonesia (and some other places) about Chinese 'medium' practiced a healing. The patient complaint about kidney problem to the 'medium', the practitioner do a ceremony and write down a chinese character, believed to be from a 'god'. the patient burn the 'hu' (chinese character writen on special paper) and put the ashes to the glass of water and he drink it. a second after he spitted out (who won't :lol the stone, believe to be the trouble stone from his kidney.

The most famous area I can referred is in western borneo, where now every year held a Chinese new year 15th eve festival. all the 'mediums' of the region put in a festival and it is actually a local attraction with many foreigners come to see.

here some video, the first segment about a Basket Ghost exhibition and the second is festival of this Chinese 'medium' , they stand on a sharp weapons such as sword or spear. (to show some 'dignity' and pleased the western foreigner...:tiphat






what is a Chinese Medium?

Singapore also once have a lot of this pracitising 'medium' as well:


> An official Taoist practice by a Taoist spiritual medium known as "Tangki 乩童" (a Hokkien term derived from Taiwan) is also popular amongst some Taoist Chinese. In this ceremony, the spiritual medium goes into a trance and is thought to establish a channel of communication between the mortal petitioner and the chosen Deity. It is said that the Taoist Deity transmogrifies the spiritual medium and provides a wide range of help to devotees ranging from religious rituals to health, business, domestic queries and requests like a talisman to protect their loved ones.


 Wikipedia


----------



## science

I believe primarily in psychosomatic cures (equivalents to placebos) and that a remission or simply a return of good health (depending on the sort of ailment in question) sometimes happens to follow a religious ritual. 

A little off topic, but interesting: I recently read that placebos can have unhealthy side-effects! I also read recently that some of the psychosomatic aspects of digestion involve some form of chemical communication between gut bacteria and the brain. What a fascinating world!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> miracle cures is not only about pastor praying. I've witnessed in Indonesia (and some other places) about Chinese 'medium' practiced a healing. The patient complaint about kidney problem to the 'medium', the practitioner do a ceremony and write down a chinese character, believed to be from a 'god'. the patient burn the 'hu' (chinese character writen on special paper) and put the ashes to the glass of water and he drink it. a second after he spitted out (who won't :lol the stone, believe to be the trouble stone from his kidney.
> 
> The most famous area I can referred is in western borneo, where now every year held a Chinese new year 15th eve festival. all the 'mediums' of the region put in a festival and it is actually a local attraction with many foreigners come to see.
> 
> here some video, the first segment about a Basket Ghost exhibition and the second is festival of this Chinese 'medium' , they stand on a sharp weapons such as sword or spear. (to show some 'dignity' and pleased the western foreigner...:tiphat
> 
> what is a Chinese Medium?
> 
> Singapore also once have a lot of this pracitising 'medium' as well:
> Wikipedia


Fascinating. I enjoy trying to understand and respect _cultural aspects_ of religion. South East Asia has such a rich history of diversity, that so much remains to be discovered. Before Indonesia/group of islands and surrounding states converted to Islam, there must have been at least centuries of rich cultural development, that even exists today despite being a Muslim state. I find that fascinating. Borneo is such.

As for your witnessing of the kidney stone, I don't doubt that was what you saw but I would probably suspect that the practitioner and his "patient" were all one act.


----------



## jurianbai

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Fascinating. I enjoy trying to understand and respect _cultural aspects_ of religion. South East Asia has such a rich history of diversity, that so much remains to be discovered. Before Indonesia/group of islands and surrounding states converted to Islam, there must have been at least centuries of rich cultural development, that even exists today despite being a Muslim state. I find that fascinating. Borneo is such.
> 
> As for your witnessing of the kidney stone, I don't doubt that was what you saw but I would probably suspect that the practitioner and his "patient" were all one act.


it can't be, because the patient happened to be my relative. one of possible explaination is , this was some variant of suggestive / hypnotized effect.

Java island has its own mysticism and can be fascinating, for western. In Borneo, the native Dayak tribe (Catholicism is their major 'western' religion) also has theirs.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jurianbai said:


> it can't be, because the patient happened to be my relative. one of possible explaination is , this was some variant of suggestive / hypnotized effect.


Yes, there could be some biological reasons for that. Though I remain unconvinced it was caused by the burnt _hu_ on paper. You should have filmed it and post it on youtube.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Are you agnostic?


The simple answer to that question would be 'yes', but as I've discovered from previous discussions, the word 'agnostic' (like most words in these religious discussions) isn't understood in the same way by everyone. There are those, for instance, who consider (like Richard Dawkins, I think) that agnosticism implies a kind of milk-and-watery indecisiveness. There are those who seem to think that agnosticism and atheism are indistinguishable. And there are so many different interpretations of God apparently on offer (even within world views broadly considered to be Christian) that it's often impossible to know exactly what it is that one might be claiming to be agnostic _about_.

I'd prefer to think of myself as a 'pluralist', perhaps, though there might be a better word. What I mean is that there may or may not be some profound Truth out there (or in here) that we might construe as divine, but if there is it seems self-evident that we all see through a glass darkly and we each only get partial or imperfect glimpses of it, at best. All one can do is make the best assessment one can of the accounts of others, and of one's own experience. I've yet to encounter any compelling argument that there is no such thing (scientism, for instance, is dismissable as philosophically inadequate); but I've equally never encountered any compelling evidence that there _is_ (all the world's great religions seem in their different ways deeply problematic). Western philosophy is valuable in so far as it can steer us towards eliminating unhelpful or invalid ways of thinking, but it provides no consensus on these metaphysical issues (and it seems to me to be merely evasive to conclude that metaphysics is an error, in an attempt to reach a rational solution).

So - if agnosticism implies some kind of passive acceptance that we know nothing and to heck with it all, then I don't think I qualify for the label. If on the other hand the word is taken to imply a more or less continual search for the best shot at the truth that one can find, while considering one's present situation merely provisional, then maybe I do.


----------



## mmsbls

Elgarian said:


> The simple answer to that question would be 'yes', but as I've discover from previous discussions, the word 'agnostic' (like most words in these religious discussions) isn't understood in the same way by everyone. There are those, for instance, who consider (like Richard Dawkins, I think) that agnosticism implies a kind of milk-and-watery indecisiveness. There are those who seem to think that agnosticism and atheism are indistinguishable. And there are so many different interpretations of God apparently on offer (even within world views broadly considered to be Christian) that it's often impossible to know exactly what it is that one might be claiming to be agnostic _about_.


As I understand Dawkins' view, he's not happy with agnosticism because it is too weak a statement. He admits to being agnostic in the sense that he does not believe there is evidence that God does not exist. Given what we can and do know, he feels there is no good evidence for God, and many statements about a personal God seem very unlikely to be true. On a scale where 1 is certainty God exists and 7 is certainty God does not exist, Dawkins placed himself at 6.

I have no idea whether a non-personal god, who may have created the universe, exists. In that sense I am agnostic. I agree with Dawkins that one can assess certain religious statements and place some estimate of likeliness as to whether they are true. Overall, I would say I strongly disbelieve certain statements, think others are unlikely, and have no reasons to believe any.


----------



## Elgarian

mmsbls said:


> As I understand Dawkins' view, he's not happy with agnosticism because it is too weak a statement. He admits to being agnostic in the sense that he does not believe there is evidence that God does not exist. Given what we can and do know, he feels there is no good evidence for God, and many statements about a personal God seem very unlikely to be true. On a scale where 1 is certainty God exists and 7 is certainty God does not exist, Dawkins placed himself at 6.


The very word 'God' is problematic, though, in these discussions. The mystic who believes he's had direct personal communication with the divine has a completely different concept: it arises from (he presumably would believe) 'knowing' in the _connaitre_ sense rather than the _savoir_ sense (to which latter, Dawkins and perhaps many of us are inevitably restricted). Speaking purely personally (and indulging in the same kind of playfulness as doubtless Dawkins intended), on a scale where 1 is unhelpful, and 7 is seriously misleading, I place Dawkins's statements on these matters at about 6.


----------



## gurthbruins

Elgarian said:


> The very word 'God' is problematic, though, in these discussions. The mystic who believes he's had direct personal communication with the divine has a completely different concept: it arises from (he presumably would believe) 'knowing' in the _connaitre_ sense rather than the _savoir_ sense (to which latter, Dawkins and perhaps many of us are inevitably restricted). Speaking purely personally (and indulging in the same kind of playfulness as doubtless Dawkins intended), on a scale where 1 is unhelpful, and 7 is seriously misleading, I place Dawkins's statements on these matters at about 6.


Re the quoted and especially your post, #473:
I do like, and admire, your mature objectivity and grasp of the subject. It stands out rather like a beacon in this setting.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Presence, communication with God, guidance from God etc., you know, all the usual type of religious experiences that religious folks believe in, including those who believe they got cured by God's miracles without medical treatment ...
> 
> Incidentally, do you believe in miracle cures?


I'll answer the miracles bit separately. As for 'religious experiences' generally, I have had to think hard about this and that is perhaps an indication of the relative unimportance of the subject....to historical evangelical Christianity at any rate. I am not suggesting Christians are unfeeling logical vulcans who discuss theology with all the emotional involvement of a congress of accountants. Nor that there is no place for a perceived supernatural in our lives. But the Bible passages that come to mind when I think of religious experience are nearly always about a sense of conviction about something in the Bible. A strong assurance that it is true. When we talk about someone being under 'conviction of sin', for example, we mean that person has come under a powerful sense that he has offended God. Think of David's words in the Allegri Miserere (Psalm 51) 'Against you, you only, have I sinned'. There are scripture passages saying Christians should rejoice in their salvation. I believe that rejoicing is supernaturally aided by the Holy Spirit. But again, there is an object: the fact of salvation. The scientist on the film was talking about a feeling without an object, a mystical feeling that 'there is something there'. Not the same.

You mention guidance. The last book I read on guidance was called The Last Word on Guidance, by two Australian authors. They argue that God guides Christians in two ways only. Primarily through the Bible; not in a fortune cookie way by picking verses at random, but by generally shaping the mind to make God-honouring decisions. Secondly, by (sometimes) providentially opening and closing doors; i.e. circumstances sometimes come together which seem to almost push us one particular way. The authors insist there is nothing else, and that if two courses of action appear to have equal merit it becomes a straight personal decision. No looking for a felt presence of 'something out there' to adjudicate.


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> .....you know, all the usual type of religious experiences that religious folks believe in, including those who believe they got cured by God's miracles without medical treatment ...
> 
> Incidentally, do you believe in miracle cures?


'Miracles' is a terribly misused word. I am assuming you mean (as I always do) an incident in which God has suspended the normal laws of physics. Or, as I would much rather put it, an incident in which God chooses to act in nature in a different way to which he normally acts.

Briefly;

A distinction must be made between miracles and miracle workers. I believe miracle workers were present at the infancy of the church (the apostolic age) and had as their principle function the verifying of the apostolic message. Along with prophets, tongue-speakers and similar they were like a booster rocket launching the fledgling church. With the completion of the New Testament they became redundant. I regard every miracle worker and faith healer (and prophet) in the current age as deluded.

I believe miracles (granted through prayer, not miracle workers) are possible but I will not go much beyond that. I believe the Church is now, having in its possession the completed Bible and all the comforts it gives, in a state of adulthood and should not need those helps which were appropriate to its infant state. I have no idea of the incidence of the miraculous as defined above.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> I'll answer the miracles bit separately. As for 'religious experiences' generally, I have had to think hard about this and that is perhaps an indication of the relative unimportance of the subject....to historical evangelical Christianity at any rate. I am not suggesting Christians are unfeeling logical vulcans who discuss theology with all the emotional involvement of a congress of accountants. Nor that there is no place for a perceived supernatural in our lives. But the Bible passages that come to mind when I think of religious experience are nearly always about a sense of conviction about something in the Bible. A strong assurance that it is true. When we talk about someone being under 'conviction of sin', for example, we mean that person has come under a powerful sense that he has offended God. Think of David's words in the Allegri Miserere (Psalm 51) 'Against you, you only, have I sinned'. There are scripture passages saying Christians should rejoice in their salvation. I believe that rejoicing is supernaturally aided by the Holy Spirit. But again, there is an object: the fact of salvation. The scientist on the film was talking about a feeling without an object, a mystical feeling that 'there is something there'. Not the same.
> 
> You mention guidance. The last book I read on guidance was called The Last Word on Guidance, by two Australian authors. They argue that God guides Christians in two ways only. Primarily through the Bible; not in a fortune cookie way by picking verses at random, but by generally shaping the mind to make God-honouring decisions. Secondly, by (sometimes) providentially opening and closing doors; i.e. circumstances sometimes come together which seem to almost push us one particular way. The authors insist there is nothing else, and that if two courses of action appear to have equal merit it becomes a straight personal decision. No looking for a felt presence of 'something out there' to adjudicate.


When you say that emotional religious experience has not been very significant in the history of Evangelical Christianity, how do you characterize the Great Awakening or the Second Great Awakening?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Chris said:


> A distinction must be made between miracles and miracle workers. I believe miracle workers were present at the infancy of the church (the apostolic age) and had as their principle function the verifying of the apostolic message. Along with prophets, tongue-speakers and similar they were like a booster rocket launching the fledgling church. With the completion of the New Testament they became redundant. I regard every miracle worker and faith healer (and prophet) in the current age as deluded.
> 
> I believe miracles (granted through prayer, not miracle workers) are possible but I will not go much beyond that. I believe the Church is now, having in its possession the completed Bible and all the comforts it gives, in a state of adulthood and should not need those helps which were appropriate to its infant state. I have no idea of the incidence of the miraculous as defined above.


Interesting. I agree with your view about miracle workers and faith healers. Can you be more specific on "current age"? Do you mean here and now or that encompasses all ages after the New Testament when referring to the redundancy of prophets? What are your views of relatively recent prophets in particular from, say the last two centuries, as that includes people like Joseph Smith Jr. (founder of the Mormons) etc.

When the Pope was here in Sydney in July 2008 (World Youth Day), he prayed at the tomb of Saint Mary MacKillop. She was canonised in October 2010 last year. I have no doubt on the good work she did for her local community during her times when Australia was largely an early penal colony. She "qualified" as a saint when a patient suffering from leukaemia was cured by praying (like you said) for MacKillop's intercession in 1961. The church here in Australia recognised it in the early 1990's.


----------



## gurthbruins

*The Implications of Spinoza's Pantheism*

This post is primarily in response to the first 4 posts on this thread.

*Peeyaj*, how much have the posts on this thread helped you with your original questions?

*Saul*, I agree with you, but I am seeing how far I can get within the limitations of this forum.

*Weston*, I agree with you, but the problem with starting a new blog is that it does not carry the readership that an established forum does, so you are unlikely to get seen by the few who might be able to offer useful comment.

To proceed:
*The Implications of Spinoza's Pantheism*

"As long as you do not recognise every man as your brother - you will not find it. As long as you do not recognise that every table is your brother - you will not find it. As long as you do not recognise that the midnight sky is your brother - you will not find it." - Sam Reifler.

Of course. Everything is part of God. There is nothing that is not God - everything you see, everything you think, all perceptions and beliefs of all men, you yourself, Hitler - all parts of God, all equally divine.

So your belief that religion is delusion is just another divine phenomenon in this universe.

So what is the difference between the universe as seen by the atheist and the universe as seen by the pantheist? Simply that the one sees the divine part and sees it as divine, whereas the other does not.
"Two men looked out from prison bars: 
The one saw mud, the other stars."

You do not need to be a pantheist to have this power of vision. Any sort of theist or deist will do; in fact you do not need to think of yourself as anything at all. But anyone who is not totally colour-blind spiritually will not wish to label the vision of God as delusion.

I will offer a few quotations and comments by Eastern writers on the attainment of consciousness of God in a later post.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

gurthbruins said:


> ...Hitler - all parts of God, all equally divine.


Are you a neo-Nazi by any chance? Please do not take this question as a personal attack, but as a genuine question from my part in attempting to understanding your perspective by equating Hitler as equally divine as God.


----------



## Rasa

Because all creatures are made by god.

or allowed to exist.


----------



## gurthbruins

Yes, Rasa, allowed to exist for a time, just as the bad guy in a play is allowed to exist until he has served his purpose. Don't ask me what that purpose is, however, I don't know...


----------



## Lukecash12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Are you a neo-Nazi by any chance? Please do not take this question as a personal attack, but as a genuine question from my part in attempting to understanding your perspective by equating Hitler as equally divine as God.


He's more or less talking in a simplified version of metaphysics, so assuming that there is any morality issue involved is illogical.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Lukecash12 said:


> He's more or less talking in a simplified version of metaphysics, so assuming that there is any morality issue involved is illogical.


Yes, I know. But I would like member gurthbruins' view on it, which like most of his opinions thus far, have been deeply profound. Deeply ...


----------



## gurthbruins

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Are you a neo-Nazi by any chance? Please do not take this question as a personal attack, but as a genuine question from my part in attempting to understanding your perspective by equating Hitler as equally divine as God.


HC, I don't see this question as an attack at all, it's perfectly acceptable.

I am no more a neo-Nazi than I am a supporter of Lady Macbeth as a murderess in Shakespeare's play. It's simply that all the actors in the play are equally necessary and equally valuable to the audience. Who is the audience of the divine comedy? I don't know, maybe only God himself, or maybe we are meant to learn from it too...

I harp on Hitler because I know he is the biggest thorn to accept, once you can accept that thorn, then you probably have arrived at sufficient acceptance. Remember, I said acceptance of a fact as a fact does not prevent you from taking drastic action to change that fact, so: just as Hitler was fulfilling a role, so was Churchill. But of course, I do not mention Churchill because nobody has a problem with God for permitting Churchill to exist.


----------



## science

Here's maybe another new direction for the thread -

What do you believe in that you can't prove?

I'd like to say that I don't believe in anything: or, that I just believe whatever appears to be the case, whatever theories seem best able to account for the evidence, with no other factors affecting my worldview. In reality of course I'm surely biased in any number of ways - and I hope that when I identify my biases, I can to some degree consciously counteract them. We all suffer from cognitive dissonance and so on, screwing up our ability to be objective.

To me, the obvious intellectual goal is _never to be wrong_, which is impossible of course, so being wrong as rarely as possible will have to do. And that seems to mean taking the intellectually safest positions available - never asserting any claim beyond the warrant of evidence.

But others obviously embrace - even seem to enjoy embracing - philosophically risky worldviews, controversial minority opinions. Of course there are usually social motivations for that as well.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> Here's maybe another new direction for the thread -
> 
> What do you believe in that you can't prove?


Quite a few. One of the best is Goldbach's conjecture. (In mathematics, a conjecture is an _unproven_ proposition or theorem that _appears_ correct).


----------



## Chris

science said:


> When you say that emotional religious experience has not been very significant in the history of Evangelical Christianity, how do you characterize the Great Awakening or the Second Great Awakening?


What I was trying to say was that the foundation of historical evangelical Christianity is the Bible and its truths. When we read it, Christians believe, the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds and in particular helps us understand the ministry of Christ. I don't mean that in an extreme sense, like we are given an internal commentary, or that we infallibly apprehend everything we read. As for emotion, if we find ourselves rejoicing over God's plan of salvation, we attribute that to the Spirit's ministry. What I am trying to get over is that there is joy in an objective truth...also, your Christianity does not fall apart if you do not experience that joy. All very different from the scientist, who was talking about something weird and mystical ('I can feel something out there'), and making it the essential root of religion.

In the great revivals the same sort of things occurred but with much greater intensity. It is also true that there have been reports of extreme reactions during some revivals - people fainting, having epilepsis-like fits, etc. - but these are not generally accepted as coming from God. The American theologian Jonathan Edwards examined some of these 'phenomena' during one revival and concluded they were no more than hysteria, i.e. not from God. There's a bit about this the Wikipedia entry for Jonathan Edwards (see last two paras under 'Great Awakening').


----------



## Chris

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Interesting. I agree with your view about miracle workers and faith healers. Can you be more specific on "current age"? Do you mean here and now or that encompasses all ages after the New Testament when referring to the redundancy of prophets? What are your views of relatively recent prophets in particular from, say the last two centuries, as that includes people like Joseph Smith Jr. (founder of the Mormons) etc.
> 
> When the Pope was here in Sydney in July 2008 (World Youth Day), he prayed at the tomb of Saint Mary MacKillop. She was canonised in October 2010 last year. I have no doubt on the good work she did for her local community during her times when Australia was largely an early penal colony. She "qualified" as a saint when a patient suffering from leukaemia was cured by praying (like you said) for MacKillop's intercession in 1961. The church here in Australia recognised it in the early 1990's.


I mean the latter. I believe there has been no divine revelation since the age of the apostles. When the prophets and miracle workers of that age died out, so did their ministry. By 'divine revelation' I mean something like the Bible or prophecy or dreams i.e. new information. Only the Bible remains.

I can only speak for historical evangelical Christianity as I understand it. The Mormon and RC churches are not part of my theology and will have to speak for themselves.


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

The only thing about religion which troubles me is fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalists scare me, and Young Earth Creationists also scare me with their weird, misleading claims. 

The fact that 40% of Americans are YEC, and their enemies are also fundamentalists scares me. Two fundamentalist groups with hands over nuclear weapons...


----------



## Chris

MusicSoundsNice said:


> The only thing about religion which troubles me is fundamentalism.
> 
> Islamic fundamentalists scare me, and *Young Earth Creationists also scare me *with their weird, misleading claims.
> 
> The fact that 40% of Americans are YEC, and their enemies are also fundamentalists scares me. Two fundamentalist groups with hands over nuclear weapons...


BOO!!!!

Forgive me doing that to you MSN, it was mere play. In any case, I have left my nuclear weapons in the office cloakroom so be at rest. If you look through recent threads you will find a few weird, misleading claims made by myself and one or two others.

That claim of 40% Young Earth believers in America makes me sigh with envy. I don't know the UK figure but I am sure it is far less.


----------



## Meaghan

science said:


> Here's maybe another new direction for the thread -
> *
> What do you believe in that you can't prove? *
> 
> I'd like to say that I don't believe in anything: or, that I just believe whatever appears to be the case, whatever theories seem best able to account for the evidence, with no other factors affecting my worldview. In reality of course I'm surely biased in any number of ways - and I hope that when I identify my biases, I can to some degree consciously counteract them. We all suffer from cognitive dissonance and so on, screwing up our ability to be objective.
> 
> To me, the obvious intellectual goal is _never to be wrong_, which is impossible of course, so being wrong as rarely as possible will have to do. And that seems to mean taking the intellectually safest positions available - never asserting any claim beyond the warrant of evidence.
> 
> But others obviously embrace - even seem to enjoy embracing - philosophically risky worldviews, controversial minority opinions. Of course there are usually social motivations for that as well.


This is a very interesting question! I believe lots of things for which I do not have proof. Many of these are things I probably _could_ prove, but taking the trouble to do so all the time would not be a good way to live my life. I am talking about the sort of things people usually take for granted, and _have_ to take for granted sometimes in order to function normally. For instance, I have not talked to anyone in my immediate family in about an hour. I do not know conclusively that they are are all alive, but I believe they are. I could call them up and prove it, but I do not feel the need to do so. If I never believed anything without proof, I would spend my months away from home in a constant state of uncertainty about whether my family was alive.

Of course, the matter of whether or not to believe things without proof becomes much more complex when it comes to less provable things like the existence or non-existence of a higher power, and one's decision takes on greater consequences for other people. I only bring up this rather mundane example for the purpose of illustrating how everybody, even highly analytical and scientifically-oriented people, "go on faith" in their everyday lives. I can see how some people could feel the same way about believing in God that I feel about believing in my family's survival.


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

No offence to YEC intended, but there are living trees which outdate the supposed date of the global flood, and large bodies of evidence which suggest the Earth is older than 6000 years old. I am intrigued into why YEC continue to hold literal views on the bible, even after the production of evidence against it?


----------



## Boccherini

gurthbruins said:


> I harp on Hitler because I know he is the biggest thorn to accept, once you can accept that thorn, then you probably have arrived at sufficient acceptance. Remember, I said acceptance of a fact as a fact does not prevent you from taking drastic action *to change that fact*, so: just as Hitler was fulfilling a role, so was Churchill. But of course, I do not mention Churchill because nobody has a problem with God for permitting Churchill to exist.


As far as I comprehend, the bolded text implies that this conception can also be done prospectively, and not only retrospectively. Is that so? I wonder what would have happened if politicians and prime ministers consider that in the WWII, for example. To sharpen, generally, should politicians, or even generals, consider philosophical observations in addition to governmental or military ones? Is it not one of the dangerous crossroads between politics and philosophy?

Beyond the fact that this idea is pure theoretical and philosophical, which means practically worthless, isn't it completely meaningless to even speak about it? If it's not completely theoretical, I would like to know a few implications, if I may.


----------



## Polednice

MusicSoundsNice said:


> No offence to YEC intended, but there are living trees which outdate the supposed date of the global flood, and large bodies of evidence which suggest the Earth is older than 6000 years old. I am intrigued into why YEC continue to hold literal views on the bible, even after the production of evidence against it?


It's pure cognitive dissonance, and utter denial of the scientific method. Of course, they don't see it like that, because they believe they can cherry pick which parts of science to 'believe' in, but if they're going to pick a fight with the theory of evolution, they might as well disbelieve that planes can actually fly.


----------



## Chris

MusicSoundsNice said:


> No offence to YEC intended, but there are living trees which outdate the supposed date of the global flood, and large bodies of evidence which suggest the Earth is older than 6000 years old. I am intrigued into why YEC continue to hold literal views on the bible, even after the production of evidence against it?


Quick link on the trees. I have not seen this before so can't guarantee it's up to date.

http://www.icr.org/article/tree-rings-biblical-chronology/

As to evidence generally, the results you obtain from dating will depend on the models you are using and your presuppositions. Bedtime so no time to say more...in any case I am not a geologist.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> It's pure cognitive dissonance, *and utter denial of the scientific method*. Of course, they don't see it like that, because they believe they can cherry pick which parts of science to 'believe' in, but if they're going to pick a fight with the theory of evolution, they might as well disbelieve that planes can actually fly.


No, it's utter denial of atheistic assumptions. As to the rest, if you think creationists are ducking a challenge you must give a specific example and I will see if I can find anything from the creationist camp.

Last time I went to hear creationist Ken Ham in Liverpool he had arrived by plane, so there must be at least one anti-evolutionist who believes flight is possible.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Chi_townPhilly said:


> 4. ...discussion bogs down as they are impelled to answer questions about 'Young Earth,' Old Testament Slaughters, the Virgin Birth, the injustice of natural disasters, and other such inquries.


Now back for a return engagement!


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> No, it's utter denial of atheistic assumptions.


Evolution and the age of our planet has nothing *at all* to do with atheism.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Well, I guess it's fine to _wonder_ about such things... why is there pain/sin if there's a god, why are there so many conflicting religions, etc. Keep wondering. But here's another thing to add to your list for wondering:

Why is there _something_ rather than _nothing_?


----------



## science

Meaghan said:


> This is a very interesting question! I believe lots of things for which I do not have proof. Many of these are things I probably _could_ prove, but taking the trouble to do so all the time would not be a good way to live my life. I am talking about the sort of things people usually take for granted, and _have_ to take for granted sometimes in order to function normally. *For instance, I have not talked to anyone in my immediate family in about an hour. I do not know conclusively that they are are all alive, but I believe they are. I could call them up and prove it, but I do not feel the need to do so. If I never believed anything without proof, I would spend my months away from home in a constant state of uncertainty about whether my family was alive.*
> Of course, the matter of whether or not to believe things without proof becomes much more complex when it comes to less provable things like the existence or non-existence of a higher power, and one's decision takes on greater consequences for other people. I only bring up this rather mundane example for the purpose of illustrating how everybody, even highly analytical and scientifically-oriented people, "go on faith" in their everyday lives. I can see how some people could feel the same way about believing in God that I feel about believing in my family's survival.


I don't think that's the kind of thing people mean when they talk about "faith." You're making a pretty sound assumption in terms of probability: the chance that someone in your family is going to die in any given hour is pretty narrow, as we all know from experience. You'd have less confidence about that if you lived in Kabul, or if some natural disaster had just struck your town, or if one of them had undergone a risky surgery earlier today, and so on - because you're making rational guesses, not having faith in your family's ability to stay alive.

Sometimes religious people talk about having "faith" that a chair will hold them up if they sit on it. That's not "faith" either; it's about the same thing as your assumption that no one in your family has died in the past hour.

Making your best guess in terms of the evidence you have is almost the exact opposite of faith.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> What I was trying to say was that the foundation of historical evangelical Christianity is the Bible and its truths. When we read it, Christians believe, the Holy Spirit illuminates our minds and in particular helps us understand the ministry of Christ. I don't mean that in an extreme sense, like we are given an internal commentary, or that we infallibly apprehend everything we read. As for emotion, if we find ourselves rejoicing over God's plan of salvation, we attribute that to the Spirit's ministry. What I am trying to get over is that there is joy in an objective truth...also, your Christianity does not fall apart if you do not experience that joy. All very different from the scientist, who was talking about something weird and mystical ('I can feel something out there'), and making it the essential root of religion.
> 
> In the great revivals the same sort of things occurred but with much greater intensity. It is also true that there have been reports of extreme reactions during some revivals - people fainting, having epilepsis-like fits, etc. - but these are not generally accepted as coming from God. The American theologian Jonathan Edwards examined some of these 'phenomena' during one revival and concluded they were no more than hysteria, i.e. not from God. There's a bit about this the Wikipedia entry for Jonathan Edwards (see last two paras under 'Great Awakening').


Sorry man, I just disagree with you. I agree with the scientist that religious experience is the central, essential, sine qua non of sincere religious belief - and it has been so historically in Evangelical Christianity as well. Edwards for instance emphasized that a person had to experience the new birth; it wasn't enough to swear intellectual allegiance to a Christian creed. That's not to say that he wasn't a brilliant intellectual (though of course most people regardless of religion aren't).

Although you seem to be the kind of Evangelical that partly or wholly rejects Pentecostalism or "the charismatic movement," it's hard to deny that similar phenomena have been a big part of Evangelicalism at least since the 1730s, and that in some form or another all kinds of Christians and especially Christian leaders including among Protestants have always claimed to have personal experience of God.

You might not have liked the woozy connotations of that scientist's diction, and you can insist that there is also an intellectual component to your variety of religion (and most others), but I think that's really all you can object to.


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> Evolution and the age of our planet has nothing *at all* to do with atheism.


I've come to the conclusion that for many people, either the world is 6-10 thousand years old, or the Bible isn't true and there is no God.

Too bad for those guys.

But of course if their theology was a little better, you would be right.


----------



## Couchie

I used to be Christian, and a young-Earth creationist when I was younger. 
The thing that drew me to evolution is it's beautiful simplicity.

Genes mutate. The good ones stick around. Time passes, and, well. _The world as we know it._

On the other hand finding "answers in Genesis" was a remarkably infuriating process where the more difficult the question posed, the more contrived and elaborate the answer was. Unlike evolution there isn't a single empowering force behind creationism, but they draw from all sorts of unrelated sciencey-sounding stuff for as long as they can before eventually falling back on the old "god did it". I think it was one "answer" which necessitated the non-constancy of certain universal constants that I finally snapped, threw all my creationist books in the garbage, and promptly became a theistic evolutionist.

The fact is that many "creationist" websites are so deceptively written, obscurantist, and so badly **** all over the science that I am almost led to believe they're actually written by ill-willed atheists scamming poor Christians!


----------



## science

Couchie said:


> I used to be Christian, and a young-Earth creationist when I was younger.
> The thing that drew me to evolution is it's beautiful simplicity.
> 
> Genes mutate. The good ones stick around. Time passes, and, well. _The world as we know it._
> 
> On the other hand finding "answers in Genesis" was a remarkably infuriating process where the more difficult the question posed, the more contrived and elaborate the answer was. Unlike evolution there isn't a single empowering force behind creationism, but they draw from all sorts of unrelated sciencey-sounding stuff for as long as they can before eventually falling back on the old "god did it". I think it was one "answer" which necessitated the non-constancy of certain universal constants that I finally snapped, threw all my creationist books in the garbage, and promptly became a theistic evolutionist.
> 
> The fact is that many "creationist" websites are so deceptively written, obscurantist, and so badly **** all over the science that I am almost led to believe they're actually written by ill-willed atheists scamming poor Christians!


This is truth.

I used to be a creationist too, from about 6th grade to my freshman year of college. What changed my mind was a paper I wrote comparing Origen's and Augustine's interpetations of Genesis 1-3. (I worked hard on that!) The thing that shocked me was that they were not at all concerned to insist on a literal, historical interpretation of the text.

Funny (and revealing) that as soon as I had theological warrant, I just reverted to trusting the real scientists. It wasn't until much later that, out of mere curiosity, I looked into the actual science.

There are various kinds of creationists. Some of them know they're lying. Some of them probably realize semi-consciously that they're being lied to, but they want to believe and they're able to convince themselves. (I was one of these, though I didn't realize it.) Most of them trust their religious community more than they trust a community of scientists that they've never met.

But like I said, a lot of people really cannot see any options but 
a) belief in God and young-earth creationism and morality and a meaning in life, 
b) atheism, evolution, and the worst kind of nihilism.

It's a really tight spot to be in.


----------



## mmsbls

For some people, evolution directly threatens the special relationship between God and humans. Evolution seems to contradict what they believe with all their heart (and mind). Evolution is definitely not obvious and makes challenges to common sense. It is a very complicated science, and I suspect 90-95% of those who believe it do not understand many details. For those inclined to doubt evolution, it is rather easy to justify that evolution is false.

I once saw a debate between Duane Gish (former vice president of the Institute for Creation Research) and an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan. Gish showed a two pane comic making fun of evolution. The first pane showed a hydrogen atom and the next showed a human as the remarkable outcome of evolution. There was a burst of laughter from many in the audience. The simple notion that the transition was even possible was considered hilarious. How could a very complex theory, supported by evidence that the vast majority of people don't understand, possibly persuade those people?

It is much simpler to deny a complex theory than to deny what one believes is the very basis of reality.


----------



## Elgarian

Meaghan said:


> This is a very interesting question! I believe lots of things for which I do not have proof. Many of these are things I probably _could_ prove, but taking the trouble to do so all the time would not be a good way to live my life. I am talking about the sort of things people usually take for granted, and _have_ to take for granted sometimes in order to function normally. For instance, I have not talked to anyone in my immediate family in about an hour. I do not know conclusively that they are are all alive, but I believe they are. I could call them up and prove it, but I do not feel the need to do so. If I never believed anything without proof, I would spend my months away from home in a constant state of uncertainty about whether my family was alive.
> 
> Of course, the matter of whether or not to believe things without proof becomes much more complex when it comes to less provable things like the existence or non-existence of a higher power, and one's decision takes on greater consequences for other people. I only bring up this rather mundane example for the purpose of illustrating how everybody, even highly analytical and scientifically-oriented people, "go on faith" in their everyday lives. I can see how some people could feel the same way about believing in God that I feel about believing in my family's survival.


I think this is an important post. Real faith has nothing to do with deciding to believe in God as a kind of all-encompassing Father Christmas, in the teeth of scientific evidence, or in some kind of denial of rationality. That's the straw man constructed by some proponents of atheism. Real faith is more complicated than that. It's about trust, more than 'belief'. Or if you like, it's about continuing to trust, sometimes in the teeth of adversity, in a decision already made on other grounds.

I'm trying to think of a simpler parallel, and this may be inadequate but I'll try it for size. Suppose your doctor tells you you need to have some kind of painful treatment for an illness, and you listen to his advice, weigh everything up as best you can, and decide to trust it. Now it may be that during the course of the treatment, later, when you're experiencing the pain, that all those once-plausible reasons fly out of the window, and you bitterly regret ever having decided to go on with this. Well, _faith_ is the thing you would summon in order to go on with it. In the same way, it's what the believer summons when confronted (for example) with a disaster that apparently conflicts with his trust in God. (Or fails to summon - in which case he may ultimately change his belief system.)

So faith is something we use all the time, in order to get on with our lives. And Meaghan is quite right to draw attention to those everyday examples as a close parallel to religious faith. We make the best decisions we can, and then act 'in good faith'. There's nothing flighty about it; nothing foolish; it's something we all do every day - and believers apply it in their religious lives in pretty much the same sort of way (but with a different object of course) as atheists (or indeed, agnostics) do in theirs.


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> (Moderator note: this post was deleted upon request of the poster)


Science - please accept my apologies. I wasn't in fact responding to your post in any significant way, but adding my own comments to Meaghan's, for their own sake, and extending what was said there. It's true that I mentioned your post in passing, but in fact it was unnecessary for me to do so. The fact is that I've been thinking about Meaghan's post ever since I read it, and I'd have said the same thing even if you hadn't posted your own comments.

I've edited my post to remove the reference to you, which I hope will clear up the misunderstanding?


----------



## science

My bad then. An entirely reasonable response from you. I'm sorry you saw that post before I edited it out of existence.

My humblest apologies. I'm very sorry for my response.


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> My bad then. An entirely reasonable response from you. I'm sorry you saw that post before I edited it out of existence.


The only bad thing is that you were upset about it. I wish I could have avoided that. (For what it's worth, I think my post is now clearer for having removed the reference to yours, so maybe a small amount of good came from it all!)


----------



## science

Your post offers an alternative definition of faith which is worth considering - it is not necessarily religious faith, but it seems to me that the question with the kind of faith you're talking about is not whether to have any, but how much and when and in what.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, I guess it's fine to _wonder_ about such things... why is there pain/sin if there's a god, why are there so many conflicting religions, etc. Keep wondering. But here's another thing to add to your list for wondering:
> 
> Why is there _something_ rather than _nothing_?


Brava!:tiphat:

[Though I'll admit it's all I can do to come up with progressively less inadequate 
answers for "how," which to me seems a pre-requisite to a passable answer for "why?"]


----------



## science

I wonder - who would expect there to be nothing rather than something?


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> Evolution and the age of our planet has nothing *at all* to do with atheism.


All right, I concede. I'll amend my statement to '...an absolute rejection of assumptions often made by atheists, but which may also be made by others'. Hope that's more philosophically sound.


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> Your post offers an alternative definition of faith which is worth considering - it is not necessarily religious faith, but it seems to me that the question with the kind of faith you're talking about is not whether to have any, but how much and when and in what.


I think you're exactly right. Perhaps we could agree that belief precedes faith, but that the two get muddled up often in these discussions. The case is often presented as if 'having faith' requires the rejection of rationality, or a deliberate decision to accept the reality of something absurd or fanciful, against the evidence*; but I don't think that's the case (or at least, not in any version of Christianity that I'd take seriously).

My impression is that the Jesus of the Gospels usually uses the word faith not in the sense of 'belief in God' (the _existence_ of God is never held in doubt there, is it?) but in the sense I mean it, that is, implying _trust_ in God (or in him). Of course we're at the mercy of the translators here, and I'm ignorant in that area I'm afraid.

*Of course 'evidence' is another of those words that causes trouble in these areas.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> Sorry man, I just disagree with you. I agree with the scientist that religious experience is the central, essential, sine qua non of sincere religious belief - and it has been so historically in Evangelical Christianity as well. Edwards for instance emphasized that a person had to experience the new birth; it wasn't enough to swear intellectual allegiance to a Christian creed. That's not to say that he wasn't a brilliant intellectual (though of course most people regardless of religion aren't).
> 
> Although you seem to be the kind of Evangelical that partly or wholly rejects Pentecostalism or "the charismatic movement," it's hard to deny that similar phenomena have been a big part of Evangelicalism at least since the 1730s, and that in some form or another all kinds of Christians and especially Christian leaders including among Protestants have always claimed to have personal experience of God.
> 
> You might not have liked the woozy connotations of that scientist's diction, and you can insist that there is also an intellectual component to your variety of religion (and most others), but I think that's really all you can object to.


I'm not sure you understand the new birth. When someone comes under conviction of sin, and comes to an understanding that their sins are forgiven through faith in Christ, it can be an intensely felt experience. it was just so for me. One of the OT prophets, looking forward to the plan of salvation, said 'they will leap like calves released from the stall'. But it does not always happen like that, especially for people who grow up in Christian homes. One of my sons joined the church last year. He is confident he is 'born again' but there is no experience he can point to. He 'crossed over from death to life' at some stage in his childhood but he has no idea when.

I would be very surprised if Jonathan Edwards was uninterested in people's acceptance of basic truth. In every church I have belonged to the requirements for membership have included acceptance of a written statement of faith, typically ten or twelve paragraphs over a page or two of A4. I have conducted such interviews myself. Candidates can also be expected to be asked when they became Christians. This is to weed out people who respond 'I've always been a Christian', a reply which would probably bring the interview to an abrupt halt. What the interviewer is looking for is not an account of what the interviewee 'felt', but his or her understanding of the basics of the gospel, that is, that conversion always comes via repentance.

You are right in assuming I reject the characteristic beliefs of the pentecostal and charismatic movements. But I do not accept their practices have been a major part of evangelical history. There have always been sporadic outbursts of this sort of thing but I think the modern manifestation had its root in the Irvingite movement of the nineteenth century, which receded until the mid 20th century charismatic movement. And if you go back to a major movement like the Reformation you find it's not about the reformers crying that the RC church misunderstood feelings, its about the complaint that the RC church was misunderstanding the gospel. Once again, I'm not saying the great theologians of the time had no 'experience of God'; I'm saying that experience was rooted in a joyful conviction that they had rediscovered the gospel, it wasn't about mystical felt presences.


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> I think you're exactly right. Perhaps we could agree that belief precedes faith, but that the two get muddled up often in these discussions. The case is often presented as if 'having faith' requires the rejection of rationality, or a deliberate decision to accept the reality of something absurd or fanciful, against the evidence*; but I don't think that's the case (or at least, not in any version of Christianity that I'd take seriously).
> 
> My impression is that the Jesus of the Gospels usually uses the word faith not in the sense of 'belief in God' (the _existence_ of God is never held in doubt there, is it?) but in the sense I mean it, that is, implying _trust_ in God (or in him). Of course we're at the mercy of the translators here, and I'm ignorant in that area I'm afraid.
> 
> *Of course 'evidence' is another of those words that causes trouble in these areas.


Well, there's ideas, and then there's commitments.

If we want to know what is true, I'd say "faith" (in the sense of assent to beliefs regardless of reason/evidence) is a vice, and I'm surprised that people disagree with me.

If we want to have a healthy marriage, then I think everyone would agree that "faith" (in the sense of commitment to something that we're not sure is going to work) is undoubtedly a virtue.

I don't think the latter requires the former.

Edit: Sorry, I really should've mentioned that I agree that "faith" in the New Testament is not used at all in the same way as it is used in contemporary culture, and that I think you've understood the scriptures correctly - and that the people who confuse believing in a doctrine with trusting a person (even a divine one) are misunderstanding the New Testament writers.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> I'm not sure you understand the new birth. When someone comes under conviction of sin, and comes to an understanding that their sins are forgiven through faith in Christ, it can be an intensely felt experience. it was just so for me. One of the OT prophets, looking forward to the plan of salvation, said 'they will leap like calves released from the stall'. But it does not always happen like that, especially for people who grow up in Christian homes. One of my sons joined the church last year. He is confident he is 'born again' but there is no experience he can point to. He 'crossed over from death to life' at some stage in his childhood but he has no idea when.
> 
> I would be very surprised if Jonathan Edwards was uninterested in people's acceptance of basic truth. In every church I have belonged to the requirements for membership have included acceptance of a written statement of faith, typically ten or twelve paragraphs over a page or two of A4. I have conducted such interviews myself. Candidates can also be expected to be asked when they became Christians. This is to weed out people who respond 'I've always been a Christian', a reply which would probably bring the interview to an abrupt halt. What the interviewer is looking for is not an account of what the interviewee 'felt', but his or her understanding of the basics of the gospel, that is, that conversion always comes via repentance.
> 
> You are right in assuming I reject the characteristic beliefs of the pentecostal and charismatic movements. But I do not accept their practices have been a major part of evangelical history. There have always been sporadic outbursts of this sort of thing but I think the modern manifestation had its root in the Irvingite movement of the nineteenth century, which receded until the mid 20th century charismatic movement. And if you go back to a major movement like the Reformation you find it's not about the reformers crying that the RC church misunderstood feelings, its about the complaint that the RC church was misunderstanding the gospel. Once again, I'm not saying the great theologians of the time had no 'experience of God'; I'm saying that experience was rooted in a joyful conviction that they had rediscovered the gospel, it wasn't about mystical felt presences.


I really don't see a poiint in this that contradicts what I said.

For instance, I never, ever said or implied that Jonathan Edwards "was uninterested in people's acceptance of basic truth" or that the Reformers claimed that the Catholic Church "misunderstood feelings." And I explicitly acknowledged that what you think of as "mystical felt presences" isn't the entirety of religious experience.

I also haven't said that every religious person has religious experience, but at least that is a reasonable misunderstanding. But are you going to tell me that someone like your son has not had _any_ religious experience? Is he just believing what other people have told him?


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

Chris said:


> Quick link on the trees. I have not seen this before so can't guarantee it's up to date.
> 
> http://www.icr.org/article/tree-rings-biblical-chronology/
> 
> As to evidence generally, the results you obtain from dating will depend on the models you are using and your presuppositions. Bedtime so no time to say more...in any case I am not a geologist.


Tree rings probably wasn't the best example for me to site...That website it right in saying that the disputed date of the flood could mean that the oldest living tree only came into existence after the flood.

Here's another interesting contradiction which I've found, which may be a bit more substantial than tree ring dating.

Every year, in Lake Suigestu (A lake in Japan), a specific type of single-celled algae blooms in the spring, and then dies off, leaving a layer of white sediment on the lake bed. For the rest of the year, clay settles onto the lake bed. The result is that annual varves are formed - alternating layers of brown clay and white algae.

By boring a hole into the lake bed, scientists have counted the layers of varves, and they've counted at least 100,000, suggesting that this lake has been in existence for at least 100,000 years. And just to make sure that these were annual layers, the algae in the varves was also carbon dated at regular intervals, and they confirmed the ages of the layers of sediment:


----------



## Elgarian

science said:


> Edit: Sorry, I really should've mentioned that I agree that "faith" in the New Testament is not used at all in the same way as it is used in contemporary culture, and that I think you've understood the scriptures correctly - and that the people who confuse believing in a doctrine with trusting a person (even a divine one) are misunderstanding the New Testament writers.


Yes, I think we're in agreement on the important matter. My concern is not to establish whether Christian faith is a 'good thing' according to some other ethical system, but to establish clearly what it is, and what it isn't. In other words, 'having faith' doesn't mean that the Christian is required to believe in a fairy tale (though it may seem like that to someone outside it who doesn't understand), but to 'have faith' in the sense I've been proposing.

Incidentally, I mentioned this before, but it may be worth reviving the idea that by and large we do seem to end up believing more or less what we _want_ to believe, and that the arguments we construct often lead us (suspiciously in my view) to the conclusion we like best (providing of course that some kind of persuasive argument _can_ be put forward). Most atheists I know seem to want to be atheists; and most Christians I know seem to want to be Christians. That proves nothing one way or the other, of course, and there are always exceptions to the rule, but it ought to make us look at these arguments that go back and forth with particular care.


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> Yes, I think we're in agreement on the important matter. My concern is not to establish whether Christian faith is a 'good thing' according to some other ethical system, but to establish clearly what it is, and what it isn't. In other words, 'having faith' doesn't mean that the Christian is required to believe in a fairy tale (though it may seem like that to someone outside it who doesn't understand), but to 'have faith' in the sense I've been proposing.
> 
> Incidentally, I mentioned this before, but it may be worth reviving the idea that by and large we do seem to end up believing more or less what we _want_ to believe, and that the arguments we construct often lead us (suspiciously in my view) to the conclusion we like best (providing of course that some kind of persuasive argument _can_ be put forward). Most atheists I know seem to want to be atheists; and most Christians I know seem to want to be Christians. That proves nothing one way or the other, of course, and there are always exceptions to the rule, but it ought to make us look at these arguments that go back and forth with particular care.


I'd bet that you're right, but it's important to point out that we are not at all aware of this process. One reason the subconscious and conscious are distinct may well be so that the conscious mind can have an integrity that the subconscious mind cannot.

Also, we should expand it a bit to include Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, shamans, whatever. The pscychological processes that lead to belief are probably a "human universal." If not present in every individual, at least present in many individuals in every culture.


----------



## mmsbls

Elgarian said:


> Incidentally, I mentioned this before, but it may be worth reviving the idea that by and large we do seem to end up believing more or less what we _want_ to believe, and that the arguments we construct often lead us (suspiciously in my view) to the conclusion we like best (providing of course that some kind of persuasive argument _can_ be put forward). Most atheists I know seem to want to be atheists; and most Christians I know seem to want to be Christians. That proves nothing one way or the other, of course, and there are always exceptions to the rule, but it ought to make us look at these arguments that go back and forth with particular care.


There is certainly a sense in which this is correct. Psychologists and neuroscientists have learned that many of the things we think we know actually are believed for non-rational reasons. I would suggest that there are reasons we originally come to strongly held beliefs such as religion or atheism, but once we hold these beliefs, it becomes extremely difficult to change them through reason.

When asked why we believe something, we do not usually give the reasons we came to believe that thing in the beginning. We often have a somewhat "made up" set of reasons that may have little to do with reality but that allow us to feel that we have good reasons for our "knowledge". I think almost no one wants to actively challenge their views (especially strongly held ones).


----------



## science

Perhaps especially with regard to religion, where one's intellectual view is tied so tightly to one's identity, membership in a community, status, sense of meaning and purpose, and morality. It is very hard not to cling to all of that.


----------



## mmsbls

science said:


> I'd bet that you're right, but it's important to point out that we are not at all aware of this process. One reason the subconscious and conscious are distinct may well be so that the conscious mind can have an integrity that the subconscious mind cannot.
> 
> Also, we should expand it a bit to include Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, shamans, whatever. The pscychological processes that lead to belief are probably a "human universal." If not present in every individual, at least present in many individuals in every culture.


Yes, we are almost never aware that our subconscious mind "fills in the gaps". There have been many studies which have shown that people will make up things to support various views. In these studies people are "tricked" into believing something (i.e. led to believe non-important things such as that they knew a made up person in high school), and they will make up facts to support that knowledge (such as that they remember going to a party with the made up person).

I think these psychological processes are a human universal (of course, there will be variation as with all traits), and presumably the processes that lead to people believing in one religion are similar to those that lead to belief in other religions.


----------



## Elgarian

mmsbls said:


> I think these psychological processes are a human universal (of course, there will be variation as with all traits), and presumably the processes that lead to people believing in one religion are similar to those that lead to belief in other religions.


Yes, and also (importantly) to _disbelief_. There are subconscious drives towards atheism that are just as powerful (and often just as evidently driven by desire or neurosis). And also (not wishing to exclude myself) towards agnosticism!! None of this (in itself) counts against any particular belief system; but I think we need to be aware that there's always more to any one person's chosen world view than meets the eye; and certainly, more than he _says_.

These last few posts (by *mmsbls* and *science*) have seemed like a breath of fresh air in their honest willingness to see beyond the usual attack and counter-attack of this kind of discussion, to the hidden nooks and crannies that lie beneath the surface of our so-called rationalisations. Thank you, both.


----------



## Chris

science said:


> I really don't see a poiint in this that contradicts what I said.
> 
> For instance, I never, ever said or implied that Jonathan Edwards "was uninterested in people's acceptance of basic truth" or that the Reformers claimed that the Catholic Church "misunderstood feelings." And I explicitly acknowledged that what you think of as "mystical felt presences" isn't the entirety of religious experience.
> 
> I also haven't said that every religious person has religious experience, but at least that is a reasonable misunderstanding. But are you going to tell me that someone like your son has not had _any_ religious experience? Is he just believing what other people have told him?


Apologies for misunderstanding what you had written about Jonathan Edwards. Perfectly reasonable and what I would have expected of him. There is no salvation without a religious experience. But perhaps we are not thinking the same thing about that term. If my son is genuinely converted he must have had a 'religious experience' because we read in John ch. 3 that that to be 'born again' or 'born from above' involves a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. But there need not be any memorable feeling. Some people just slowly come to believe. But even when powerful feelings are present, they are the form of a strong conviction that things read in the Bible, or heard from an evangelist, are true. Nothing to do with 'there was a sort of something there' which is what the scientist was creating.


----------



## Chris

MusicSoundsNice said:


> Tree rings probably wasn't the best example for me to site...That website it right in saying that the disputed date of the flood could mean that the oldest living tree only came into existence after the flood.
> 
> Here's another interesting contradiction which I've found, which may be a bit more substantial than tree ring dating.
> 
> Every year, in Lake Suigestu (A lake in Japan), a specific type of single-celled algae blooms in the spring, and then dies off, leaving a layer of white sediment on the lake bed. For the rest of the year, clay settles onto the lake bed. The result is that annual varves are formed - alternating layers of brown clay and white algae.
> 
> By boring a hole into the lake bed, scientists have counted the layers of varves, and they've counted at least 100,000, suggesting that this lake has been in existence for at least 100,000 years. And just to make sure that these were annual layers, the algae in the varves was also carbon dated at regular intervals, and they confirmed the ages of the layers of sediment:


I keyed Lake Suigetsu into Google and this is the first thing that came up:

http://truthmatters.info/2008/04/11/lake-suigetsu-no-help-for-old-earthers/

I don't understand all of it but they are suggesting that the laminations are not necessarily annual. As for the carbon dating, they believe the analysis was done on very tiny samples and, crucially, was not done blind. The researchers were working against a list of expected results. Dating often produces erroneous (that is, unexpected) readings which are attributed by the researchers to contamination or some other cause. If these people were working with small samples they had reason to expect even more anomolous results than usual. I do not what happened in this lab. Possibly (guessing wildly here) they analysed twenty samples for each stratum, calculated twenty very disparate ages, and published the one that best fit the figure they were looking for. They could do that with a good conscience because they already 'knew' what the age was from the other data. That's speculation of course, but it would be interesting to see the raw data including every radiocarbon reading they obtained.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> Yes, I think we're in agreement on the important matter. My concern is not to establish whether Christian faith is a 'good thing' according to some other ethical system, but to establish clearly what it is, and what it isn't. *In other words, 'having faith' doesn't mean that the Christian is required to believe in a fairy tale *(though it may seem like that to someone outside it who doesn't understand), but to 'have faith' in the sense I've been proposing.


I hope you were not generalising, as your opinions often tend to do. Creationists and folks who take the Bible literally, for example, have you forgotten them? In their view, having faith do require literal beliefs of Biblical stories, word for word.


----------



## science

Chris said:


> Apologies for misunderstanding what you had written about Jonathan Edwards. Perfectly reasonable and what I would have expected of him. There is no salvation without a religious experience. But perhaps we are not thinking the same thing about that term. If my son is genuinely converted he must have had a 'religious experience' because we read in John ch. 3 that that to be 'born again' or 'born from above' involves a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit. But there need not be any memorable feeling. Some people just slowly come to believe. But even when powerful feelings are present, they are the form of a strong conviction that things read in the Bible, or heard from an evangelist, are true. Nothing to do with 'there was a sort of something there' which is what the scientist was creating.


So if there is some sort of religious experience involved, the only quesion is how similar it is to other religious experienes. I understand you want to insist on its absolute uniqueness, but as I'm looking from the outside, I'd guess it has similarities to religious experiences in other traditions and communities, including but not at all only within Evangelical Christianity.

He might not have produced exactly the experience you think believers should have, but he may well be producing something relevant to religious experience in general.


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

Chris said:


> I keyed Lake Suigetsu into Google and this is the first thing that came up:
> 
> http://truthmatters.info/2008/04/11/lake-suigetsu-no-help-for-old-earthers/
> 
> I don't understand all of it but they are suggesting that the laminations are not necessarily annual. As for the carbon dating, they believe the analysis was done on very tiny samples and, crucially, was not done blind. The researchers were working against a list of expected results. Dating often produces erroneous (that is, unexpected) readings which are attributed by the researchers to contamination or some other cause. If these people were working with small samples they had reason to expect even more anomolous results than usual. I do not what happened in this lab. Possibly (guessing wildly here) they analysed twenty samples for each stratum, calculated twenty very disparate ages, and published the one that best fit the figure they were looking for. They could do that with a good conscience because they already 'knew' what the age was from the other data. That's speculation of course, but it would be interesting to see the raw data including every radiocarbon reading they obtained.


I think that the website is wrong in saying that C14 dating is inaccurate - C14 dating is actually pretty accurate in terms of order of magnitude. Even if the best fitting result were chosen (highly doubt this), the actual range would still be well within the accuracy standards in terms of order of magnitude. I am unaware of any drastically inaccurate C14 dating experiments, which have been done with proper C14 dating techniques.

Also, the website you posted seemed to have quote mined a geologist, to deceive people into believing something which was not meant. The website posted this quote to support its hypothesis:



> It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as "varved." There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units ... without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation


When in actual fact, the document it was taken from said the following:


> It is very unfortunate from a sedimentological viewpoint that engineers describe any rhythmically laminated fine-grained sediment as "varved." There is increasing recognition that many sequences previously described as varves are multiple turbidite sequences of graded silt to clay units (Fig. 6.8) without any obvious seasonal control on sedimentation. The formation of varved silty-clays requires the cessation of melt runoff into the lake during winter to create a closed lake system in which precipitation of clay particulates can take place. In many cases where large ice lobes of glaciers sit or float in lakes, there is year round delivery of sediments and turbidite activity occurs almost continuously resulting in graded laminae that are not true varves. These turbidity currents deposit single or multiple graded (fining up) laminae (Fig. 6.8) and clay laminae may be thin or non-existent as a result of infrequent quiet water conditions in proximal areas. Consistent clay layer thickness and sharp textual division between silt and clay components are the principal diagnostic criteria for varve recognition (Ashley, 1975).
> 
> Current regimes and sedimentary conditions were different in postglacial freshwater lakes no longer in contact with the ice front. Suspended sediment loads were greatly reduced (probably less than 0.1 g/L) and under such conditions, streams enter lakes as overflows and interflows (Fig. 6.7B). Heavy-density bottom flows would only occur during spring floods or as products of slumping.
> 
> Present-day sedimentation in Hector Lake, Alberta (Smith, 1978) probably reflects conditions in many postglacial lakes. During the summer, warm stream water with its suspended sediment enters the lake as overflows and interflows, overriding heavier cold water (Fig, 6.9). Even during reduced winter stream flow, the very cold (~0degreesC) stream water overflows heavier 4degreeC water in the lake. Deposition of sediments is largely by year-round settling with silt and fine sand settling out during the summer and clay during the winter. Smith (1978) reports classical varve couplets in Hector Lake near the inlet delta where there is adequate sediment to produce them but the varves rapidly decrease in thickness with distance, becoming thin laminae or even massive clays only 2km from the inlet. This rapid attenuation is largely related to the inefficiency of overflows and interflows as carriers of sediment along with the small sediment loads. (See also Gilbert and Shaw, 1981).


It doesn't quite suggest the same thing once you take it in the context of the actual document.

Also, the website suggested that these varves were not annual, when in fact, what they were doing was taking and old article from 1969, and reading the errors from there. I believe these errors have been corrected, and scientists currently do not question the fact that these layers are indeed, annual.

I found a full analysis of the webpage you posted here: http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1314


----------



## Chris

MusicSoundsNice said:


> I think that the website is wrong in saying that C14 dating is inaccurate - C14 dating is actually pretty accurate in terms of order of magnitude. Even if the best fitting result were chosen (highly doubt this), the actual range would still be well within the accuracy standards in terms of order of magnitude. I am unaware of any drastically inaccurate C14 dating experiments, which have been done with proper C14 dating techniques.
> 
> Also, the website you posted seemed to have quote mined a geologist, to deceive people into believing something which was not meant. The website posted this quote to support its hypothesis:


I was under the impression that C14 analyses had to be treated with some caution, not least because of the possibly of contamination. I don't think anyone is claiming these algal blooms are each a hermetic seal, perfectly preserving each layer. I thought that in a typical experiment you would get a spray of results from which you would have to weed out the ones which were nowhere near your expectations, blaming these either on contamination or the inherent errors in measuring very small quantities of radiation etc. In this experiment (according to the website I quoted at least) the measurements were of necessity made on tiny samples (like one five hundredth of a leaf) which would make errors more frequent. What the graph shows is not a good fit, but a spectacularly good fit. They seem to have hit a coconut every time. It could be that C14 technology has become so sophisticated that this is the norm, and they have been very fortunate in not having any problems with contamination. But there is another possibility. The researchers already have what they consider to be irrefutable proof of the sample age from the layering analysis, so they regard the C14 data as merely confirmation of what they already know - almost a calibration exercise for the C14 machine. If so, they might well feel justified in picking the nearest hit from a wide spray and only publishing this one.

I will have to trust what you say about the selective quote, I can't penetrate the geology speak. In general, it goes without saying that quotes must not be so selective that they distort the original meaning.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I hope you were not generalising, as your opinions often tend to do. Creationists and folks who take the Bible literally, for example, have you forgotten them? In their view, having faith do require literal beliefs of Biblical stories, word for word.


Now HC, that is a little hard, and from my point of view very frustrating. I've just spent several posts (and a good deal of time) explaining very precisely what I mean about the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' when I use those words, specifically to avoid the kind of confusion you've just introduced. If you'll read the previous few posts of mine leading up to the one you quote, you will, I hope, understand precisely what I mean by my statement, and recognise that none of my remarks address the issue of belief in specific doctrines as required by different sects. (Indeed, I have nothing useful to say about that.)

These are extremely complex issues to deal with satisfactorily, and it's necessary to develop arguments, as the necessity arises, over several posts. One simply cannot repeatedly cover all the same gound in every post to avoid being misunderstood by being quoted out of context (as here).


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> Yes, and also (importantly) to _disbelief_. There are subconscious drives towards atheism that are just as powerful (and often just as evidently driven by desire or neurosis). And also (not wishing to exclude myself) towards agnosticism!! None of this (in itself) counts against any particular belief system; but I think we need to be aware that there's always more to any one person's chosen world view than meets the eye; and certainly, more than he _says_.
> 
> These last few posts (by *mmsbls* and *science*) have seemed like a breath of fresh air in their honest willingness to see beyond the usual attack and counter-attack of this kind of discussion, to the hidden nooks and crannies that lie beneath the surface of our so-called rationalisations. Thank you, both.


I don't think this destroys the idea of rationality: all human thought suffers from these biases, but yet progress toward truth is evidently possible.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that disbelief isn't biased in the same way. That is a good point. It is an interesting, important observation that although all known human communities have been religious, there seems to have been skeptics in all of them as well. There is evidently something adaptive going on there. Skeptics might be analogous to cheaters in a community of tit-for-tat players.


----------



## Polednice

I just wanted to ask for people to clarify a little what they've meant in some of the past few posts:

Elgarian, in response to mmsbls saying that "psychological processes [which] are human universals" can lead to belief, you say that they can just as well lead to disbelief. I can certainly accept that certain subconscious psychological traits may predispose someone to preferring either religious or irreligious explanations of our world regardless of consulting evidence before making a decision, but would you go so far as to accept science's use of the word 'adaptive' with regards to skepticism - in the strict evolutionary sense, I mean? If so, I would contend that there is _only_ an evolutionary bias towards religiosity - not an equal adaptiveness against it - because consistent, fully-rational skepticism is difficult for us all precisely because it goes against our basic desires to seek patterns and explanations that may not reflect reality.


----------



## MusicSoundsNice

Chris said:


> I was under the impression that C14 analyses had to be treated with some caution, not least because of the possibly of contamination. I don't think anyone is claiming these algal blooms are each a hermetic seal, perfectly preserving each layer.


Really, preservation isn't an important factor in carbon dating, as C14 measures the decay of radioactive carbon. Even extreme pressures, intense heat, or exposure to magnetism don't affect the rate at which C14 decays. I suppose it could be possible that the samples were contaminated, but for it to give a reading of 30,000 years, it would have to be contaminated by something 30,000 years old. However, judging from the number of results, and the general trend, contamination seems unlikely.


> I thought that in a typical experiment you would get a spray of results from which you would have to weed out the ones which were nowhere near your expectations, blaming these either on contamination or the inherent errors in measuring very small quantities of radiation etc. In this experiment (according to the website I quoted at least) the measurements were of necessity made on tiny samples (like one five hundredth of a leaf) which would make errors more frequent.


Whilst it is true that anomalous results are removed from mean calculations, that doesn't mean that the results are doctored. Generally, anomalous results are down to random errors, and as they are significantly different from the vast majority of results, they are removed from the mean calculation to make the results more accurate. Also, I believe that C14 dating can be done very accurately with a few milligrams of organic material, so one five hundredth of a leaf would be sufficient to obtain accurate results. However, I'm a little bit confused here, as they were dating algae colonies at lake Suigetsu, and not leaves.



> What the graph shows is not a good fit, but a spectacularly good fit. They seem to have hit a coconut every time.


Not really; the radiocarbon dating results aren't a precise match to the gradient which you would expect, but they seem pretty accurate in terms of order of magnitude. The general trend is shown in both the varve results and the C14 dating results, and they seem to support each other's reliability as testing methods.



> It could be that C14 technology has become so sophisticated that this is the norm, and they have been very fortunate in not having any problems with contamination.


Having been trapped underwater, with layers of sediment on top should have protected the sediments from being contaminated. However, even if the sediments were contaminated, that would mean either:

1. Something 50,000 years old contaminated the sample (which still supports the theory that the Earth is not 6000 years old).
2. Something younger contaminated the sample (which implies that the varves are actually older than 50,000 years in age).



> But there is another possibility. The researchers already have what they consider to be irrefutable proof of the sample age from the layering analysis, so they regard the C14 data as merely confirmation of what they already know - almost a calibration exercise for the C14 machine. If so, they might well feel justified in picking the nearest hit from a wide spray and only publishing this one.


Possible, but that would defy the core principles of scientific method - rational, and unbiased analysis of information. The uncalibrated C14 results showed slightly younger ages than the varve counting dates, but then, C14 is only a measure of order of magnitude, and therefore not totally precise. If we're questioning the actual validity of the test, as far as I am aware, the tests were done properly, as no-one has yet come out with a valid attack on the integrity of the scientist who did the test. I doubt someone would have bothered to doctor those results, when they had no intention of proving C14 dating accurate, or disproving a Young Earth when they carried out the test.

Please don't take this as an attack on personal belief, I am just intrigued into the other side of thinking, and I quite want to see where various degrees of evidence and studies take the topic.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> Now HC, that is a little hard, and from my point of view very frustrating. I've just spent several posts (and a good deal of time) explaining very precisely what I mean about the difference between 'belief' and 'faith' when I use those words, specifically to avoid the kind of confusion you've just introduced. If you'll read the previous few posts of mine leading up to the one you quote, you will, I hope, understand precisely what I mean by my statement, and recognise that none of my remarks address the issue of belief in specific doctrines as required by different sects. (Indeed, I have nothing useful to say about that.)
> 
> These are extremely complex issues to deal with satisfactorily, and it's necessary to develop arguments, as the necessity arises, over several posts. One simply cannot repeatedly cover all the same gound in every post to avoid being misunderstood by being quoted out of context (as here).


Fine, if I have misunderstood. I withdraw the comment above. (Got to get used to this new format, including apparent lack of "edit" button. Frustrating).


----------



## mmsbls

Polednice said:


> Elgarian, in response to mmsbls saying that "psychological processes [which] are human universals" can lead to belief, you say that they can just as well lead to disbelief. I can certainly accept that certain subconscious psychological traits may predispose someone to preferring either religious or irreligious explanations of our world regardless of consulting evidence before making a decision, but would you go so far as to accept science's use of the word 'adaptive' with regards to skepticism - in the strict evolutionary sense, I mean? If so, I would contend that there is _only_ an evolutionary bias towards religiosity - not an equal adaptiveness against it - because consistent, fully-rational skepticism is difficult for us all precisely because it goes against our basic desires to seek patterns and explanations that may not reflect reality.


This is a interesting question. I think we all agree that there are adaptive mechanisms seeking patterns and explanations without fully rational basis. I'm not sure there is good evidence that these mechanisms are adaptive in that natural selection was the driving force. Evolutionary psychology is still a rather new field, and demonstrating such an adaptation I suspect is rather hard. Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that such pattern seeking is not adaptive.

As Polednice suggests, skepticism is another matter. While it seems to make sense that general skepticism would be useful (many new ideas are wrong), it's not clear how to build in general skepticism to brain mechanisms. Skepticism could come in two varieties. First, hard skepticism - distrust almost everything. This would be rather problematic for early humans since most patterns are either very useful or at least don't hurt much. Hard skepticism essentially would counteract the pattern generating mechanisms. Second, an advanced mechanism that allows pattern generation but requires prolonged thought to verify it. I don't see this as a brain mechanism but rather a consequence of the general thinking capability of the neocortex. Skepticism requires training and effort unlike pattern generation (at least simple pattern generation).


----------



## Almaviva

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Fine, if I have misunderstood. I withdraw the comment above.


Good, good. I was starting to get worried (this thread has been going *so* well with pages and pages without personal attacks... I believe that nobody would want to go back to the early days of this thread when things were so tense and edgy...)



> (Got to get used to this new format, including apparent lack of "edit" button. Frustrating).


You mean that there is no edit button, not even for a short time? I didn't know that. Oh well, hehehe, people will have to think twice before they post.


----------



## science

My theory that religious behavior/belief must be adaptive largely rests on the observation that it requires large amounts of resources such as time, energy, sometimes food, and so on. If it didn't have some very significant benefit, it would've been selected against. In this way I think it's analogous to things like the peacock's tail. 

But whereas the peacock's tail is obviously a case of sexual selection, religion probably isn't, because we haven't observed a significant difference in the strength of religious belief between the genders. It may be that men tend a little more towards skepticism, but I don't think there is really strong evidence of that. 

To think about this clearly, we have to consider that religion evolved in relatively small communities of hunter-gatherers in which the community and the religion were co-extensive. There was no distinction between "us" and "our religion," and there were apparently usually no words or concept of "religion," though there were evidently always concepts like "spirit" and "magic." 

My own theory - this is highly speculative, I admit - is that religion evolved as a way to form cohesive large groups. (I have the same theory of music and dance.) At some point in our evolutionary history, we became the greatest threat to ourselves: most of our ancestors for the past few million years or so who have been killed were killed by other humans rather than by snakes, cats, and so on, though of course that never stopped. War is a human universal. In order to hunt, I'd guess our ancestors' communication and strategic thinking evolved to a certain point - perhaps not as far as actual speech, but that isn't an important question in this context. 

But I believe our constant warfare - the fact that the most dangerous things in our environment were other people - forced our intelligence (theory of mind and so on), communication, and social abilities to evolve. 

Religion is perfect for community formation. Religion is a little like race, it can incorporate kin-relations, but more importantly it is different than race: it can act completely independently of kinship - and that is crucial for us to form groups (whose members are willing to sacrifice themselves for each other) larger than kin-selection would allow. Religion requires hard-to-fake experiences of spirits (and so on) that only our community believes in - other communities have their own spirits, and if you experience them you'd better go be one of them! Experiencing our spirits and spirit-world shows that you really are a committed member of our group - someone we could trust in war. (I don't mean that this is conscious.) This is why religion is so tied up in issues like group membership and identity - it is almost impossible to separate them in practice.

But because religion is plastic, able to change at very short notice, it can deal with the complexities of human life. If many members of our group (subconsciouly at least) believe they would be better off in a separate group, they can discover differences in their spirits. Or we can incorporate new individuals into our group on fairly short notice. 

Skepticism would be a form of discovering differences in the spirits. Notice that almost all religious groups are beyond skeptical of other religious traditions. Within a community, religious leaders (usually people who are talented at trance experiences) are able to benefit from their leadership, so within that community some people would at least occasionally benefit from skepticism of those leaders. (An interesting thing appears to be nearly universal: religious leaders, especially in the traditions requiring possession/trance experiences, have to deprive themselves of things in order to gain legitimacy. Often they're supposed to demonstrate that they didn't want to be religious leaders, but were forced by the spirits. They become suspect members of the community, etc.)

When agriculture was invented and states began to form, religion was naturally used by the ruling classes to justify their power and privilege. State religion appeared, and it tends to have some differences from hunter-gatherer religion: in particular, experiences like trance or possession become less common, probably because rulers realize that they can't trust those experiences to favor them. "Mysticism" replaces it, using many of the same pschological elements, but highly controlled and (most importantly for the state) without any element of prophecy: mystics experience spirits and the spirit world, but usually do not speak for them. Instead, non-charismatic forms of religious authority become important, such as knowledge of complex rituals, mythologies, scriptures, and so on. Monumental architecture helps establish a limited number of places as the official sites of interaction with spiritual powers, implicitly or explicitly de-legitimizing other sites. So that in most states until c. 1700 we found at least some tension between the official religion, endorsed and promoted by the rulers, and the unofficial religions of the farmers. 

Most of the great religions of today were state religions in the past. The exceptions, such as Jainism, still had obvious political significance. 

The modern state does a tricky thing: it takes almost all the forms of the old state religion, but generally removes any reference to spirits. So we have state rituals, hymns about the state, temples to former (or even current) political leaders, state holidays, totems of the state (the flag, the national animal), dance (march and drill and parades), and so on. We're able to get almost as much loyalty to the state as hunter-gatherer groups used to get toward each other - and much more than pre-modern states were able to command. (These aren't the only innovations of modern states compared to pre-modern ones. Eventually there are police forces, the notion of a monopoly on violence, etc...) In turn, all the traditions of interacting with spirits can be tolerated, as long as they do not challenge the state much.

So there you go. Some weaknesses in my theory: first, it would seem to explain male religiosity better than female religiousity (and I even began by observing that there isn't much obvious difference). I guess the main reasons female religiousity was adaptive were that secure group membership is somewhat desirable even if they're not going to fight in the war, that they too would like to be able to evaluate the men's commitment, and perhaps there is an element of sexual selection going on, with women preferring religious men. But much worse, we don't have enough evidence about life in hunter-gatherer communities to know for sure that the generalizations I've made are always valid, generally valid (as I would expect), occasionally valid, or almost never valid. 

Nevertheless, as far as I know this is the best theory of religion available. I really hope we get a lot more knowledge of these things in the next few decades. We are, I think, actually very close to figuring out the truth about religion!

(Note that even if my theory is 100% correct, which would surprise me, it doesn't mean that any of the spirits actually do or don't exist, or that any of the religious traditions are true or false.)


----------



## emiellucifuge

Most lions are killed by other lions also, yet Ive never seen a religious lion.


----------



## science

It's a good point. Probably a lot of things have to appear before religion. Chimpanzees are the most obvious contrast, because unlike lions (as far as I know) groups of chimps actually make war on each other. But it's clear that they don't have the kind of cognitive foundations evolution would need to build religious behavior. 

Now I wouldn't rule out the possibility of them evolving something like religion in a few million years, if they survive the next thousand or so...


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> Elgarian, in response to mmsbls saying that "psychological processes [which] are human universals" can lead to belief, you say that they can just as well lead to disbelief. I can certainly accept that certain subconscious psychological traits may predispose someone to preferring either religious or irreligious explanations of our world regardless of consulting evidence before making a decision, but would you go so far as to accept science's use of the word 'adaptive' with regards to skepticism - in the strict evolutionary sense, I mean?


Alas, I don't know enough to comment sensibly on that. I'm a little worried about the idea, philosophically, because it seems to assume automatically that religious belief is something to be 'explained' in terms of evolutionary psychology (forgive me if I misunderstand, and please put me right). In other words, there's a tacit presupposition at the outset that any notion of religious impulse as a response to real experience of the divine is to be ruled out. If that's the case, then the outcome of the argument is a foregone conclusion. At the end we point to our efforts and say 'see - we now have a complete explanation of the religious impulse in terms of adaptive evolutionary psychology'. Perhaps we have; or perhaps (as the mystic might insist, having experienced a transcendent communication with the divine that makes our argument seem irrelevant to him) we haven't.

My chief concern in this discussion is to point out that many of our (so-called) rational arguments are carefully tailored to our individual needs for a particular outcome. We cherry-pick our premises to get the outcome we want or need. This doesn't (as *science* points out) mean that the validity of rational argument is undermined; but it does mean that we have to be extra aware of the distortion produced by desire, neurosis, or what have you. One only has to see the vehemence of some of the attacks on alternative positions to realise how deep-seated those psychological needs are, on both sides.

My second concern is to point out that by and large, both sides choose the most unhelpful battleground imaginable. We have atheists attacking extreme religious positions (inerrancy of the Bible, Creationism etc) as if they were the core of the matter, and their religious opponents consequently attempt to defend them (unconvincingly in my view). But so far as I'm aware there's no requirement for the Christian to believe in any of those things that are so hotly debated. In such discussions (as I've explained at some length above), even the meanings of the words 'belief' and 'faith' are misunderstood. This is why to find the real debating ground we have to consider (as far as we're able) the teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels. He didn't say that to gain salvation one needs to believe in the literal historical truth of the Adam and Eve myth, or Noah's ark. He said we should love God and our neighbour; that we should repent of our sins in order to be forgiven; that we should take up our cross and follow him. He also said some rather uncomfortable eschatological stuff too. But he _didn't_ invite his followers to believe a series of absurd facts; he asked for their faith; that is (as I tried to explain above), he invited their _trust_.

The whole thing is fraught with difficult issues of translation, and of the uncertainties exposed by Biblical scholarship, but that's where the real debate needs to take place. It's immensely frustrating to see matters of such importance degenerate into a battle to the death between extreme sects trying to defend indefensible positions. It sometimes seems like a bad 1950s science fiction movie: Christian UFOlogists versus the Scientistic Robots.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Elgarian said:


> One only has to see the vehemence of some of the attacks on alternative positions to realise how deep-seated those psychological needs are, on both sides.


Just to make it clear on that point: as an atheist (and speaking for myself only), I have no psychological need whatsoever in reference to your point. My life is meaningful and productive, irrespective of what my thoughts on religion are; I seldom think about religion, other than during wonderful opportunities at some internet boards  .


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

science said:


> It's a good point. Probably a lot of things have to appear before religion. Chimpanzees are the most obvious contrast, because unlike lions (as far as I know) groups of chimps actually make war on each other. But it's clear that they don't have the kind of cognitive foundations evolution would need to build religious behavior.
> 
> Now I wouldn't rule out the possibility of them evolving something like religion in a few million years, if they survive the next thousand or so...


Indeed. Unless of course, everything was pretty much created in a span of several days ...


----------



## science

Elgarian said:


> Alas, I don't know enough to comment sensibly on that. I'm a little worried about the idea, philosophically, because it seems to assume automatically that religious belief is something to be 'explained' in terms of evolutionary psychology (forgive me if I misunderstand, and please put me right). In other words, there's a tacit presupposition at the outset that any notion of religious impulse as a response to real experience of the divine is to be ruled out. If that's the case, then the outcome of the argument is a foregone conclusion. At the end we point to our efforts and say 'see - we now have a complete explanation of the religious impulse in terms of adaptive evolutionary psychology'. Perhaps we have; or perhaps (as the mystic might insist, having experienced a transcendent communication with the divine that makes our argument seem irrelevant to him) we haven't.


Philosophically at least, even if we do explain religious experience neurologically, or religious behaviors biologically, or the evolution of them, we won't have proven or disproven anything about the spirit world.

Occam's razor will have something to say, but it is a principle that can always be ignored.

In my opinion, the diversity of religious experience, the universal skepticism of all other religious traditions, and the lack of any other evidence of spirits already give us the data needed for Occam's razor to take effect, and I don't see many people applying it.


----------



## Elgarian

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Just to make it clear on that point: as an atheist (and speaking for myself only), I have no psychological need whatsoever in reference to your point. My life is meaningful and productive, irrespective of what my thoughts on religion are; I seldom think about religion, other than during wonderful opportunities at some internet boards  .


But you don't fall into the group I was speaking of, HC, because you don't engage in vehement attacks on the beliefs of others. On the contrary, you seem on the whole to have a well-balanced 'to each his own' approach to these things. On the other hand, if Jack gets very angry about the fact that Jill has a belief which affects no one but herself, then maybe we'd be right to suppose that Jack's psychological needs could be affecting the course of his argument?

The only other point I'd make is the general one that we're often not conscious of the psychological drives that cause us to behave (or believe) in the way we do. I couldn't state categorically that my own attitudes are entirely free from personal psychological issues; indeed I'm pretty sure they aren't.


----------



## Polednice

Elgarian said:


> Alas, I don't know enough to comment sensibly on that. I'm a little worried about the idea, philosophically, because it seems to assume automatically that religious belief is something to be 'explained' in terms of evolutionary psychology (forgive me if I misunderstand, and please put me right). In other words, there's a tacit presupposition at the outset that any notion of religious impulse as a response to real experience of the divine is to be ruled out. If that's the case, then the outcome of the argument is a foregone conclusion. At the end we point to our efforts and say 'see - we now have a complete explanation of the religious impulse in terms of adaptive evolutionary psychology'. Perhaps we have; or perhaps (as the mystic might insist, having experienced a transcendent communication with the divine that makes our argument seem irrelevant to him) we haven't.


I can understand your concerns about the pursuit of a purely evolutionary explanation of religious belief seeming to assume from the outset that religiosity bears no relation to the real world. However - though some might argue the expected line that it just shows god built us so well that we are predisposed to belief (which is another cop-out, as any discussion of the evolutionary evidence is, succinctly, "This is how our brains trick us...") - it seems, on its simplest level, to be a worth-while endeavour if only to combat the oft-pedalled notion that there must be _something_ in religion because the vast majority of human beings have some kind of faith in a higher being. An evolutionary account would make that argument void.

Incidentally, for people wanting to hear a good exploration of possible evolutionary bases, watch this:






There are other talks on YouTube like this, from folks like Dan Dennett, but this was the first that I found really convincing.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Elgarian said:


> ...by and large, both sides choose the most unhelpful battleground imaginable. We have atheists attacking extreme religious positions (inerrancy of the Bible, Creationism etc) as if they were the core of the matter, and their religious opponents consequently attempt to defend them (unconvincingly in my view).


Well, *I* tried to subtly counsel against the thread heading in that direction- 
but that tenative admonition worked as well as it usually does in these sorts of circumstances.

Really, the template comes from the Big Blue Book of Arguing to an Audience- try to maneuver the contrary position into defending a viewpoint shared by the narrowest possible minority (and still get a response), then assail the viewpoint as emblematic of the opposition. This sort of argumentation can occasionally (VERY occasionally) be entertaining, but it really doesn't enlighten us so much (at least, not with respect to the "resolved." Some brief insight to the personalities involved in the discussion DOES come through- which is a sort of learning experience, I suppose, but not the one I sought.)


----------



## Chris

This subject of the evolution of religion interests me. In the fossil record there is a fierce, hirsute, unsociable creature called Elijah. He was known for standing up to the wicked King Ahab. Shortly afterwards, an entirely different creature called Elisha emerges. Elisha was an entire contrast; a calm, social individual who lived harmoniously with other prophets. A clear evolutionary step-up. There are no known intermediates between these two, making this a good example of rapid evolution within a punctuated equilibrium. Interestingly, an Elijah-like figure called John the Baptist arises much later in the record. Palaeontologists have unearthed his primitive clothing and his diet of locusts and wild honey, as well as verifying his solitary habits. The evident regression from Elisha seems to point to a loss of genetic material.

But this is all speculation. What concerns me more is the future, and the possibility that my own descendants might evolve into presbyterians. Now that would make me spin in my grave.


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> Iit seems, on its simplest level, to be a worth-while endeavour if only to combat the oft-pedalled notion that there must be _something_ in religion because the vast majority of human beings have some kind of faith in a higher being. An evolutionary account would make that argument void


You may be right, though it seems a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Such a vague hand-waving notion about the prevalence of religious belief hardly seems worth refuting.

I still maintain the importance of being aware of how very good we are at arguing an apparently unassailable case to reach a conclusion that we (consciously or subconciously) desire to reach. As I've said before, it's very uncommon in discussions of this sort to find atheists who don't want to be atheists; similarly, one doesn't encounter very often Christians who don't want to be Christians. Yet each side really does think they have a sound case in arguments like this; and each side really does consider the argument proposed by the opposing side to be flawed. That fact alone should sound warning bells about this whole discussion, really.

I think it was Charles Williams who said 'No one can do more than decide what to believe.' It seems simplistic, and yet ....


----------



## Polednice

Elgarian said:


> I still maintain the importance of being aware of how very good we are at arguing an apparently unassailable case to reach a conclusion that we (consciously or subconciously) desire to reach. As I've said before, it's very uncommon in discussions of this sort to find atheists who don't want to be atheists; similarly, one doesn't encounter very often Christians who don't want to be Christians. Yet each side really does think they have a sound case in arguments like this; and each side really does consider the argument proposed by the opposing side to be flawed. That fact alone should sound warning bells about this whole discussion, really.


That may well be true, albeit it somewhat demoralising! However, while I'll openly admit that there is nothing anyone could ever do to convince me of a personal god, which I find laughable (trick me with physics, and you might just get me to be a deist ), I enjoy discussions such as these _not_ because I hope to convert anyone, but because I like to practice and flex my feeble brain in heated debates, and also like the insight into the way my friends here at TC think


----------



## mmsbls

Chris said:


> This subject of the evolution of religion interests me. In the fossil record there is a fierce, hirsute, unsociable creature called Elijah. He was known for standing up to the wicked King Ahab. Shortly afterwards, an entirely different creature called Elisha emerges. Elisha was an entire contrast; a calm, social individual who lived harmoniously with other prophets. A clear evolutionary step-up. There are no known intermediates between these two, making this a good example of rapid evolution within a punctuated equilibrium. Interestingly, an Elijah-like figure called John the Baptist arises much later in the record. Palaeontologists have unearthed his primitive clothing and his diet of locusts and wild honey, as well as verifying his solitary habits. The evident regression from Elisha seems to point to a loss of genetic material.


I'm a bit confused by all this. Do you mean physical fossils removed from the earth that include bones, artifacts, etc.? The palaeontologists named a particular fossil Elijah and somehow determined that that person or group "stood up" to another individual? Further, that from fossils palaeontologists determined that a particular individual was calm?

I can't speak for all palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists, but I do know that they tend to be extremely careful about suggesting progress in evolution ("clear evolutionary step-up"). They may speak of increased complexity or adapting to new environments, but such change is generally not viewed as progress. Also genetic material is generally not lost but changed.

You mention interest in the evolution of religion. Have you ever heard of a book by Robert Wright called "The Evolution of God"? I began reading it, and put it aside for awhile. I found it fascinating, but of course, I am quite ignorant of the subject material (biblical texts, other ancient texts, and archeological and anthropological data on civilizations). The book does not address whether God exists, but instead focuses on how people's view of gods and God have changed over time and why this may have happened.


----------



## dmg

science said:


> It's a good point. Probably a lot of things have to appear before religion. Chimpanzees are the most obvious contrast, because unlike lions (as far as I know) groups of chimps actually make war on each other. But it's clear that they don't have the kind of cognitive foundations evolution would need to build religious behavior.
> 
> Now I wouldn't rule out the possibility of them evolving something like religion in a few million years, if they survive the next thousand or so...


One of the closest things to religion outside of humanoids, I would think, are the behaviors of African elephants. Their bizarre foot rituals over the dead or dying, and the use of 'graveyards'...


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> I'll openly admit that there is nothing anyone could ever do to convince me of a personal god, which I find laughable


Well, you've done what Charles Williams advised, and have 'decided what to believe'. In the light of what I've been saying, you wouldn't expect me to argue with that. Indeed, I have sympathy with it, and respect it, while remaining puzzled by the degree of certainty expressed. I can't help noticing the inclusion of the word 'laughable' though. In a rational debate, mere refutation is enough; so it interests me (in view of what I've said previously) that the outcome of your personal quest is so much to your liking!*

*I expect I'll be able to say the same of mine too, of course - when and if I _get_ an outcome!


----------



## Chris

dmg said:


> One of the closest things to religion outside of humanoids, I would think, are the behaviors of African elephants. Their bizarre foot rituals over the dead or dying, and the use of 'graveyards'...


Possibly when they trumpet at each other they are engaging in theological disputes.


----------



## Chris

mmsbls said:


> I'm a bit confused by all this. Do you mean physical fossils removed from the earth that include bones, artifacts, etc.? The palaeontologists named a particular fossil Elijah and somehow determined that that person or group "stood up" to another individual? Further, that from fossils palaeontologists determined that a particular individual was calm?
> 
> I can't speak for all palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists, but I do know that they tend to be extremely careful about suggesting progress in evolution ("clear evolutionary step-up"). They may speak of increased complexity or adapting to new environments, but such change is generally not viewed as progress. Also genetic material is generally not lost but changed.
> 
> You mention interest in the evolution of religion. Have you ever heard of a book by Robert Wright called "The Evolution of God"? I began reading it, and put it aside for awhile. I found it fascinating, but of course, I am quite ignorant of the subject material (biblical texts, other ancient texts, and archeological and anthropological data on civilizations). The book does not address whether God exists, but instead focuses on how people's view of gods and God have changed over time and why this may have happened.


I hope you are right in palaeontologists and evolutionary biologists being cautious. There must be some hotheads though, otherwise we would never be regaled with detailed descriptions (with pictures) of fantastical creatures, half crocodile half something else, all based on a single tooth or a fragment of jawbone.

I've not heard of the book. I'll never get round to reading it. I can look at websites which I disagree with but a whole book....it's hard work ploughing through something you can't immerse yourself in.


----------



## dmg

Chris said:


> Possibly when they trumpet at each other they are engaging in theological disputes.


Perhaps. Though most of their communication is done in very low-pitch rumblings, below the audio spectrum of humans.


----------



## Polednice

Elgarian said:


> Well, you've done what Charles Williams advised, and have 'decided what to believe'. In the light of what I've been saying, you wouldn't expect me to argue with that. Indeed, I have sympathy with it, and respect it, while remaining puzzled by the degree of certainty expressed. I can't help noticing the inclusion of the word 'laughable' though. In a rational debate, mere refutation is enough; so it interests me (in view of what I've said previously) that the outcome of your personal quest is so much to your liking!*


I have and express the same kind of certainty as anyone would profess over the issues of the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the thousands upon thousands of other man-made gods that have both hindered and enriched the existence of humankind - and I don't mean any of that facetiously. I think it is fair and rational for people discuss the possibility for some kind of 'intelligence', or 'first cause' which exists outside the temporal and spatial confines of our universe; but to suggest that it is personal, intervening, caring, forgiving, judgemental, redemptive, and saw fit to enlighten us with a messenger in the illiterate middle-east, by whom we can seek vicarious redemption if we both love and fear a self-evidently human-like tyrant, after tens of thousands of years of human ignorance and suffering, can be nothing other than absurd.

The theory of evolution ought to be enough for people to see that there is precedent for complexity to exist without the hand of a creator, but more so today, I simply cannot fathom how people can convince themselves upon realising how this tiny, pathetic little planet doesn't register on a galactic scale, let alone a _universal_ one, that the entire cosmos exists with us and our frankly banal lives at its centre.

Don't get me wrong, as I've tried to make clear, I'm open to a philosophical discussion of a timeless 'prime-mover', and, though I am not at all well-versed in the necessary physics, I gather that such a being is surplus to the universe's requirements for existence. Still, even if we had an answer, knowledge of such a being would not affect our behaviours or ethics, so it makes for interesting speculation, but is of no practical value. But if someone would have me believe in a monotheism that _claims to have a personal deity_, but lacks any evidence just like all the other gods that our imaginations have conjured over the centuries, then I think it is only fair for the sake of my sanity that such attempts are met - as I suggested in my previous post - with laughter.


----------



## Elgarian

Polednice said:


> I have and express the same kind of certainty as anyone would profess over the issues of the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the thousands upon thousands of other man-made gods that have both hindered and enriched the existence of humankind ...
> 
> ... to suggest that it is personal, intervening, caring, forgiving, judgemental, redemptive, and saw fit to enlighten us with a messenger in the illiterate middle-east, by whom we can seek vicarious redemption if we both love and fear a self-evidently human-like tyrant, after tens of thousands of years of human ignorance and suffering, can be nothing other than absurd.
> 
> ... if someone would have me believe in a monotheism that _claims to have a personal deity_, but lacks any evidence just like all the other gods that our imaginations have conjured over the centuries, then I think it is only fair for the sake of my sanity that such attempts are met - as I suggested in my previous post - with laughter.


Well what a shame. It all seemed to be going quite well. But these comments illustrate exactly what I mean about mere refutation being sufficient in a rational discussion. When we allow anger and derision to enter (as here), any hope of rational discourse (or of any increase in mutual understanding) flies out of the window. I won't pursue this further.


----------



## Polednice

Elgarian said:


> Well what a shame. It all seemed to be going quite well. But these comments illustrate exactly what I mean about mere refutation being sufficient in a rational discussion. When we allow anger and derision to enter (as here), any hope of rational discourse (or of any increase in mutual understanding) flies out of the window. I won't pursue this further.


Well that is rather peculiar seeing as I felt no anger in writing that post, nor is any of it actually derisive as you suggest. There are _two_ moments - with the use of the words 'absurd' and 'laughter' - that may be _provocative_, but they are not unduly negative or cruel-hearted in light of the actual evidence on offer by the opposition. Sadly, it seems that you accord baseless religious belief the undeserved respect that it has had for centuries and which is thankfully being eroded in a society that values free-speech. My words would not be seen as unnecessary if used on topics such as UFOs or conspiracy theories, yet, once again, rational discussion on a matter such as this is denied because people try to force us to tread on egg-shells in case someone is unreasonably offended at my declaration that there is no dragon in their garage, as Carl Sagan would say. I even conceded that there could be a discussion _relevant to, and not conflicting with, contemporary scientific knowledge_ on the basis of a deistic god, and yet that apparently isn't enough. Well, in that case, all I can say is that I will _not_ offer any kind of respect to foundless superstition, and neither you nor anybody else should expect me to react in a manner any differently than we all would towards astrology, so I accept that this discussion has arrived at a dead-end.


----------



## Almaviva

Elgarian and Polednice, I must say that some measure of a vigorous debate should be welcome. I don't think that member Polednice has crossed any lines with his post, and I agree that sometimes the egg-shells won't do. He has expressed his *opinion* that he considers some beliefs absurd, and that he meets them with personal laughter. This may be offensive to some, but he doesn't slide into clear personal attacks, and we all should be able to handle his views, no? Also, member Polednice is not just jumping into the discussion with an inflammatory post, he's been here all along for the ride and has made many valid contributions to the argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but let's not jump into shutting down a mostly interesting and civil debate because one member was more vehement in expressing his views. The "other side" has had moments of vehemence as well, and the thread has survived. Maybe I'm saying this out of my own personal bias which is why I'm adding "correct me if I'm wrong." But bias or not, I do feel that the two of you are very reasonable people who are capable of finely articulating your thoughts, and should be able to continue to engage in a productive dialogue.


----------



## Elgarian

Almaviva said:


> let's not jump into shutting down a mostly interesting and civil debate because one member was more vehement in expressing his views.


I haven't looked at this thread for a few days, so missed Polednice's reply, and this (quoted above). What's all this talk of eggshells? I'm not angry with anyone, nor offended. I hope no one thought I was advocating shutting the thread? I just recognised the pointlessness of proceeding further, as far as I, personally, was concerned. So I meant _precisely_ what I said in my last post - no more, no less. It wasn't an _emotional _decision to stop. It was a rational one.

And now this really _is _my final contribution to this thread.


----------



## gurthbruins

Almaviva said:


> Elgarian and Polednice, I must say that some measure of a vigorous debate should be welcome. I don't think that member Polednice has crossed any lines with his post, and I agree that sometimes the egg-shells won't do. He has expressed his *opinion* that he considers some beliefs absurd, and that he meets them with personal laughter. This may be offensive to some, but he doesn't slide into clear personal attacks, and we all should be able to handle his views, no? Also, member Polednice is not just jumping into the discussion with an inflammatory post, he's been here all along for the ride and has made many valid contributions to the argument.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but let's not jump into shutting down a mostly interesting and civil debate because one member was more vehement in expressing his views. The "other side" has had moments of vehemence as well, and the thread has survived. Maybe I'm saying this out of my own personal bias which is why I'm adding "correct me if I'm wrong." But bias or not, I do feel that the two of you are very reasonable people who are capable of finely articulating your thoughts, and should be able to continue to engage in a productive dialogue.


Productive of the conclusion that their argument was futile. A very correct conclusion in my view. One that I would think commendable and acceptable. Or do we have to reach a thousand posts going round in circles?

Who is saying that astrology is untenable? What do you know of astrology? Have you studied it? I am merely repeating Sir Isaac Newton's response to his scoffing colleagues. Astrology has been proved, in part, by statistical studies. That is more than I can say about religion.


----------



## Polednice

gurthbruins said:


> Astrology has been proved, in part, by statistical studies.


You're either lying, or you've misunderstood something.

Either way, let's not turn this into a thread about pseudo-science and quackery. If anyone wants to continue a discussion of atheism (/theism), then I don't mind joining in!


----------



## gurthbruins

Polednice said:


> You're either lying, or you've misunderstood something.
> 
> Either way, let's not turn this into a thread about pseudo-science and quackery. If anyone wants to continue a discussion of atheism (/theism), then I don't mind joining in!


Tell that to Sir Isaac Newton - or his ghost.


----------



## Almaviva

This thread is derailing, little by little. I guess it's over. It was a nice discussion while it lasted, but now it's turning into something uglier. So, good bye.:wave:


----------

