Originally posted by katharina:
Ahh!! They are on my tail!!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I am big. It's the text boxes that got small.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:The first definition does not include atheistic beliefs, because "supernatural", by its very definition, means that the power is not "natural" in nature.
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) pronunciation
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
quote:We are still walking a tight-rope here, since you could only justify this by saying that science is an "acknowledged ultimate reality". Pretty weak basis for a claim, in my opinion.
1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
quote:Atheism is just an unorganised religion.
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
I think atheists might object to that statement, cherios.
quote:None of these are correct.
re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) pronunciationn.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
quote:"Religion" is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning. For that reason, atheists do have religion, because they usually do think there is some reality and that something or other is meaningful, although I've noticed they don't like to admit that this is religion.
So what definition of "religion" are you working with, exactly?
quote:In situations regarding government resources, it's really the only fair definition to use. Otherwise we'd have a situation where someone saying "Jesus is lord" is prohibited and someone saying "There are no supernatural entities" or even "There is no God" is not.
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity.
quote:I here plenty of athiests carry on about how the world would be a much better place without religions, that religions cause all the problems in the world with their conflicting principles, how history would have been a perfect rainbow-blessed fairy-land if there had been no religions (though not in those exact words).
and not to be as preachy in public (not saying all religious people are, but when was the last time you saw an antheist on the corner telling you the IPU will save all your sinful souls)
quote:Actually, you can add to that rejection of all religions, specifically existing religions, and in quite an arrogant matter.
have no central tennants (beside the rejection of God(s))
quote:Yes, but "common cultural definitions" are not always correct. For instance, there is a common cultural definition of "science fiction" that goes something like this: "Books about spaceships and aliens." And while that may be true in some cases of science fiction, it is not an accurate characterization of what "science fiction" truly is.
Regardless of what the formal definition of "religion" is, I think that there is a more or less common cultural (and secular) definition for religion, that goes something like this: "faith or belief in a higher power or many higher powers, whose existence cannot be tested or proven by modern scientific standards" (not to say that this detracts from the belief, because it shouldn't).
quote:I can't accept that because there is no generally accepted definition of "religion" that fits it. See the definitions above. Now Tres essentially discards all the dictionary definitions of "religion" and provides his own. I suspect you are doing the same thing. However, to say "Atheism is a religion because my personal definition of 'religion' includes atheism" is pretty much meaningless.
Atheism is merely a religion.
Those that can't accept that at least stop going on about the word supernatural.
quote:That is your definition of religion. It is not one which I've ever seen used before, and certainly not a definition of religion I've ever seen accepted and formalized.
"Religion" is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning. For that reason, atheists do have religion, because they usually do think there is some reality and that something or other is meaningful, although I've noticed they don't like to admit that this is religion.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
quote:I haven't mentioned the word 'supernatural' one time. Nor have I mentioned my particular religious beliefs. My point is that there are plenty of people who are indifferent to organized religion, and who are not atheists, per se (who, despite your insistence to the contrary, I still don't think fall under the category 'religious'), and thus shatter your original post in this thread "Everybody has religion" into tiny, tiny pieces.
El JT de Spang-
Why is it every time I discuss with atheists whether atheism is a religion or not, they start going on about the word "supernatural"?
Always.
I think a better word for what they go on about might be "supernaturalism". Does that word exist yet? Sorry to pull out another "ism", I know where all sick of "ism's", but I think it needs to be said.
Christianity, Hinduism, and so on are all organised, supernaturalist religions. Atheism is merely a religion.
Those that can't accept that at least stop going on about the word supernatural.
quote:No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
Dag's definition of religion is right from Websters' definition of "religious", and like I said, it is an awful big stretch to apply it to atheism.
quote:See my post above yours. In order to debate this point, we would need to debate the definition of "atheism".
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
quote:What do we all think those fellows had in mind when they used the word religion?
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
quote:Edit: I've decided that I can't debate this in general, but I can debate it in regards to a specific atheist, namely me
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
.quote:I do not have a religion.
Which leaves me to wonder why athiests get so annoyed at me calling atheism a religion when at the same time they freely acknowledge that different people hold widely varying definitions of just that word.
quote:It fits with either definition of "atheism." FOr weak atheism, it's simply acknowledging an ultimate reality that is slightly different.
Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:See my post above yours. In order to debate this point, we would need to debate the definition of "atheism".
No, it's not an awfully big stretch. It fits atheism like a glove: relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality - that there is no God.
quote:I ammended my previous post so that it is addressed to your post as well as its original intended recipient. I would be interested in discussing further.
It fits with either definition of "atheism." FOr weak atheism, it's simply acknowledging an ultimate reality that is slightly different.
quote:I don't necessarily disagree here, except that I don't think it's necessary to call atheism a religion in order to give it protected status. You'd just need to recognize that laws protecting religious practice also were intended to protect the rights of those who choose not to practice any religion.
If we want to balance the free speech, free exercise, and establishment clauses justly and in a neutral-toward-religion fashion, we need a different definition.
quote:Is it constitutional for the government to officially endorse a statement that embodies one of your active disbeliefs? If not, and assuming you think that derives from the first amendment, then there's a meaningful and particularly useful definition of "religion" embodied in the first amendment that must include some of your beliefs.
I say that I am an atheist. I do not believe there is a "God" whose reality would be acceptable to (or fit the concept of) what the religious people I know of mean when they say "God". On the other hand, I actively disbelieve in many specific concepts of "God". That does not mean that given sufficient evidence in the future I might not change my beliefs (both active and passive). I don't see how that at all fits any meaningful definition of "religion".
quote:There are lots of ideas. Some of them profoundly change the world, such as e=mc^2. Some of them are utterly frivolous, such as, "let's see what happens when we swallow pop rocks with pepsi." Yet I don't think acknowledging that both Einstein and the pop-rock person both had an idea in any way diminishes Einstein's idea.
Another way to look at it is this: For those of you who accept the label "religious" or who believe that you have and follow a "religion", do you see it really as nothing more than the beliefs of Atheists? Is Catholicism (as a "religion") really nothing more than "Atheism" (as a religion)? Mormonism just a loose philosophy that allows a scattered group of people to share a common label?
quote:Actually, that's not where I'm going. I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism. The word the government uses to do this is "religion." Therefore, for one very commonly used definition of religion, both definitions of atheism are included.
I don't necessarily disagree here, except that I don't think it's necessary to call atheism a religion in order to give it protected status. You'd just need to recognize that laws protecting religious practice also were intended to protect the rights of those who choose not to practice any religion.
quote:Go right ahead and call "strong-atheism" a religion.
Which leaves me to wonder why athiests get so annoyed at me calling atheism a religion when at the same time they freely acknowledge that different people hold widely varying definitions of just that word.
quote:You are ignoring Dagonee's definition. Is your worldview one that is enforceable by a government without violating the principles of the first amendment?
Originally posted by Xavier:
I claim that I do not, and so I am challenging you to prove otherwise. By no definitions on this thread do I have a religion except for Tresopax's, and his definition is one which I've never heard used before, and which I honestly have a very low opinion of.
quote:OK, I can buy this. In that vein, the original scenario pretty obviously is talking about "religion" that does not include "atheism" in any meaningful way. Responding to that implied definition with "Everyone has a religion" is swapping definitions in the middle of a conversation and is poor form at least.
And we need different definitions of religion for different circumstances. If we want to know if someone partakes in formal worship, one definition of religion is useful.
If we want to balance the free speech, free exercise, and establishment clauses justly and in a neutral-toward-religion fashion, we need a different definition.
quote:It's the most applicable - the one where the government is trying to decide what to protect or restrict.
OK, I can buy this. In that vein, the original scenario pretty obviously is talking about "religion" that does not include "atheism" in any meaningful way. Responding to that implied definition with "Everyone has a religion" is swapping definitions in the middle of a conversation and is poor form at least.
quote:I would argue that it's the only worldview that can be sensibly enforced by a government without violating the principles of the First Amendment. To be fair, government must be agnostic.
Is your worldview one that is enforceable by a government without violating the principles of the first amendment?
quote:What if I believe that murder is wrong and that this is a facet of ultimate reality? Is it then unconstitutional to hold others to my belief? Clearly "religion" in the constitutional context means more than simple belief or disbelief, active or otherwise.
Is it constitutional for the government to officially endorse a statement that embodies one of your active disbeliefs? If not, and assuming you think that derives from the first amendment, then there's a meaningful and particularly useful definition of "religion" embodied in the first amendment that must include some of your beliefs.
quote:But enforcing that worldview would certainly violate the first amendment.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I would argue that it's the only worldview that can be sensibly enforced by a government without violating the principles of the First Amendment. To be fair, government must be agnostic.
Is your worldview one that is enforceable by a government without violating the principles of the first amendment?
quote:I bet it's far more often motivated by issues relating to the constitution, at least in America Religion is deliberately placed at a particular disadvantage with respect to access to government resources. Atheism should share that disadvantage. The term used to decide what receives that disadvantage is "religion." Therefore, to accomplish the goal of ensuring that atheism shares that disadvantage, it must be included in the term religion.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!
quote:I think this is because atheism of either stripe inherently contradicts the religions that those laws are, in part, designed to protect -- not because atheism is a "religion."
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism.
quote:I don't think they would. I think that's pretty much what the aliens would be saying.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
For example, would the aliens prevent you from publicly saying, "The nature of the universe is such that there is no God as described by <X>" or "There is not enough evidence to say that God exists"?
quote:And yet again you allude purely to the supernatural to define religion.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!
quote:That is not what I am saying though. I didn't just give my own personal definition, that I think just applies to what I am talking about when I say "religion". I think my definition is what everyone here is talking about when they say religion, too. It is my attempt to define a particular concept we all share.
However, to say "Atheism is a religion because my personal definition of 'religion' includes atheism" is pretty much meaningless.
quote:Why do you believe this?
Tres writes: "'Religion' is one's beliefs regarding ultimate reality and its meaning." I disagree. That is a definition of "philosophy", not of "religion". "Atheism" is a philosophy. For some it might be a "religion", but it is incorrect to say that "everyone has a religion". Many self-described "atheists" do not have any religion. I am one of them.
quote:The first amendment has NEVER been used to strike down a law because the reason its supporters believe the goal of the law to be good stems from their religious beliefs. The question is whether the law serves a secular purpose. Making murder illegal certainly serves a secular purpose. Saying, "There is no God" does not. The two are clearly different.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:What if I believe that murder is wrong and that this is a facet of ultimate reality? Is it then unconstitutional to hold others to my belief? Clearly "religion" in the constitutional context means more than simple belief or disbelief, active or otherwise.
Is it constitutional for the government to officially endorse a statement that embodies one of your active disbeliefs? If not, and assuming you think that derives from the first amendment, then there's a meaningful and particularly useful definition of "religion" embodied in the first amendment that must include some of your beliefs.
quote:Actually, it's arrived at by examining the purposes of the first amendment: to place certain types of beliefs outside the domain of government. The existence or non-existence of God or whether or not God wants you to accept Jesus as personal savior are well within the confines of that goal.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
To answer your question on a personal level, I do not think that congress should officially endorse my own personal beliefs and force them on other people. However, your arguement to me still smacks of "well we want to include atheists in this blanket statement so whatever the definition is, it also includes atheists".
quote:No, the Constitution doesn't side with you on that as an active disbelief. The Constitution instructs legislatures not to express any opinion or endorsement as to believing or disbelieving it.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
One of my active disbeliefs is that "God wants everyone to accept Jesus as their personal savior." I'm pretty sure the Constitution sides with me on that disbelief. (At least insofar as that disbelief can even be addressed legislatively.)
quote:I think the key there is "formalized belief system". I am an atheist, but I have no formalized belief system, per se. I'll accept that the constitution is meaning "formalized belief system" when it uses the word "religion" in the first amendment. I'll accept that someone can formalize a belief system that includes atheism as a tenet, and I'll agree that this formalized belief system should also not be "established" in the Constitutional sense.
Originally posted by cheiros do ender:
It looks to me that, for some in this thread, religion simply means belief in the supernatural. The same individuals have also described it as a form of worship, as if it can't be one without also being the other.
I believe the definition of the word religion is broader than either of these things, encompassing those with formalised beliefs systems that can be recognised by the rest of society.
Now, according to the athiests in this thread, religion can be each of the first two definitions I've listed here (though not one without the other), but not also as I've described in my second paragraph, which fits perfectly with how the word religion is used in the first amendment as keeping socially established worldviews from being able to proselytise via the public sector, or in any way clash with government policy.
quote:First, did you mean "KarlEd" here?
And the attitude that somehow the Constitution "sides" with atheists, Pixiest, is why many consider the question important.
quote:Not really, since a religious institutions income comes from members who have already paid taxes on that money.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Dag, wouldn't that be fixed by stripping all religions of their tax except status?
You really can't possibly be arguing that being Tax Except is a disadvantage religions have.
quote:The first amendment turns on whether an activity "establishes" religion. If the government is prevented from doing it, it's because what it would do is establish a religion.
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I think this is because atheism of either stripe inherently contradicts the religions that those laws are, in part, designed to protect -- not because atheism is a "religion."
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism.
quote:I think this element of the hypo more strongly supports my view: "They were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased."
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:I don't think they would. I think that's pretty much what the aliens would be saying.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
For example, would the aliens prevent you from publicly saying, "The nature of the universe is such that there is no God as described by <X>" or "There is not enough evidence to say that God exists"?
quote:No, I'm not. I'm stating that many government resources are unavailable to religious speech and activities, an undeniably true statement.
Dag, wouldn't that be fixed by stripping all religions of their tax except status?
You really can't possibly be arguing that being Tax Except is a disadvantage religions have.
quote:No, I was referring back to Pixiest's post asking why we care.
First, did you mean "KarlEd" here?
quote:But the government could conceivable want to make a public service announcement with that message - think non-smoking ads - so it's certainly within the ambit of the establishment clause.
I was being a little facetious and have muddied the waters, I think. What I meant was that you can't legislate "Jesus does not want everyone to accept him as his personal Savior" so this belief is hardly a threat to anti-establishment issues.
quote:Bingo.
quote:I think this is because atheism of either stripe inherently contradicts the religions that those laws are, in part, designed to protect -- not because atheism is a "religion."
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism.
quote:That's not really true - anyone who itemizes and is exempt from AMT does not pay taxes on the money they donate.
Not really, since a religious institutions income comes from members who have already paid taxes on that money
quote:Well said.
In a similar way, I also realized that religion doesn't refer to only "supernatural" beliefs, but rather must refer to all beliefs regarding that same topic. The reason is because I think supernatural is an arbitrary term. I have no way to define what is supernatural and what isn't, other than by resorting to what seems ridiculous and unbelievable (supernatural) and what seems real and likely to exist (natural). That strikes me as an unfair criteria to put on religion. And for that matter, it would make my religion into something that is not a religion - because I think God is as natural as anything else.
(Incidently, if you want an example of something where everyone is talking about the same thing, yet all define it differently, go ask people to define "friend". They will all say different things, such as "someone I can trust", "someone I can have fun with", "someone I care about", and yet I strongly suspect all mean precisely the same thing by the term. It is just a very difficult concept to define. And if someone says "A friend is someone I have fun with", you can suggest that definition is not accurate by pointing out "What if they are a Circus clown - someone you might have fun with but who is not your friend." Then they'd have to refine it - "A friend is someone I have fun with and who I know well" - at which point it might need to be refined further and further. But we all know what a friend is. We just may not agree how to describe it. And I suspect appealing to a dictionary won't prove anything to anyone who thinks they know cases where the dictionary definition is wrong.)
quote:Anything that violates the establishment clause is unconstitutional because it would be a government establishment of religion. You can try to alter that any way you want, it still means that what was being established was a religion in the eyes of the court.
Bingo.
If a public school uses a text book which says "God does not exist" in it, it is unconstitutional. This is true.
It is NOT unconstitutional because it is advancing the religion of atheism.
It IS unconstitutional because it is actively condradicting existing religions, thereby violating the religious freedom of those who believe in God.
Atheism is not a religion simply because the promoting of atheism would violate the establishment clause.
quote:That's what I said. That does not mean, of course, that religious speech is not disadvantaged compared to other types of speech. I could provide a hundred examples.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
No, Dag. The Constitution sides with no one.
quote:And my examples have all been about the second part, because that's what I'm focusing on.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Government can't ban the practice of a religion any more than they can support it. The courts tend to focus on the 2nd part of that and ignore the first.
quote:So let me get this straight...
Anything that violates the establishment clause is unconstitutional because it would be a government establishment of religion. You can try to alter that any way you want, it still means that what was being established was a religion in the eyes of the court.
quote:Excuse me? The criteria given to judge definitions of "religion" have been things like "generally accepted definition, "accepted and formalized," "heard used before," and "useful for the conversation."
Dag: Just because lawyers and judges can't read the constitution, doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.
quote:And then I codify it into law. Which religion, exactly, is being established?
These religions are false:
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
quote:No. You are not state action, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
If I publish a text book and say "Jesus was not the son of God.", it would be unconstitutional. The reason it is unconstitutional is apparently because there is "a religion" being established with that statement.
Which religion would that be?
quote:It doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Xavier:
Or how about another example, Dag.
Consider this quote:
quote:And then I codify it into law. Which religion, exactly, is being established?
These religions are false:
Judaism
Christianity
Hinduism
Islam
quote:I don't see how they could do that without making something at least somewhat similar to the statements I quoted, unless the aliens were going to wipe out atheism too. But how would they do that?
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I think this element of the hypo more strongly supports my view: "They were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased."
quote:I can't rattle off your Constitution from memory, so I went and read the whole of the First Amendment:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Anything that violates the establishment clause is unconstitutional because it would be a government establishment of religion. You can try to alter that any way you want, it still means that what was being established was a religion in the eyes of the court.
quote:I would put X's example under the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause, but from what you're saying it seems like your courts put it under the establishment clause. If atheism is considered a religion, then it seems to me that it has to go under the establishment clause. IANAL, so I'll take your word for it. However, I think Tom's point about the agnosticism of government has merit.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
quote:I don't think it's applicable in this context, but I do see what you're saying now.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
If you want to say this definition is inapplicable in any other context, be my guest. But this is a definition of religion that includes atheism and is commonly used, albeit in a particular context.
quote:That depends. Daoism comes in many forms. I think it just comes back to the question of whether incorporation of "supernatural" things into a philosophical framework is the main distinction between such a framework (e.g. utilitarianism) and a religion.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion? It seems to fit most of the criteria that people are putting forth in this thread for a non-religion.
)quote:And yet it's used weekly to safeguard what many consider one of the foundations of our democracy.
Originally posted by Xavier:
Okay, that's what I figured.
So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition.
There are likewise millions of other religions out there un-identified. With not even a name, and with no one self-classifying as that religion.
I'm sorry, but I find this definition of religion useless.
Edit: When not used in this specific context that is. That certainly was NOT the context which it was used in where myself and others objected to the term.
quote:We're not just talking about this or that definition. We're talking about the definition of the word religion in the First Amendment and whether atheism falls under that definition.
So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition.
quote:Sorry, I wasn't ignoring this. I missed it in the page changeover.
Why do you believe this?
I would argue that a philosophy could cover many more topics than just ultimate truth and its meaning. You could have a philosophy of teaching, or a philosophy of science, or a philosophy of how you arrange your closet. For that reason, I think "a philosophy" is just the overarching larger set of beliefs on a given topic. A religion is also a philosophy, but not all philosophies are religions. A "religion" would then be a certain, specific sort of a philosophy, covering the topic of the ultimate truth and meaning behind the universe.
quote:Hey, I'm not the one trying to go backwards from the 1st ammendment into a (usefull) definition of religion. I'm the one specifically saying that it is a BAD thing to do.
What religion is being established by this prayer at graduation? "God, we thank you for allowing these children to graduate. Please guide them as they move on to the next phase of their life."
quote:How does it impair free exercise? (If I'm following the thread correctly, you're speaking of "public school use[ing] a text book which says 'God does not exist'").
I would put X's example under the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause
quote:But the courts do say that violates the establishment clause. I cited it to demonstrate that identification of the religion being established isn't necessary to maintain an establishment clause violation.
Hey, I'm not the one trying to go backwards from the 1st ammendment into a (usefull) definition of religion. I'm the one specifically saying that it is a BAD thing to do.
quote:It is if it's from a school official or sponsored speaker at a graduation ceremony.
Plus, I wouldn't say that quote is unconstitutional outside of its context.
quote:And here you take the term "organised religion" and throw the word organised out the window, as if a religion can only be a religion if it's organised.
Ok, fine, we're a religion. I'm gonna make my 1st Atheist church now. I'm gonna get ordained as an atheist preacher and send out missionaries. "Have you heard the news? There's no god. Quit wasting your life." I'm going to accept tithes and perform gay marriage ceremonies (Hey, it's part of my faith. Don't opress me!) I'm going to get some atheist holidays and get them on the federal calander. May 16th shall now be a national holiday for "No one important was born today"-day.
quote:No, Xavier, atheism is religion by that definition. Not a religion. I think the distinction is critical.
So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition
quote:If all you're talking about is that alien invasion scenario, then my time here has been wasted.
Originally posted by twinky:
cherios:
What's to concede? The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
quote:Taoists have a formalized belief system and even a form of clergy. They're religious, whereas atheists are not.
I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion?
quote:I'd say that it does so indirectly, by indoctrinating children, but that depends on whether the definition of "free exercise" includes choice. I'm starting from a couple of assumptions, though: first, that such a textbook would violate the First Amendment, and second, that since I don't view atheism as a religion, it clearly can't violate the establishment clause. After that, I have to find another clause that it might violate.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
How does it impair free exercise? (If I'm following the thread correctly, you're speaking of "public school use[ing] a text book which says 'God does not exist'").
A law saying, "Anyone who attends Mass will go to jail" violates free exercise. Not the example given.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Fixed typo.)
quote:I agree with you completely. Atheism isn't itself a religion anymore than Theism is. It is just a position on one very specific issue.
Atheism is the rejection of one particular statement about ultimate truth.
quote:Please. I've speaking of one particular context, a context which you haven't bothered to address.
*sigh* I really hate arguing with you Dag. I like and respect you and I almost always agree with you. But you're so WRONG here.
quote:1. It fits A (that's one of) the accepted definitions of atheism, and I've outlined who accepts it and in what circumstances.
1. Atheism doesn't fit the generally accepted definiton of a religion or we wouldn't be arguing it all the freakin' time.
2. It is not accepted nor formalized. Read the definitions as they appeared earlier in the thread. Atheism fits none of those
3. Ok, I've heard it before from people with an agenda.
4. It is NOT useful for discussion because there are major differences between atheism and religion. One is belief and faith and the other is its complete abscense.
Pix
quote:I submit that "a religion" can only be so if it is organized. However, I will also concede that atheism falls under the general philosophical category of "religion". (See how critical that little article is?)
And here you take the term "organised religion" and throw the word organised out the window, as if a religion can only be a religion if it's organised.
quote:And yet I submit that a far more useful test in this environment is "does this action prohibit the free exercise of religion," not "does this action establish religion?"
It IS useful in the precise context which I have defined - determining whether or not a particular government action is constitutional under the first amendment.
quote:
Why is it every time I discuss with atheists whether atheism is a religion or not, they start going on about the word "supernatural"?
Always.
quote:Where? "believe stuff that's unprovable" doesn't equal "supernatural." You injected that into the argument along with your assertion that atheism is a religion. Both are strawman arguments. You are attempting to define your opponents position for him, and then use your definion against him.
quote:And yet again you allude purely to the supernatural to define religion.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!
quote:Yes, but we're not talking only of mandating atheism. We're talking of things that do not restrict others' exercise in any way, but do advance atheism. So while this sentence is true, it refutes nothing I've said.
I'd argue that mandating atheism prohibits but does not establish, and is equally banned either way.
quote:I contend that aliens who saw the public manifestation of religion as the cause of strife and pain and who also believed in a God who accepted any path to him might very well attempt to impose such a rule.
The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
quote:No, it's derailed into an argument over the legal definition of religion and whether it includes atheism, a subtle but important difference.
Interesting to note that this thread has derailed into an argument over the legal (constitutional) definition of atheism, when the word is not present in that document. I'd be curious to know if the word "atheist" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an atheist.
quote:And thus the First Amendments mention of religion includes atheism.
However, I will also concede that atheism falls under the general philosophical category of "religion".
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:We do agree on this, I think.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I agree with you completely. Atheism isn't itself a religion anymore than Theism is. It is just a position on one very specific issue.
Atheism is the rejection of one particular statement about ultimate truth.
However, I do think atheists have religions, although they may not be structured and rigid in the way church religions are. I would consider atheism a class of religious thinking, just like I would for theism.
quote:I'm not sure that atheism -- as atheism -- can actually be "advanced." A set of beliefs including atheism can be advanced, but atheism itself is merely the negation of existing beliefs. It's the default, not a black marker.
Yes, but we're not talking only of mandating atheism. We're talking of things that do not restrict others' exercise in any way, but do advance atheism.
quote:I'd be curious to know if the word "hindu" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an hindu.
I'd be curious to know if the word "atheist" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an atheist.
quote:See Xavier's first post. It's also often worded "higher power".
As far as whether atheists always go on about the word "supernatural," it's more to the point that theists "always" insist that atheism is a religion. Not really, of course, but it's a common strawman argument, while your claim that atheists always go on about supernatural is not something that I've heard before, and I've certainly been part of enough arguments over the definition of atheism that I should recognise it if it were common.
quote:Fair enough, since atheism by it's definition is a lack of theism. Atheism relates to the first amendment only through context. The establishment of religion implies the negative.
No, it's derailed into an argument over the legal definition of religion and whether it includes atheism, a subtle but important difference.
quote:Heaven forbid I quote a dictionary in a debate about definitions.
See Xavier's first post. It's also often worded "higher power".
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Doesn't change the fact that yours is a strawman argument.
See Xavier's first post. It's also often worded "higher power".
quote:Fine. I would be arrested for going to Mass the Sunday after this law was enacted and face whatever punishment they decided to impose.
So is there any chance we could respond to the OP now?
quote:I take "path to him" to mean "path to belief in him," which doesn't make sense to me in this context. What do you mean by "path to him?"
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I contend that aliens who saw the public manifestation of religion as the cause of strife and pain and who also believed in a God who accepted any path to him might very well attempt to impose such a rule.
The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
quote:Enough that I acutely feel its absence in my life.
How much do you NEED religion?
quote:I think I can see what Dag means, perhaps I can help. Or maybe I am way off, and Dag can tell me so when he has time
Okay. I still don't understand, but I'll mull it over.
.quote:Not necessarily Tom. Some Daoists have formalized their belief system and have temples, priests, rituals, etc. Many others do not- and would argue that such things are not required to be a Daoist. I think our own MrSquicky is of the second variety.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Taoists have a formalized belief system and even a form of clergy. They're religious, whereas atheists are not.
I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion?
quote:I call such people "philosophical Taoists," and reject the idea that they belong to an associated religion.
Many others do not- and would argue that such things are not required to be a Daoist. I think our own MrSquicky is of the second variety.
quote:Note that I used special emphasis on the material expression of religions. The temples, churches … etc are instances of such expressions. What are the material expressions (i.e. symbols) of atheism/atheists? If the aliens found some, they destroyed them all. The note in the OP explains a bit more: not every reference to religion was destroyed. The history of the Earth includes the history of the religious beliefs, which is by no means “a religious symbol” in and by itself. So the ideologies are not eliminated, the “interdiction” is on the public manifestations.
… they were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased.
) quote:(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
to find out that an unimaginably more advanced alien race conquered the Earth (before anyone could say or do anything about it). You find out that they were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased.
]
quote:Ok. And how would you specifically fight back/oppose them?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I would fight back even though I personally have no religious expression.
[ … later on …]
Again, I would consider such aliens the enemies of liberty, and would oppose them.
quote:In the case that you profess a (given) religion, how important is it for you to transfer it (the particular faith) to your children?
Originally posted by JennaDean:
[...] but when it comes down to it, one big reason I love my religion is because of how it affects my family, and to lose family members - or to lose my own life and leave my kids without a mother - I don't know if I could do it. […]
quote:Neither rivka (to the best of my knowledge) nor I have alts. I made one with three posts on a joke thread, but that's it.
Originally posted by katharina:
Ahh!! They are on my tail!!
I am big. It's the text boxes that got small.
quote:Good point. (And I have a few alts, but I don't think any of them have more than a dozen posts. Combined, fewer than 50, I'd guess.)
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Neither rivka (to the best of my knowledge) nor I have alts. I made one with three posts on a joke thread, but that's it.
Originally posted by katharina:
Ahh!! They are on my tail!!
I am big. It's the text boxes that got small.
So you're still comfortably ahead.
quote:Very, very, very important. Sometimes that's the only thing that gets me out of bed to go to church on Sundays.
In the case that you profess a (given) religion, how important is it for you to transfer it (the particular faith) to your children?
quote:I agree, but it doesn't answer the question. I don't need religion at all. It seems to me that the scenario makes dealing with the issue of the aliens more important than the actual question: "How much to you NEED religion?"
Again, I would consider such aliens the enemies of liberty, and would oppose them.
quote:For me it was slightly saddening to realize that God didn't exist. I see religion as something that does have a purpose beyond a poor excuse to kill other people.
Originally posted by suminonA:
Rereading this question I realized that is a bit discriminatory ... So for the non theists, there is this version of it: How important is it for you to transfer your “lack of faith” to your children?
quote:Tom, would your opinion change if the aliens, rather than obliterating outward religious expression, did something like this:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Again, I would consider such aliens the enemies of liberty, and would oppose them.
quote:I “had to” have some “oppressive aliens” in my scenario, because the idea of “no public religious manifestations” is so unnatural that it cannot happen “by itself”.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
It seems to me that the scenario makes dealing with the issue of the aliens more important than the actual question: "How much to you NEED religion?"
How about this:
How would you react if you woke up one morning and all vestiges of religion were simply missing? No churches, no holy books, and everyone you asked just looked at you blankly? (but your memory is intact?)
I couldn’t avoid that. But once you decided for yourself, you cannot “convert” the others, using rites and “traditions” (i.e. “everybody does it, so you have to do it too” kind of arguments). Yet, knowledge is available and can still be shared. quote:What if someone converted who lived within the civilization?
What if this alien country prospered beyond anything heretofore conceived by humans and slowly began to buy up land, increasing their borders, but never forcing anyone to change their ways within their own communities. They just simply refuse to deal with the "superstitious".
quote:That's a good question. In my fantasy* scenario I imagine such a conversion would be treated as a socio-pathic disorder (albeit perhaps a minor one) depending on what form the "conversion" took. I think that logically such a conversion would be relatively rare. (How many Muslims spontaneously convert to Christianity today, all by themselves with no established Christian support structure within reach?) I imagine, though, that if someone did "convert" and felt the need to practice outwardly their new-found religion then they'd be escorted to the border and given to whatever compatible state would take them. (Certainly any Christian group would be willing to take Christian refugees, right?)
What if someone converted who lived within the civilization?
quote:To the degree that you and I share a culture, yes, that's true. However, I wonder how many Christians, in their heart of hearts, believe this is just an arrangement of convenience until such time as their particular brand of Christianity (presumably headed by a returned Jesus) has enough power to do the same thing our hypothetical aliens would do, namely remove the "wicked" from among themselves.
it seems that our culture does not judge such societies favorably.
quote:Dear Lord, I hope very few!
However, I wonder how many Christians, in their heart of hearts, believe this is just an arrangement of convenience until such time as their particular brand of Christianity (presumably headed by a returned Jesus) has enough power to do the same thing our hypothetical aliens would do, namely remove the "wicked" from among themselves.
quote:How interesting. Which of your two alternatives do you think apply to the atheists hereabouts?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I don't think the outward expression of religion is necessary. However, religion itself is, because it allows one to develop an understanding of what things are meaningful, what things are not, and why. Without that, I'd think anyone would either have to be very innocent or very lost.
quote:Yes, good point.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What if someone converted who lived within the civilization?
What if this alien country prospered beyond anything heretofore conceived by humans and slowly began to buy up land, increasing their borders, but never forcing anyone to change their ways within their own communities. They just simply refuse to deal with the "superstitious".
It's something I've often wondered about. If a religious group sets up a theocracy in a previously uninhabited place and enforces religious based rule - must attend church, no work on the holy day, lots of morality laws, etc.?
Everyone originally subject to such laws was a volunteer. But what about people who change their mind later or who are born into the community after its founding. Would it be a "good" government that enforced its established religious rules on such a country, or would it be an oppressive one?
it seems that our culture does not judge such societies favorably.
[emphasis added]
) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilisation or not. The difficulty arises because of the family bonds (or their lack) in each case. But as long as “emotions” overcome “reason” (i.e. “I love my father too much to leave him, so I’ll accept this society even though I don’t subscribe to its rules”), that person will face the consequences (meaning that the rules still have to be obeyed). Yet, when reason prevails (i.e. “I have chosen not to subscribe to the rules, so I’ll leave this society”) then there is no more complication. quote:This doesn't sound very practical or realistic to me. Is there any civilization in the world that teaches about all others without at least the implied assumption that "our way is best"? (And don't be mistaken, my theoretical aliens are pretty sure their way is best, and also pretty sure that civilization cannot pass a certain omega point while holding on to "primitive superstitions" (i.e. outwardly displayed religious ritual).
If the subscription to that society REALLY is voluntary, it will remain voluntary for the next generations too. Meaning that as long as a child cannot decide for oneself, they are simply “in limbo state” (is that a pun? ) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilisation or not.
quote:Neither. As I said earlier, I think most (if not all) atheists have religion. Their religions just happen to not include God - which is what makes an atheist an atheist.
quote:How interesting. Which of your two alternatives do you think apply to the atheists hereabouts?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I don't think the outward expression of religion is necessary. However, religion itself is, because it allows one to develop an understanding of what things are meaningful, what things are not, and why. Without that, I'd think anyone would either have to be very innocent or very lost.
quote:KarlEd, I completely agree with you on “our way is best” psychology. I myself wouldn’t follow "a way" if I weren’t convinced it is the best available. And while this might (and therefore probably will) bias the education given to the “unwillingly born into this society”, I don’t see it as inherently immoral to let them make their informed choices, even if their choice is “wrong” according to the … “tradition”. Without variation there is no evolution
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:This doesn't sound very practical or realistic to me. Is there any civilization in the world that teaches about all others without at least the implied assumption that "our way is best"? (And don't be mistaken, my theoretical aliens are pretty sure their way is best, and also pretty sure that civilization cannot pass a certain omega point while holding on to "primitive superstitions" (i.e. outwardly displayed religious ritual).
If the subscription to that society REALLY is voluntary, it will remain voluntary for the next generations too. Meaning that as long as a child cannot decide for oneself, they are simply “in limbo state” (is that a pun? ) as related to society. They are educated (and hopefully NOT indoctrinated) about the various options at the time of choosing if one wants to belong to this particular civilization or not.
]quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
As I said earlier, I think most (if not all) atheists have religion. Their religions just happen to not include God - which is what makes an atheist an atheist.
quote:Talk about “potentially” incompatible definitions
Originally posted by suminonA:
I’d personally define atheism as a religious … disbelief.
quote:I know people who believe that Jesus will come again - so do I, theoretically, but I can't think of any who are waiting for this event or for whom anticipation of that event is more important than paying attention to the kingdom now. That is a bit tough to explain.* I doubt that I know (in RL) anyone who is waiting for the wicked to be burned. It is possible, of course, that I have an acquaintance that I just don't know well enough to know her thoughts on the matter. It is certainly not an opinion I have ever heard endorsed in any religious meeting I have ever attended.
Originally posted by JennaDean:
Really?
You don't know anyone who's waiting for the Second Coming when the wicked will be burned and Jesus will reign over the righteous?
'Cause I know I've heard it before, and it seems like what Karl's talking about.
quote:In my scenario, the aliens are obviously disregarding the First Amendment. They only permit private religious manifestations. And they eliminate all material symbols. So it is “unconstitutional” (i.e. improper act of government) by (most) “human” standards.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Would you consider that a moral act (or proper act of government, if you prefer)?
quote:People regularly judge the Puritans for much the same activity. Exile from Xenotopia for crossing oneself in public seems as harsh as making someone wear a Scarlet A.
In KarlEd’s scenario, it is a contract. You are accepted into their society if you rid yourself of the "superstitions" of outward religiosity. When you spontaneously convert to, say, Catholicism, and want to start practicing it with all its ritual you break that contract and you have to pay (by leaving that society for example). What is immoral about that?
quote:Wait, in my scenario, the aliens don’t consider religion incompatible with society. They just eradicate public manifestation. And material symbols. But there is, as you say, education about the history of (at least human and why not other) religions. So as long as one becomes “religious” based on that education, and doesn’t manifest it in public, they have the possibility to do it. No harm will come to them.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
Sure, I can see the aliens giving a good general education about the history of religious philosophy, but I can't see them really lending much credence to what they believe is incompatible to society. (Nor do I feel they have a moral obligation to).
[emphasis added]
quote:Ok, I can accept that my scenario contains a form of “theocracy”, because of the religious-restrictive rules. [BTW, do you feel the aliens promote atheism ?] You already have my answer regarding the “morality” of that “regime”.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
And I've heard pretty harsh judgments about that proposed Catholic town in Florida. Now, doing it within the U.S. would be unconstitutional, but much of the criticisms weren't based on the constitution but on the idea of a "theocracy" being set up.
I'm just curious if the idea of a religious-restrictive government, of either persuasion, where the original settlers all sign on and all non-conforming citizens are banished is something people think would be a moral form of government.
), the contract “everybody will have all they want at the same time” is impossible. Is that immoral?quote:I'm not talking the original settlers who agree to the rules. Everyone on the Mayflower agreed to the rules, presumably.
But in KarlEd’s scenario, there is no “oppression”. There is a choice to be made: outward religiosity vs. acceptance into the alien civilization. I don’t see it at all immoral not to be able to “have it all at once”.
quote:Again, that's not what I'm saying. Unless the aliens ban sex, in one generation most of the members will not have ever made this contract.
the contract “everybody will have all they want at the same time” is impossible. Is that immoral?
quote:Why are we judging this from other contexts? This discussion takes place in a special context (i.e. the “what if scenario(s)”). What happened in Mayflower also took place in (its) specific context. [Note, all I know about that is what you said here in this thread.] But I see no point in judging the rules of one society outside their context.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I'm not talking the original settlers who agree to the rules. Everyone on the Mayflower agreed to the rules, presumably.
I'm talking about the people born there who convert to religion. There, the choice is abiding by the restrictions on religion or banishment, a choice that has been judged very harshly in other contexts.
[emphasis added]
i.e. morality = f(time,place) ). But when participation is voluntary and no laws are broken, labeling it “immoral” is irrelevant (especially if you are using a different value for the argument “time” in the function mentioned before). Every adult person has the right to make their choices, even if the “tradition” is against a particular choice. It is immoral (today, in most of the countries) to force someone to walk naked on the street; it is not immoral for that person to choose to live in a land where they may walk naked as they please. quote:I’ve already given my answer on the “people born there who convert to religion”, in both scenarios (see the post above about the REALLY voluntary issue).For his scenario, KarlEd said that it “doesn't sound very practical or realistic” to him. So I’ll wait to see his detailed answer.
Again, that's not what I'm saying. Unless the aliens ban sex, in one generation most of the members will not have ever made this contract.
) where the contract is not applied (meaning that children are educated and “allowed” to spontaneously become “religious” and to express it “publicly”) but they are not part of the alien civilization as yet. If they want to get out of the “limbo state” they have to make their choice about the contract. quote:You see, I’d also subscribe to the list of people who see “atheism” as a reaction to (existent) religions. As I said before, for me the “atheism” means the negation of “the described deities (of others)”. But, still, my personal view of the Universe doesn’t consist simply in that negation. I mean, that negation was just the start of searching for the alternative (namely the truth, the ideas that I can accept as true, for me). And I am happy with what I have found.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
[...] Now (for me) this gets to the issue of the relationship between atheism and religion. Namely, whether someone's atheism has an importance unto itself, or if it's merely a reaction to the existence of religion.
Because I'd freak. There wouldn't be anyone to blame, or resist, but the sudden disappearance of religion would create a void in my life that I couldn't understand. I'd probably go around assuming that religious people were playing a joke on me.
quote:Comment: Doesn’t the concept of “fallen angel” (a.k.a. Satan) stand for the “rebellion” of that particular angel, as he saw God as a tyrant?
Originally posted by Gwen:
"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God," right? ;^)
quote:Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it would be a completely improper act of our governemnt, but we're founded on priciples specifically designed to forbid such actions. My aliens have no such foundation principle.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Would you consider that a moral act (or proper act of government, if you prefer)?
quote:As a "one true church" type, I'd have to say yes, it would be pluralistic. At least at first.
Theoretically, ... Jesus is going to return one day and set up his Kingdom on Earth. ...At least some religions teach that it will be a political Kingdom as well as a spiritual one. Do you think that this theoretical political Kingdom will be a pluralistic one?
)
quote:In your understanding would that "morality" include "no gay marriage"? How about "no homosexual activity"? Fornication? Sabbath breaking? Blasphemy? Will there be no one in that society that indulges in these things? What will happen to them?
So my guess would be that the laws governing the land would be based on the morality of the "one true church" - (i.e. don't kill, steal, commit adultery, etc.)
quote:Your last question made me laugh, if we are taking the diety status of Christ literally what could you possibly do to oppose him?
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Honestly, I'm not sure. I think it would be a completely improper act of our governemnt, but we're founded on priciples specifically designed to forbid such actions. My aliens have no such foundation principle.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
[qb] Would you consider that a moral act (or proper act of government, if you prefer)?
I brought up the "2nd Coming" scenario because I see some parallels here. Theoretically, (at least in some Christian religions), Jesus is going to return one day and set up his Kingdom on Earth. (Yes, there are many interpretations of this, but at least some religions teach that it will be a political Kingdom as well as a spiritual one.) Do you think that this theoretical political Kingdom will be a pluralistic one? I guess this is a question mainly for the "one true church" types, since others will probably allow for a Jesus who accepts all kinds of worship, perhaps even worship that doesn't even mention Him - perhaps even "righteous atheism".
But for now, let's hypothesize a "one Church, one Baptism" returned Jesus. He returns to Earth, destroys the wicked, and sets up an Earthly Kingdom of God. It isn't a pluralistic KoG because there is only One True Way to worship Him. You either join, or are "cast out". (I'll leave it up in the air whether this means "into Hell" or just out of his political realm.) Is this a "moral" act, or "proper role of Government"? Would you oppose such a government?
quote:Sounds fun. Props to our merciful God.
Some people will still not believe and God will steadily cause the condition of their environment to deteriorate, i.e famine.
quote:BlackBlade, your paradoxical speculation/postulation made my day
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
[…] The intense prosperity that the Christians enjoy coupled with the sheer truth of their beliefs would be the main converting tool.
Some people will still not believe and God will steadily cause the condition of their environment to deteriorate, i.e famine. Eventually using natural disasters if that does not work. Ultimately everyone who does not believe in Christianity will convert of their own free will or eventually die.
I am not sure what people who are subsequentially born and do not believe will be handled. Maybe nobody will be born here at that point.
[double emphasis added]
(and I say that as a positive thing to happen)! ![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
to suminonA
quote:Tom, is it really necessary to snark at completely hypothetical actions?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Sounds fun. Props to our merciful God.
Some people will still not believe and God will steadily cause the condition of their environment to deteriorate, i.e famine.
quote:
Originally posted by c.t.t.n.:
kmb--it just makes me a little sad when the extremely religious either completely cut themselves off from society, like the Amish, or feel the need to go door-to-door. Neither extreme is pretty, or useful, don't you think?
[emphasis added]
quote:Let’s not be too hasty. That might lead to futile [i.e. non constructive] (self)contradiction.
Originally posted by c.t.t.n.:
The Amish aren't the best example. They seem to have as good a life as the people around them, IMO. A better, though less fair example would be David Koresh/the Branch Davidians, or Jim Jones' group, or the Heaven's Gate cult. Those are cheap shots, though. PLEASE don't assume I am comparing anyone here to members of those groups. I'm not.
[emphasis added]
quote:I hope you are at least partly sarcastic.
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
In the same vein, don't blame alcohol for the alcoholics.
Alcohol consumed with moderation (a glass of wine, a bottle of beer) might even be healthy. quote:Or electricity for electric chairs, or water for drownings, or love for stalkers. Anything can be warped to purposes for which it is not intended. The more powerful, the more consequential this is.
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
In the same vein, don't blame alcohol for the alcoholics.
quote:Well, there is this "habit" of mine, of complicating things. What you said about alcohol might be taken like this: "there are alcoholics in the world, because there is alcohol, period". And that does not help "defending" the moderate consumption in the face of the extremists who parse it like: "if we eradicate alcohol, there will be no more alcoholics". If you explained a bit your context (like kmbboots did), my comment would have been futile (and therefore inexistent).
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
Did kmb's expounding help? If not, I can't think how more words will. It's a pretty simple sentence.
quote:I meant to give the view opposite from this one. Or, 'don't blame objects, or beliefs, or causes, blame the people misusing them.'
What you said about alcohol might be taken like this: "there are alcoholics in the world, because there is alcohol, period".
No harm done.quote:I was surprised - it didn't seem like you. I should have trusted my impression of you.
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
I guess I just figured no one would confuse me with one of those people.
Still, glad it's all cleared up. What were we talking about?
quote:Alcohol as a metaphor for religion.
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
What were we talking about?
]
quote:Inspired by these lines, I have another question:
Originally posted by theamazeeaz:
[…]I made my confirmation for my grandmother, who may or may not live to see my children (I would have to have some in the next 10 years). She would be shrewd enough to figure out if I didn't baptize my kids.
I think it would all boil down to what my husband wants. I'd like to marry another atheist, but if Mr. Right enjoys vacation bible school, then I'll do what he wants.
quote:I will answer from my personal perspective, because I don’t know what “people feel/believe”
Originally posted by MightyCow:
I'm interested in following it on another path, that of addiction. The question is how much do you NEED religion.
[1]Is religion addictive?
[2]Is religion a drug in some senses?
[3]Do people feel physical withdrawal symptoms if they quit religion?
[4]Can religion be addictive then? Either from a social and psychological standpoint, or even from a physical standpoint.
[5]Do religious experiences cause people to seek out further religious experiences?
[6]Can you get hooked on God?
[numbers added for easier reference]
quote:I think so, but I don't think it's bad. It's like getting hooked on friendship, or on being loved, or that great feeling of finishing a race or a painting. Communing with the Lord and having spiritual experiences is part of the good stuff in life. Our brains also change when we laugh, or when we see pictures of people we love. I don't think that means that laughter and love are addictive, but that we are wired - for whatever reason and in whatever way - to be happier for those things.
Do religious experiences cause people to seek out further religious experiences? Can you get hooked on God?
quote:I think so, and I think it can be bad, like any mainly emotional addiction. Being addicted to exercise, gambling, chocolate, or Survivor is exactly as bad as being addicted to God.
I think so, but I don't think it's bad.
quote:This is the same reason I like to visit museums, monuments, mountain tops and places of grand architecture. I think it's largely the same sensation, just with different triggers.
I know that if I go for a while without having a spiritual experience, I miss it. I'll seek for them. Part of the reason I love the Book of Mormon so much is because I consistently am spiritually fed by reading it.
quote:That's only because your personal opinion of God is such that it eliminates the possibility. Technically, people can't get addicted to chocolate, either; they get addicted to the endorphins, and associate those endorphins with chocolate. Ditto God.
Eh, if you're addicted to God in such a way that it causes you to neglect your other responsibilities - i.e. family, work, etc. - then I would suggest that you're addicted to something other than God.
quote:I used “becoming an addiction” meaning something that becomes a habit before one being able to make a rational decision about. There are positive addictions, and there are negative ones. Keeping a good hygiene would be quite a positive addiction for example.
Originally posted by suminonA:
[1][4]I think religion can become “addictive” but only at a psychological level. And the main factor is the “tradition”, the fact that “society” does it so you have to do it too.
quote:No. In some doses, religion can be a "helpful" addiction. In others, it can ruin lives and minds.
I think whether or not you think liking and wanting religion is a harmful addiction has more to do with one's opinion of religion than of the actual behavior.
quote:I'm almost certain that you do. But that's not the question, is it? The question is whether over-attachment to religion can be a harmful addiction, and whether this harmful addiction is common.
I suspect I know more of them than you do.
quote:More precisely, I should understand that many people think they make really healthy choices about religion.
you have to understand that many of us make really healthy choices about our religion
If we're going to run with this analogy, it's like I've known these people for years and have slowly watched them grow fat on bacon and sugar, and every now and then point out, "Hey, um, should you be eating that?" And they say, "yes! I watch my weight! Bacon and sugar make me happy!"quote:And sometime we are saying, "Geez, Tom, it's not bacon, it's a nice veggie stir fry! Waddya want me to starve!?"
More precisely, I should understand that many people think they make really healthy choices about religion. If we're going to run with this analogy, it's like I've known these people for years and have slowly watched them grow fat on bacon and sugar, and every now and then point out, "Hey, um, should you be eating that?" And they say, "yes! I watch my weight! Bacon and sugar make me happy!"
quote:Well, that's because I think all religions out there are wrong.
You do seem to jump in on one "side" of the religion discussion more often.
quote:About religion in general, or about whether people can become negatively addicted to religion? Because I'll always freely admit the possibility that I'm wrong about religion in general.
I think you're spectacularly and unfortunately wrong.
quote:Well its hard for you to draw conclusions when you have yet to see what a religionless society would be like.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:About religion in general, or about whether people can become negatively addicted to religion? Because I'll always freely admit the possibility that I'm wrong about religion in general.
I think you're spectacularly and unfortunately wrong.
quote:Without speaking for Tom, in this context, yes, you should starve. Your veggies were grown in soil fertilised with human bones, and tended by child labour.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And sometime we are saying, "Geez, Tom, it's not bacon, it's a nice veggie stir fry! Waddya want me to starve!?"
that was ... "close". What was the question you were answering again? quote:Ok, so now you owe me a new snark-o-meter too. (Too late for the sarcasm-o-meter). Keep in mind that I don’t know what your intentions are, if you don’t openly state them.
Originally posted by King of Men:
I don't think that word, 'sarcasm', means what you apparently think it means. Are you possibly talking about irony, or snark? Sarcasm is always intentional, and there was none in my post.
quote:KOM: I was merely citing the lack of empirical evidence that accurately shows how a society devoid of organized religion would fare.
Originally posted by King of Men:
I don't think that word, 'sarcasm', means what you apparently think it means. Are you possibly talking about irony, or snark? Sarcasm is always intentional, and there was none in my post. As for the commies, they were not evil because they were atheist; but many of the equally bad religious regimes have been evil exactly because they were religious. (An example may illustrate. If the doctrine of the Russian Communist Party said nothing about gods, or perhaps even encouraged their worship, Soviet Russia would not have been a more pleasant place to live. On the other hand, if the Inquisition had not had a doctrine about how people got into heaven, well, there wouldn't have been an Inquisition in the first place, would there?)
Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
quote:Well when you believe that God does not exist its pretty hard to come up with sound moral reasoning for believing in a falsehood, especially a falsehood that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and feels a need to tell people what they should be doing.
I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
quote:As a matter of fact, I think the Christian religion is highly immoral quite apart from its truth value.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well when you believe that God does not exist its pretty hard to come up with sound moral reasoning for believing in a falsehood, especially a falsehood that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and feels a need to tell people what they should be doing.
quote:Totally irrelevant. I could just as well assert that the LDS have no scriptural backing for their doctrine, and in truth I think I'd have a better case; that would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is religious belief that causes them to abstain from coffee. The point is that if you removed the religious belief from the inquisitors and their backers, they would not have acted as they did. If you added religious belief to Stalin, he would still have acted as he did, possibly with a slightly different set of targets. In fact, your reply is so totally off the mark that I'm beginning to wonder whether I missed something. Could you please explain why you thought it was relevant?
KOM: There was no sound docterinal basis for the inquisition, neither in its goals or its methods. The crusades could cite scriptures stating that Jerusalem was a holy city and that one day God would give it back to the Jews, but the inquisition had no more scriptural backing for its goals and strategies than the catholic church did when it stated the scriptures supported the idea that the earth was the center of the earth.
quote:Nope, it's the part where everything Yahweh does is considered good. I'm bored with Numbers 31, so let me just point to Sodom and Gomorrah. Was this a good act? If not, how do you justify worshipping the being who did it?
Originally posted by JennaDean:
Immoral, huh? Christianity is immoral. I'm afraid to ask what in the code of ethics as taught by Christianity is immoral. Different definitions of morality, I suppose.
quote:enochville, I’ve seen your responses. Thank you.
Originally posted by enochville:
suminonA, have you missed my responses? In answer to question 3, I said that neither I nor my wife felt any physical withdraws when we left religion and a belief in god.
I also gave a link to a journal in which you can read one woman's expeince as she tries to live without a belief in God as it happens. She is normally a very devout Christian.
These are real experiences that address the questions in this thread.
I didn’t say that there was nobody to address the questions on this thread. I was just “lamenting” about the preceding posts that were more or less an open quarrel between “old acquaintances” (history from other threads was brought up). quote:I see this as a very strong reason not to need such a system of beliefs (i.e. a theistic one). I’d like to ask what would the solution be from where you’re standing. What alternative do you have for a “common morality”?
Originally posted by King of Men:
Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
quote:True, my “context” was quite elliptic in that question. That’s because I was “startled” by the assertion made by KoM [i.e. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.]
Originally posted by KarlEd:
I'd like to hear you state exactly what you believe the "moral dilemma" is before responding.
quote:How is that separate from its truth value? I suspect most Christians believe everything God does is good because they believe it is true that God has perfect knowledge of what is good and will act accordingly.
Nope, it's the part where everything Yahweh does is considered good. I'm bored with Numbers 31, so let me just point to Sodom and Gomorrah. Was this a good act? If not, how do you justify worshipping the being who did it?
quote:I don't agree. Some Christians do base their moral views on their interpretations of the scriptures, but I think the vast majority do the reverse - they base their interpretations of the scriptures on what they have already determined to be their moral views. For instance, I suspect many religious conservatives consider homosexuality to be wrong before they know anything about scripture and then only afterwards find scriptures to back up that assertion.
1) The majority of the theists I know (IRL) is basing its moral values mainly on (their interpretation of) the scriptures (they even “validate” laic laws through the “filter” of those interpretations). I see no real problem with the people who do that, because they usually come to the “common” conclusions about morality (inasmuch as those moral values are common to different religions, such as: “don’t kill”, “don’t steal” etc.) Long story short, I think that morality can have a source in religion.
quote:When you say "society-defined" keep in mind that the religious groups within that society are usually one of the biggest components to the way that morality is laid out by society. The irony is that most atheists I know follow a very Christian morality. And I suspect that is because our society is based very much on a Christian viewpoint. It is easy to reject God, but even without God it is difficult to escape the Christian moral viewpoint in the U.S. as you grow up and establish your moral beliefs.
2) I think that morality exists outside religion (as you said it is mostly a “society” defined concept), so I consider that I can be a moral person even as I declare myself an atheist [And I suspect most of the atheists think the same]. So even if I “reject” the factuality of most of religious doctrine(s), its morality I see (generally) as valid [That might not be a generally accepted view].
quote:It's even harder to define specifically what the "Christian moral viewpoint" is that you are trying to escape. I'd argue that the vast majority of basic moral ideas that make up our society are only part of the "Christian moral viewpoint" because the chose to incorporate them. "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal" certainly predate anything that could be meaningfully called "Christianity".
It is easy to reject God, but even without God it is difficult to escape the Christian moral viewpoint in the U.S. as you grow up and establish your moral beliefs.
quote:Well, I read it here (his first post on this page):
Originally posted by KarlEd:
(For the record, he did say that Christianity is highly immoral, not that religion as a whole is. He may think that of all religion, I don't know, but he doesn't state that here.)
quote:I understand theism to include more than Christianity.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Finally, atheist states may have been bad; but I do not see you making such an accusation of atheism itself. Conversely, I do believe that theism is an intrinsically wrong, morally as well as factually.
[mphasis added]
quote:Well, yes, but that's just it. You have a situation where the most powerful being in the Universe says "I'm good, and whatever I do is good", and then proceeds to do things that are by any rational standard evil. And these Christians just nod and accept it, and if anyone should dare to criticise, they go "Well, you can't apply the same standards to the Leader, and anyway he knows better than you!" To not apply moral codes to someone, merely because he is bigger than you and says he is doing good; that is evil, and whether he is correct or not is not relevant. If he is, let him explain. If he can't, oppose him by whatever means are available.
How is that separate from its truth value? I suspect most Christians believe everything God does is good because they believe it is true that God has perfect knowledge of what is good and will act accordingly.
quote:Ok for the “basic morality” (e.g. “Thou shalt not kill”/”Thou shalt not steal”). But morality quickly gets “complicated” beyond that. When there are entire segments of the society (e.g. women/gays/infidels etc) that are deemed inferior just because “it is said so in the scriptures”, then what is the “basic” solution? And btw, even among the atheists, the opinions on some moral issues are not so “clear cut” as I might deduce from your assertions. Do you want me to name some examples?
Originally posted by King of Men:
For the where to find moral rules, I must say I don't see the problem. Basic morality is agreed upon by, essentially, everyone. There is, I hope, nothing special about today's theists that makes them too dumb to follow whatever process the atheists used to arrive at their moral rules.
quote:Well, if all that you want to do is label it as “evil” (and stop to that) then nothing else will be relevant for you. But you see, while “human nature” might be “evil by default” (I personally disagree), the fact that a leader (spiritual or otherwise) is CORRECT or NOT while in power does make a whole lot of a difference, not only for the ones that directly “obey”, but also for those that are affected by the actions of the former.
To not apply moral codes to someone, merely because he is bigger than you and says he is doing good; that is evil, and whether he is correct or not is not relevant.
quote:Is there any way to access the knowledge about that “perfect” (independent of society) morality? If yes, then why don’t we have it already? If not, then why bother talking about it? We need a morality to apply, not to “be sure that exists somewhere”.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
I'll add, however, that I don't think our society's definition of morality IS morality. That's just what society thinks morality should be. Morality exists outside of society, and would exist even if society never existed to try and understand it. It would be wrong to murder your neighbor even if there was no society telling you it is wrong.
quote:There is a difference between deeming someone inferior "because it said so in the scriptures" and using scripture to justify one's own prejudice - even if the justifiers don't recognize it.
But morality quickly gets “complicated” beyond that. When there are entire segments of the society (e.g. women/gays/infidels etc) that are deemed inferior just because “it is said so in the scriptures”, then what is the “basic” solution?
quote:I would argue that the Inquisitors simply used religion as a convenient tool. Were religion to simply not exsist it is my belief that people would commit the same attrocities simply under different pretexts.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:As a matter of fact, I think the Christian religion is highly immoral quite apart from its truth value.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Well when you believe that God does not exist its pretty hard to come up with sound moral reasoning for believing in a falsehood, especially a falsehood that is supposedly all knowing and all powerful and feels a need to tell people what they should be doing.
quote:Totally irrelevant. I could just as well assert that the LDS have no scriptural backing for their doctrine, and in truth I think I'd have a better case; that would be utterly irrelevant to the question of whether it is religious belief that causes them to abstain from coffee. The point is that if you removed the religious belief from the inquisitors and their backers, they would not have acted as they did. If you added religious belief to Stalin, he would still have acted as he did, possibly with a slightly different set of targets. In fact, your reply is so totally off the mark that I'm beginning to wonder whether I missed something. Could you please explain why you thought it was relevant?
KOM: There was no sound docterinal basis for the inquisition, neither in its goals or its methods. The crusades could cite scriptures stating that Jerusalem was a holy city and that one day God would give it back to the Jews, but the inquisition had no more scriptural backing for its goals and strategies than the catholic church did when it stated the scriptures supported the idea that the earth was the center of the earth.
quote:True, but where's the problem? We've gotten along fine so far without everybody agreeing on these issues. The point is, everybody has some moral code, theist or not. Generally they are quite good ones, even where they might disagree in detail.
Ok for the “basic morality” (e.g. “Thou shalt not kill”/”Thou shalt not steal”). But morality quickly gets “complicated” beyond that. When there are entire segments of the society (e.g. women/gays/infidels etc) that are deemed inferior just because “it is said so in the scriptures”, then what is the “basic” solution? And btw, even among the atheists, the opinions on some moral issues are not so “clear cut” as I might deduce from your assertions. Do you want me to name some examples?
quote:I see I haven't been clear. The Christian god may or may not be evil; that is a question of the truth value of the religion. But it is morally wrong to worship it based only on its own word for being good; especially when it has plainly committed many evil acts. Thus Christians are being immoral in abdicating their responsibility to judge; in accepting the word of a powerful being for its goodness, merely because it is powerful, they become amoral.
Well, if all that you want to do is label it as “evil” (and stop to that) then nothing else will be relevant for you. But you see, while “human nature” might be “evil by default” (I personally disagree), the fact that a leader (spiritual or otherwise) is CORRECT or NOT while in power does make a whole lot of a difference, not only for the ones that directly “obey”, but also for those that are affected by the actions of the former.
quote:Like the approval of slavery, and the killing off of any number of 'third parts' of the human race? Certainly.
And this would be New Testament stuff we are talking about, KoM?
quote:Yes, well? Did your god destroy two cities because they were wicked, or did he not? If not, how dare you assert that the miracles you like really happened? If he did, was that a good act, or not?
Or are you referring to what many Christians believe to be a record of a certain group's relationship to God written from the POV of that particular group?
quote:It has nothing to do with being "bigger". It has to do with God's ability to see all ends. "The ends justify the means" is a much different approach when you actually know for sure what ends a particular "means" will get you. Human beings know nothing for sure, and have an extremely poor track record of guessing what ends we will achieve by pursuing a certain set of means.
To not apply moral codes to someone, merely because he is bigger than you and says he is doing good; that is evil, and whether he is correct or not is not relevant.
quote:High school students can access the knowledge in their math textbooks about how to solve math problems. So why don't they get perfect scores on every math test?
Is there any way to access the knowledge about that “perfect” (independent of society) morality? If yes, then why don’t we have it already?
quote:kmbboots, true, there is a difference. In the first case “the innocent” is presented with the TRUE (i.e. original) scriptures, wherefrom using their reason they deduce the discrimination and therefore apply it. [In this case the scriptures are not changed, and the next “innocents” will make their own judgments.] In the second, the “not so innocents” present to the others their interpretations of the scriptures tailored so the discrimination would be justified. So anyone coming after them has the biased version.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
There is a difference between deeming someone inferior "because it said so in the scriptures" and using scripture to justify one's own prejudice - even if the justifiers don't recognize it.
quote:(As an aside, I was under the impression that Paul was not an apostle. But never mind the semantics.)
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The apostles not being sufficiently removed from their culture (as in your slavery example) is not the same as God endorsing it.
quote:Revelations.
Not sure what you are talking about with the third parts. I'll look it up - a reference would help.
quote:Resurrection, water into wine, raising the dead. Harmless little miracles. But as soon as somebody gets hurt, somebody made up that story? Again : Is this stuff the inspired word of your god, or not? And if only parts of it are, how is it that they happen to be the parts you approve of?
I don't believe a lot of what is recorded in the "Old Testament" as literal fact - including the Sodom and Gomorrah stories. As for "the miracles I like" - what do you think those are?
quote:Well, I appreciate the analogy, but the difference might be only a detail to you. Where is that “morality textbook” that I’m unable to put into practice?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:High school students can access the knowledge in their math textbooks about how to solve math problems. So why don't they get perfect scores on every math test?
Is there any way to access the knowledge about that “perfect” (independent of society) morality? If yes, then why don’t we have it already?
quote:Sez he. How do you know it's true? Even if it is, how do you know you approve of the ends?
It has to do with God's ability to see all ends.
quote:The issue is that it cannot be ok for the god to kill someone without good reason, and if you do not know what that reason is, then it is immoral to permit or approve of the killing. It is just not acceptable to say "I'm sure there is a good reason for this", because you have nothing except the word of the killer to base that judgement on. It is a total abdication of moral responsibility, even if the killer should happen to be telling the truth. As long as you cannot test that truth for yourself, you have a duty to not take the killer's word for it.
But furthermore, this issue is almost totally irrelevant to the morality of Christianity - because we are not God. Even if it is okay for God to kill someone, that doesn't mean it is okay for his followers to kill someone. Thus believing that God's actions were all moral in no way implies Christians will commit those same actions themselves - and thus does not imply that Christian beliefs inherently make Christians immoral.
quote:It's just as immoral whether the god exists or not. We were discussing the morality, not the truth value.
All your complaint boils down to is that Christians let God off the hook for things. But if you don't even believe in God, what is the complaint?
quote:I agree with you on the morality of this kind of “application” of the rules. But theistic religion is not reduced to that. Discarding all religion for that reason alone is a problem for those that see their religion as the sole source of morality.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It's just as immoral whether the god exists or not. We were discussing the morality, not the truth value.
All your complaint boils down to is that Christians let God off the hook for things. But if you don't even believe in God, what is the complaint?
quote:And here we “stumble” on the original topic: How much do you NEED to assume that?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
quote:He was not one of the original twelve named. He came along later.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:(As an aside, I was under the impression that Paul was not an apostle. But never mind the semantics.)
Originally posted by kmbboots:
The apostles not being sufficiently removed from their culture (as in your slavery example) is not the same as God endorsing it.
quote:
Is the Bible the inspired word of your god, or is it not? If it is not, why do you believe it?
quote:Revelations.
Not sure what you are talking about with the third parts. I'll look it up - a reference would help.
quote:Resurrection, water into wine, raising the dead. Harmless little miracles. But as soon as somebody gets hurt, somebody made up that story? Again : Is this stuff the inspired word of your god, or not? And if only parts of it are, how is it that they happen to be the parts you approve of?
I don't believe a lot of what is recorded in the "Old Testament" as literal fact - including the Sodom and Gomorrah stories. As for "the miracles I like" - what do you think those are?
quote:If God in fact is trying to accomplish the greatest good and knows exactly how to do so, his goal would then be my goal.
Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:And here we “stumble” on the original topic: How much do you NEED to assume that?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
A.
Thank you.quote:Ok, in your case, how confident are you that you’ve goy the correct instructions from (your) God?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That being said I should think it is ESSENTIAL that one be COMPLETELY confident that the instructions he/she received from God are correct in order to be truely happy.
quote:In the same post you state "we were discussing the morality, not the truth value." Hence, it doesn't matter if I know it's true or not. All that matters is that IF it is true that God sees all ends, THEN it is reasonable to think morality works a little bit differently for him than it does for those of us who cannot see any ends for sure.
Sez he. How do you know it's true? Even if it is, how do you know you approve of the ends?
quote:I have a moral responsibility to judge God? I have no moral responsibility to judge anyone's decisions other than my own.
It is just not acceptable to say "I'm sure there is a good reason for this", because you have nothing except the word of the killer to base that judgement on. It is a total abdication of moral responsibility, even if the killer should happen to be telling the truth.
quote:Yes, and then the local law steps in and replies "That's what you think." If there's no law enforcement, certainly you will get evil acts regardless of the religion; anarchy is not a good thing. But there are two issues you are missing. Religion may cause the local law to look the other way if the victim is a Taoist. Second, religion may cause Farmer A to want to kill or convert his neighbour quite independent of the land issue. Neither of these would happen in the absence of religion.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I would argue that the Inquisitors simply used religion as a convenient tool. Were religion to simply not exsist it is my belief that people would commit the same attrocities simply under different pretexts.
Lets say there are 2 farmers and the 1 Christian farmer covets the others Taoist farmers property.
The Christian kills the Taoist in the night and says that he was killing an idol worshipper and that the Taoists pagan ways were blighting his crops.
Remove religion from the equation and I imagine something like this would happen.
Farmer A kills Farmer B in the night and when asked why says, "I wanted his fields, and I was stronger and so I took it. You may think its wrong all you like, but I am still stronger and you cannot stop me."
quote:Absolutely not. I am saying that religion opens up a whole new range of ways in which evil acts can be considered good.
KOM are you trying to say that those who commit evil will always do those same evils regardless of the existance of religion?
quote:Yes, exactly.
Or are you saying religion makes evil more widespread because it gives the semblance of morality to evil acts?
quote:Perhaps you would care to give an example?
I think that if you are arguing that religion has never prevented an act of evil, you are not seeing a very evident aspect of religion.
quote:Well, you are sort of missing my point here. It is the assumption that is immoral. You have an absolute moral duty not to make any such assumption, especially when you consider the sort of atrocities the OT describes.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
KOM: Again assuming God knows everything as well as ALL ends, and human beings cannot see the ultimate results of all actions until the very end.
How can we pass judgement on anything God actually does? All we can do is say "Well from what I can tell it was wrong." but we would still have to admit that there is a very good chance we do not know what we are talking about.
I understand that that is a dangerous line of reasoning as we are then simply giving God a license to do anything, but what else could we do ASSUMING God does know everything, and assuming he is trying to accomplish the greatest good?
quote:Yes, yes, but we are not talking about what is actually true, we are talking about what you know to be true. If I had gone back to 1914 and killed Hitler, that would be a good act, yes? But it would have been pretty immoral of people back then to just take my word for it and not hang me.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:In the same post you state "we were discussing the morality, not the truth value." Hence, it doesn't matter if I know it's true or not. All that matters is that IF it is true that God sees all ends, THEN it is reasonable to think morality works a little bit differently for him than it does for those of us who cannot see any ends for sure.
Sez he. How do you know it's true? Even if it is, how do you know you approve of the ends?
quote:I have a moral responsibility to judge God? I have no moral responsibility to judge anyone's decisions other than my own. [/QUOTE]
It is just not acceptable to say "I'm sure there is a good reason for this", because you have nothing except the word of the killer to base that judgement on. It is a total abdication of moral responsibility, even if the killer should happen to be telling the truth.
quote:Now, I don't want to make a moral judgement here; as far as I'm concerned, the Arabs are being rather stupid in wanting Israel destroyed. Nonetheless, if it weren't for the Jewish religion, this conflict would not exist, since Israel would not have been resettled.
But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
quote:Having said all that, were I absolutely certain that my belief in God is correct, and his will as revealed by his prophets is his true will. Were I to somehow learn otherwise I do not think I would be capable of being certain of anything ever again.
Originally posted by suminonA:
BlackBlade, first I want to acknowledge that answering my questions you bring a contribution to this thread that I value greately.
quote:Ok, in your case, how confident are you that you’ve goy the correct instructions from (your) God?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
That being said I should think it is ESSENTIAL that one be COMPLETELY confident that the instructions he/she received from God are correct in order to be truely happy.
Meaning: If you had these revelations yourself, how confident are you that you were able to get the true (i.e. clear, not ambiguous) message? If there were other mortal intermediaries, how confident are you that they got it right in the first place?
A.
quote:Inaction is a choice of mine just as much as action is. But we are not talking about something I am standing aside and watching. We are talking about something done by God thousands of years ago that I can neither influence nor prevent. On such a matter, my fallible judgement about who was right and who was wrong is entirely irrelevant to all parties involved.
So it would be ok, then, to stand aside during an ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that you yourself weren't taking any evil action?
quote:Do me a favor and leave me out of this conversation.
Originally posted by King of Men:
here is rivka
quote:If someone was responsible for a genocide, and still alive, you would refrain from judging him now because that would not help the victims?
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Inaction is a choice of mine just as much as action is. But we are not talking about something I am standing aside and watching. We are talking about something done by God thousands of years ago that I can neither influence nor prevent. On such a matter, my fallible judgement about who was right and who was wrong is entirely irrelevant to all parties involved.
So it would be ok, then, to stand aside during an ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that you yourself weren't taking any evil action?
quote:No. You post on teh intarweb, you are fair game.
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Do me a favor and leave me out of this conversation.
Originally posted by King of Men:
here is rivka
quote:I could come to some judgement about his actions if I wanted to, but I would have no moral duty to do so. Why would I? Do you think all people in the world have a moral duty to judge Saddam Hussein, now that he's in jail and can do no more harm, even when they were not in any way related to anything he did, or do not know understand the facts of his case, or do not understand what motivated him to do it? I certainly don't.
If someone was responsible for a genocide, and still alive, you would refrain from judging him now because that would not help the victims?
quote:Don't get me wrong, “I value the (religion’s) good lessons" means that I don't dismiss them (just because they come “from” there). As said before, I never take for granted something just because <insert deity here> "said so". Yet I am willing to accept many things if provided with enough proof/evidence/reason. So “religious lessons” have kind of "the same (or even less) priority" as those of other great philosophers, yet "much less priority" than those that come from science (i.e. scientifically based “rules”).
Originally posted by enochville:
Well, keep the good lessons. I do as an atheist. I even quote scripture from time to time (not that those words have any special authority or power, I am just more familiar with them). But, I also am paying more attention to the wise stories and words from other traditions: Confusius, the Dali Lama, great philosophers and scientists.
I still find that there is wisdom in some religious stories and passages, but they are not above other moralistic stories like "The boy who cried wolf".
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Congratulations on your self motivated sense of morality. But my example still indicates that for me religion has made me more apt to make moral decisions. I doubt I am the only one.
Originally posted by King of Men:
I feel sorry for anyone who has such a weak moral sense that they need that kind of crutch to deal honestly with their employer. Interestingly enough, I have on occasion been faced with the same kind of moral choice, and made the same decision. So it is clearly not religion that is the difference between clocking out, and not doing so.
quote:While I'm not going to speculate on what makes KoM a decent human being, I can assure you that my motivation to be one does not in fact spring from any desire to prove that it's possible without God.
It almost sounds to me KOM that your desire to live a moral life stems from your desire to prove that you can be moral without the aid of religion.
quote:Would you care to give some “details” about your motivations (for being a decent/moral human being)?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
While I'm not going to speculate on what makes KoM a decent human being, can assure you that my motivation to be one does not in fact spring from any desire to prove that it's possible without God.
code:Note: Of course, this question is for everyoneA = Yourself
B = Family member
C = Friend / loved one
D = Someone in particular
E = Teacher
F = Priest
G = Whole Family
H = Society
I = Everybody
J = <deity>
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| MOTIVATION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1.Out of love for | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2.Because of | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3.To prove right | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4.Promise to | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 5.Convinced by | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 6.To disprove | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 7.In spite of | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 8.Out of fear of | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 9.Forced by | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|10.To taunt | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|11.To mock | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|12.Against | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|13.Out of hating | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
Actually, there is no restriction on the answer; I proposed the matrix for a “condensed view”, but as I said before, It is by no means exhaustive. code:Oh, if you missed it, the “simple” question is: “What is your motivation for being a decent/moral human being?”A = Yourself
B = Family member
C = Friend / loved one
D = Someone in particular
E = Teacher
F = Priest
G = Whole Family
H = Society
I = Everybody
J = <deity>
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| MOTIVATION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 1.Out of love for | | | | | | | | 1| | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 2.Because of | | 1| | | | | | | 1| |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 3.To prove right | 1| | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 4.Promise to | | | | | | | 1| | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 5.Convinced by | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 6.To disprove | | 1| | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 7.In spite of | 1| | | | | | | | 1| |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 8.Out of fear of | | | | | | | | 1| | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| 9.Forced by | | | | | | | | | 1| |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|10.To taunt | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|11.To mock | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|12.Against | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|13.Out of hating | | | | | | | | | | |
+-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
]quote:I think this is a very logical point. Science does not give any philosophical lessons. Though it can inform philosophy - as someone said.
The thing is, I'm not sure science can give many moral lessons. The natural world is demonstrably amoral
quote:As MightyCow said. What I wonder is that, once you embrace Nihilism (the logical aspect of which), and do not accept the things most Everyone takes for granted, and particularly Athiests, like existence of the physical world outside your mind, accuracy of logic, cause and effect, the fact you're not just a brain in a jar, hallucinating, Everything falls like a house of cards. Nihilism is the only logical stance, if you require 'proof' for all your beliefs. Cogito Ergo Sum is the only self-proving axiom, and even that does not stand up to scrutiny in an illogical universe with no cause and effect. People believe all sorts of things, religion requires a few extra/difference essential beliefs, as a Nihilist it surprises me that athiests who believe in the real world, see themselves as any less grounded initially in faith than theists who believe in the real God.
When one does not accept things which a Christian takes for granted, it is amazing how so much of what it is to be a Christian falls like a house of cards. There are so many assumptions, beliefs, faith, and acceptance or complete disregard of seemingly contradictory ideas tied up with Christianity, it has a hell of a time standing up to logical reasoning
quote:This is demonstrably false, actually.
Nihilism is the only logical stance, if you require 'proof' for all your beliefs.
Instead, you're just committing a tautology.
quote:I'm an atheist who believes that many things exist. I'm sure I'm not alone. Therefore, atheism does not equal nihilism, "official" or otherwise.
there is no sufficient proof for anything, thus you must assume nothing exists.
quote:Why should we go first? You prove that God doesnt exist and Ill prove the pretty pink unicorn does not exist.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Dude, I don't need everything justified with iron-clad proof. I do demand the same level of evidence for gods as for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it fails the IPU test, I don't believe in it.
quote:Why??
The virtuous path is to judge everybody from actions.
quote:I think this is false. If morality doesn't exist in the natural world, it wouldn't exist at all, because what else is there other than the natural world? But it does exist because some things are right and wrong. Hence, I think it must exist in the natural world.
The thing is, I'm not sure science can give many moral lessons. The natural world is demonstrably amoral
quote:Can you show me how this is more than a semantic arguement. I think there is much precedent in English discourse for using "natural world" to mean the world discounting human interferance. (Or perhaps merely the physical world rather than the metaphysical.)
I think this is false. If morality doesn't exist in the natural world, it wouldn't exist at all, because what else is there other than the natural world? But it does exist because some things are right and wrong. Hence, I think it must exist in the natural world.
quote:
I think it would be more accurate to say that science defines itself in such a way that it can never see any morality in the world. It is build upon assumptions that prevent it from ever studying something like morality, in any meaningful way. It only studies how things in nature (include humans) behave, not whether that behavior is right or wrong.
quote:You're going at it in the wrong direction. The point is, you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one. The only difference is that the IPU, poor thing, doesn't have two thousand years of habit backing her up.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Why should we go first? You prove that God doesn't exist and I'll prove the pretty pink unicorn does not exist.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Dude, I don't need everything justified with iron-clad proof. I do demand the same level of evidence for gods as for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it fails the IPU test, I don't believe in it.
quote:I see my sentence was badly formulated. I did not mean you should go about judging everyone; rather, when you do judge someone, you should always use the same criteria. And those criteria should never be solely what they say about themselves; indeed, actions should weigh much more strongly. But Christians, in my view, do not give any weight at all to the actions of their god; instead they go solely by his words. Having judged according to his words, they justify his actions. That's immoral, just as it would be immoral to judge Hitler only by his words. (If you did, he would be a fine fellow! After all, he was only struggling against International Jewish Bolshevism!)
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Why??
The virtuous path is to judge everybody from actions.
Firstly, why is it virtuous to judge everybody? I don't think you have shown this yet.
quote:Yes, but you don't actually have any other knowledge about your god.
Secondly, why would it more virtuous to judge them by their actions? That leads to mistaken judgement - as proven by the fact that two people can commit the same act, but if they do it for different reasons, one might be right and the other might be wrong. Thus in order to accurately judge someone, you must consider more than just their actions. Other knowledge and assumptions about them come into play.
quote:I disagree. The criteria you use to judge someone depends on what you are judging them for. Are you trying to find out if they are a good person? If they are wise? If they are virtuous? If they have value as a human being? All of these may have different criteria.
did not mean you should go about judging everyone; rather, when you do judge someone, you should always use the same criteria. And those criteria should never be solely what they say about themselves; indeed, actions should weigh much more strongly.
quote:So it is not Christianity alone that you think is immoral, but rather the entire idea of trusting an authority on its word? Isn't there any authority that you trust to be correct? Have you ever had a teacher who said things that seemed not right to you but that you trusted nonetheless because you thought that teacher knew more than you?
But Christians, in my view, do not give any weight at all to the actions of their god; instead they go solely by his words.
quote:Yes we do. What do you think we talk about at church?
Yes, but you don't actually have any other knowledge about your god.
quote:And all of these depend on their actions.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I disagree. The criteria you use to judge someone depends on what you are judging them for. Are you trying to find out if they are a good person? If they are wise? If they are virtuous? If they have value as a human being? All of these may have different criteria.
did not mean you should go about judging everyone; rather, when you do judge someone, you should always use the same criteria. And those criteria should never be solely what they say about themselves; indeed, actions should weigh much more strongly.
quote:There are authorities that I trust sufficiently not to go about checking their daily doings, yes. There are no authorities I trust sufficiently to accept that a genocide is a good and necessary thing on their mere word!
quote:So it is not Christianity alone that you think is immoral, but rather the entire idea of trusting an authority on its word? Isn't there any authority that you trust to be correct?
But Christians, in my view, do not give any weight at all to the actions of their god; instead they go solely by his words.
quote:Come now, it must be possible to not consider this an absolute. I would trust your god if it killed off a snake on the grounds that it might otherwise bite someone nearby, even if I didn't know whether the snake was poisonous. Killing off entire cities requires a little more proof of intent.
Have you ever had a teacher who said things that seemed not right to you but that you trusted nonetheless because you thought that teacher knew more than you?
quote:I disagree completely.
I think authority does have a place in the virtuous person's judgement. In fact, I doubt anyone could consistently act ethically without the guidance of an authority they trusted.
quote:I did say knowledge, didn't I? I don't see where theorising about your hallucinations comes in. Talk about a house built on sand.
quote:Yes we do. What do you think we talk about at church?
Yes, but you don't actually have any other knowledge about your god.
quote:You're exactly illustrating my point here. I wasn't saying that Atheism = Nihilism. I was saying Atheism requires you to take certain tenets on faith, such as the existence of a physical world beyond your own Qualia perceptions (the 'effect' of every sensation you have, in your mind. The way your brain interprets colour for example. Which you know happens because you have experienced it. This is more complex than it looks.), or the validity of logic, or cause and effect, etc. So when people are very pround of the logic of their atheistic position, decrying faith in all its forms, they are not really sticking to what you say: "The point is, you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one"
You're going at it in the wrong direction. The point is, you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one.
quote:I can prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. But proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who already believe that thing doesn't imply you've actually proven anything at all. It's often easy to satisfy such people who already believe. But you've only really proven something if you've in fact proven it through logical reasoning and/or direct observations (evidence). I think you cannot prove the existence of the physical world in such a way - although if you'd like to try, we can see....
In any case, I can prove the existence of the physical world to the satisfaction of myself and everyone who isn't hell-bent on making a contrived philosophical point.
quote:I suspect this is the heart of the disagreement then.
quote:I disagree completely.
I think authority does have a place in the virtuous person's judgement. In fact, I doubt anyone could consistently act ethically without the guidance of an authority they trusted.
quote:Right. Now watch closely as I make direct observations. Is there a physical world? Yep. Okay, next observation. Is there a physical world? Yep.
But you've only really proven something if you've in fact proven it through logical reasoning and/or direct observations (evidence).
quote:Well, I tell you what. Why don't you find me someone who genuinely disbelieves in the existence of the physical world, and I'll prove it to them.
I can prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. But proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who already believe that thing doesn't imply you've actually proven anything at all.
quote:That observation is indirect, not direct. All you actually see is the image of a world. It could be entirely in your imagination. That you assume there is something physical creating it is just that - an assumption. Can you back it up?
Right. Now watch closely as I make direct observations. Is there a physical world? Yep. Okay, next observation. Is there a physical world? Yep.
quote:Unfortunately, proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who didn't previously believe that thing doesn't really imply you've actually proven anything either. Whether something is a valid proof has nothing to do with whether a bunch of people are satisfied by it. It is not democratic. Proof is only proof if it actually has justified premises and valid logic that follows from it. And it could be a valid proof even if nobody whatsoever is satisfied by it, or vice versa.
Why don't you find me someone who genuinely disbelieves in the existence of the physical world, and I'll prove it to them.
quote:Well then, kindly define 'direct observation'.
That observation is indirect, not direct. All you actually see is the image of a world. It could be entirely in your imagination. That you assume there is something physical creating it is just that - an assumption. Can you back it up?
quote:I disagree. The purpose of discussion is not to show off how good you are at logic, it is to arrive at conclusions on which one can base a course of action. If both parties to a discussion agree to a proposition, that's good enough, even if they should be wrong.
Unfortunately, proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who didn't previously believe that thing doesn't really imply you've actually proven anything either. Whether something is a valid proof has nothing to do with whether a bunch of people are satisfied by it. It is not democratic. Proof is only proof if it actually has justified premises and valid logic that follows from it. And it could be a valid proof even if nobody whatsoever is satisfied by it, or vice versa.
quote:Why don't you start with your answer to the question(s) in the first post of this thread?
Originally posted by kaminari:
Man, this thread is heavy. I'd like to jump in, but there's so much. I don't know where to start.
quote:By direct observation I mean when something is observed to be true, in a way that does not rely on any assumptions in order for the observer to be certain of its truth.
Well then, kindly define 'direct observation'.
quote:Agreement on something does not mean it is a conclusion on which one should base a course of action. I can agree with plenty of people that God exists, but would you say that implies it is definitely the assumption we should base our actions upon? Instead one should base their actions on what they think is TRUE, rather than what they can get people to agree with.
I disagree. The purpose of discussion is not to show off how good you are at logic, it is to arrive at conclusions on which one can base a course of action. If both parties to a discussion agree to a proposition, that's good enough, even if they should be wrong.
quote:We do similar things in America too, but we call our wise men "doctors".
One of the women in the tribe got sick and died. A cow was sacrificed, and a group of the men in the tribe started pointing at the intestines and discussing what they showed.
Eventually, the eldest and most respected intestine reader decided that one of the young women in the tribe, the daughter of the woman who died, would die if she married another wise man. He said that she had to move out of the tribe and couldn't marry the other wise man, or she would get sick and die like her mother had.
quote:Clearly they were analogous to priests, not doctors. They didn't treat anyone or diagnose any diseases, they made a prophecy based on mystical powers, and used their influence to tell a woman who she was allowed to marry and where she was allowed to live. Doctors don't tell you that you'll die if you marry someone they don't approve of.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
We do similar things in America too, but we call our wise men "doctors".
The real problem here is not that the tribe trusted the authority of their wise men. The real problem is that their wise men weren't nearly as wise as our wise men. (Or so we believe.)
quote:Please produce this "Clear explanation of the aliens basic philosophy" as well as a method where with somebody can prove the existance of said aliens.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Sigh. There are also thousand of people claiming to have been abducted by aliens, and giving a fairly clear explanation of the aliens' basic philosophy. Do you think it is rational to believe them?
quote:This, as I understood it, was intended to be an argument in favour of belief in your god, as opposed to the IPU, which I admit does not have many adherents. In response, I pointed out that there are thousands of people who claim to have had a direct experience of alien abduction; as for the philosophy, go to any New Age website and you'll see it. My point is that that there is an exact analogy between UFO believers and Christ believers, and it is not rational to believe in either one without further evidence. Given this, I do not see where the request for proof of aliens comes in; my whole point is that there ain't no such proof.
ou DO have thousands of people claiming to have had direct experiences as well as a clear explaination of God's supposed basic philosophy.
quote:Asking me to smoke pot is hardly the same thing as systematically learning the precepts of a religion and employing them as a test (smoking pot takes less time and less effort). There is nothing within mormonism that is going to harm you. Reading some literature applying it and praying are not going to hurt you.
Originally posted by King of Men:
And alien abductees hold that you can be told the correctness of your morals by the aliens. Now, I did in fact believe in the Christian god for a fairly short period. That aside, though, if somebody who was plainly rather damaged by drug use suggested you just try some pot - "Dude, you'll see, it's really great" - would you follow his advice?
quote:what about e) He expects you to continue trying your best to live a moral life and when HE thinks you are ready he will reveal himself to you in the way that would benefit you the most?
BlackBlade: Your rommate's story, like my own, gives me more reason to doubt the existence of God. I gave religion my best try for many years, and it never convinced me of anything. I asked God in the name of Christ to enlighten me, to accept my soul and guide me, to show me the truth, to help me believe... all that stuff. I was as sincere and hopeful and willing as I could possibly have been. I got nothing.
This leads me to believe that either a) there is no God, b) if there is a God, he doesn't care about me, c) if there is a God, he is impotent, and unable to show himself to me, d) if there is a God, he has some divine plan that includes me never knowing him and according to Christian doctrine, burning in hell for all eternity.
quote:Were this life the only time we had, and were God to send people who are ignorant of his plan to hell I would think you are perfectly justified in refusing to worship him. Fortunately neither are true.
So based on my experience, either God doesn't exist, or if God does exist, he's certainly not worth my worship. It makes immeasurably more sense to me that God simply does not exist, and that religion is a convenient belief for many people, which is often used by those in power to influence the population they preside over.
quote:Were he to force his knowledge on every human being we would resent him for not at least letting us choose. Certainly it would be stupid if God allowed only good actions to occur while interupting anything bad we might want to do, how could we grow in any regard if everytime we were going to make mistake we were stopped before the results manifested themselves to us? We would probably not believe God's explanation of the results.
If one religion is true, and the others are false, then God obviously doesn't care very much for humanity as a whole. He allows countless false religions to prosper, doesn't tend his flock very well, allows and perhaps encourages a significant percentage of his creation to languish in ignorance and suffer without his divine presence.
quote:Remember that its not neccesarily true that this life is the only time you've got. I personally believe that we have plenty to do after we are dead. I do not know why God relies so heavily human effort to spread his plan for mankind, perhaps the reason you have not found the truth is because somebody you know who has it does not seem to care to share it with you, certainly the person with the truth will be dealt with more harshly than you would be.
If there is one true God, he doesn't seem to care for most people, and doesn't do much to protect, educate, or enlighten most of them. Seems like a jerk to me.
quote:Ok, how's this. Why don't you go for some reasonable period of time, say a week, consciously not believing in any gods? No church, of course, and every time you get into some moral dilemma or other situation where you'd pray for guidance, don't. Ask a friend, instead. Or Hatrack. Anything but prayer. (It may be necessary to go more than a week, I suppose; moral dilemmas aren't that common.) Does that sound reasonable?
Asking me to smoke pot is hardly the same thing as systematically learning the precepts of a religion and employing them as a test (smoking pot takes less time and less effort). There is nothing within mormonism that is going to harm you. Reading some literature applying it and praying are not going to hurt you.
quote:A diagnosis is a prophecy. If a doctor diagnosed that you have some disease that will kill you if you marry someone, then they most certainly would tell you not to marry someone. Doctors only don't make such prophecies because their belief system differs greatly from the beliefs of these "wise men" about what keeps one healthy - they are more inclined to think things like not washing hands endanger you than things like getting married. But our doctors most definitely make other sorts of predictions about things that we should or should not do to avoid death. They even predict that eating too many Big Macs might make an early death more likely! And I like Big Macs... well, to a degree.
Clearly they were analogous to priests, not doctors. They didn't treat anyone or diagnose any diseases, they made a prophecy based on mystical powers, and used their influence to tell a woman who she was allowed to marry and where she was allowed to live. Doctors don't tell you that you'll die if you marry someone they don't approve of.
quote:It's a nod to the fact that although we may think our doctors can keep us healthy better than the wise men of that village, the people of the village may think the exact opposite - and we can't really prove them wrong, aside from arguing that our people have so far ended up much healthier than theirs, if that is true.
What does "(Or so we believe.)" mean? Do you agree with the woman, that these men read the future in the entrails of a cow, and that they learned there how the woman would die if she married a specific man? Is that just a shot at those who use evidence to make choices, rather than following the whims of authority figures?
quote:Yes, but if its just evidence you are talking about, rather than an absolute proof, then I think it is safe to say religious people believe there is plenty of evidence of the existence of God available. It's not agreed upon, and it doesn't absolutely prove God must exist, but it's there, so you can't say there's no evidence for God. Or, at least, you can't say it and expect those who possess such evidence to believe you.
Tres, you are mixing up two different concepts. I said there was no evidence for any gods. You're the one who brought in the concept of proof, which is quite different. I believe in the physical world because I have evidence for it; yes, it could just be an image projected onto my brain, or whatever, but it's evidence. Not proof, but evidence. And moreover, it's evidence that everybody agrees on.
quote:The Bible. Subjective experiences of God. The order of the Universe. The effectiveness of Christian beliefs. A wide array of things along those lines.
What evidence are you suggesting?
quote:So did the wise men. They observed a cow they sacrified and drew conclusions from that.
Doctors make predictions based on fact, science, observation.
quote:I like the way you put it.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Here's how evidence works to me. When multiple equally educated people can look at something and come to the same conclusion, that's evidence. When a bunch of guys argue over a dead cow and decide to punish the guy they don't like and steal his girlfriend, that's made up B.S. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.
quote:If no amount of scientific evidence changed one's belief that the world was flat, we could simply conclude that he was stubbornly wrong.
if you truly have faith, then no amount of scientific evidence will change that,
quote:In my opinion faith is not a virtue.
Originally posted by Nato:
I don't think it makes sense to define "true" faith as a faith in conditions of complete lack of evidence. Or if you must define it like that, then "faith" is certainly no virtue.
quote:If no amount of scientific evidence changed one's belief that the world was flat, we could simply conclude that he was stubbornly wrong.
if you truly have faith, then no amount of scientific evidence will change that,
quote:So it's evidence if it's said by an authority you trust (in this case multiple equally educated people) but it's not evidence if it's said by an authority you don't trust (a bunch of guys arguing over a dead cow.)
Here's how evidence works to me. When multiple equally educated people can look at something and come to the same conclusion, that's evidence. When a bunch of guys argue over a dead cow and decide to punish the guy they don't like and steal his girlfriend, that's made up B.S. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.
quote:It would only be evidence if it were actually true. But you clearly made it up and don't believe it, which negates its validity as an example.
Re: proof of God. See my post above to BlackBlade. That's evidence of God's plan too, right? I mean, it's written down, and it's subjectively true. So I guess that's evidence that God wants us to take off our shirts and take long baths.
quote:How can you be sure that anything is actually true (while talking about religion)? If you just choose what you believe to be true and what not, then MightyCow is equally entitled to believe “his version” as you are not to believe it. In the end it all comes down to CHOICE, IMO.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
It would only be evidence if it were actually true.
quote:MightyCow, that is my experience almost to the letter.
I gave religion my best try for many years, and it never convinced me of anything. I asked God in the name of Christ to enlighten me, to accept my soul and guide me, to show me the truth, to help me believe... all that stuff. I was as sincere and hopeful and willing as I could possibly have been. I got nothing.
quote:I resoundly disagree with you.
If you try out the gospel, and ask God to verify the truthfulness of it all, he will. If you are still unconvinced by the experience then you can resoundly disagree with me.
For the record, neither Moroni's promise, nor James give any qualification of having to put into practice the Gospel before receiving enlightenment. Moroni is simply "Read, Ponder, and Pray", and James is even less than that. quote:The jury's still out on this one for me. I think that it's very hard to demonstrate that a specific harm is caused by the psychological, emotional, and/or intellectual pressures from within a specific community, but that does not mean the connection does not exist. You may argue that "the community" is not "the doctrine", but the community is a direct result of the interaction of the doctrine and human beings. To me that makes them essentially the same thing. ("By their fruits" and all that.) My experience with Mormonism very nearly destroyed me, I am slowly watching my mother self-destruct, primarily because of her deeply Mormon-influenced philosophy. On the other hand, I like who I am now and I wouldn't be "me" if I hadn't had that experience. My mom, well, I frankly think she'd have been better off atheist, or Lutheran, or something.
There is nothing within mormonism that is going to harm you.
quote:I've considered that option. To me, though, it pretty much makes Moroni's and James's promises loop-holey enough to be essentially worthless.
e) He expects you to continue trying your best to live a moral life and when HE thinks you are ready he will reveal himself to you in the way that would benefit you the most?
quote:I don't believe either of those is true, as well. But I'm an atheist. Go figure.
Were this life the only time we had, and were God to send people who are ignorant of his plan to hell I would think you are perfectly justified in refusing to worship him. Fortunately neither are true.
quote:First, there is a huge middle ground between "Leave them with no reliable guidance" and "Force them to always do what is right". I think most atheists/agnostics would be fine with a "Heavenly Father" who did even one tenth of what society demands of all but the most mentally incapable of Earthly fathers. In our society, fathers who act like your God acts are called "deadbeat" and "absentee", neither of which labels is a positive attribute. In short, I do not buy the all/nothing dichotomy you argue here. It's a nice justification, I guess, which allows you to maintain your philosophy in the face of the way thing are, but it reads like just a more elaborate form of "God works in mysterious ways" to me.
Were he to force his knowledge on every human being we would resent him for not at least letting us choose. Certainly it would be stupid if God allowed only good actions to occur while interupting anything bad we might want to do, how could we grow in any regard if everytime we were going to make mistake we were stopped before the results manifested themselves to us?
quote:Yeah, I'm constantly having to reevaluate whether the things I believe and do are doctrinal or cultural. It's possible to try to follow the doctrine without being overwhelmed by the cultural aspects, but it requires some effort.
You may argue that "the community" is not "the doctrine", but the community is a direct result of the interaction of the doctrine and human beings.
quote:You can't, for most things. What I mean is that I don't believe it is true, so I don't believe it is evidence. I believe it is true that the Bible exists, therefore it can qualify as evidence for me.
How can you be sure that anything is actually true (while talking about religion)?
quote:I don't think beliefs are a matter of choice. I can't choose to believe the sky is green when I see for myself that it is blue. I can say the sky is green, but I can't actually believe it unless I actually observe and think it is true!
If you just choose what you believe to be true and what not, then MightyCow is equally entitled to believe “his version” as you are not to believe it. In the end it all comes down to CHOICE, IMO.
quote:Well, that's not quite what I was getting at. I was more saying that the culture wouldn't be what it is except for the doctrine it embraces. I do not believe that the truthfulness of a doctrine can necessarily be judged by it's imperfect implementation by imperfect humans. However, in a case where God supposedly made the humans and supposedly made the doctrine, He has to take at least some of the blame if the result of putting the two together is something sub-optimal. This, IMO, is especially true when a doctrinally bound group is the majority (either through sheer numbers or relative isolation).
Yeah, I'm constantly having to reevaluate whether the things I believe and do are doctrinal or cultural. It's possible to try to follow the doctrine without being overwhelmed by the cultural aspects, but it requires some effort.
quote:Do you realize that what you said here is equal to saying "It is only true if it is actually true"? In other words, you're speaking in circles. The same old argument that the Bible is true because it says it is true, and you can trust the Bible because it says it is true. I guess I should have written in my enlightened vision that it was true.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
[QUOTE]It would only be evidence if it were actually true. But you clearly made it up and don't believe it, which negates its validity as an example.
quote:Christian newcomers are asked to go to church, to eat bread and drink wine which are literally the flesh and blood of a man who lived 2,000 years ago, who was also God. They are asked to be immersed in or splashed with water. They are asked to begin to follow all sorts of rules and regulations, depending on which faith they choose.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Mighty Cow: I should be able to try those things and begin to see the value of them. You are being alittle disengenuous about what Christianity asks the newcomer to do. There are not any strange ceremonies, just a request to become aquainted with the docterine and to try communicating with God.
quote:Alma is speaking to the "members of the church" so to speak. Moroni is speaking to future readers of the BoM specifically. I didn't pull "read, ponder, and pray" out of my hindquarters. Thousands of LDS missionaries worldwide use that mantra in dozens of languages. I've heard it from any number of Mormon pulpits. "Moroni's Promise" is not (supposedly) contingent upon implementing the gospel in one's life and waiting 20 or 30 years. If it is someone ought to notify Provo so they can update the missionary training materials.
Karl Ed: Moroni does not say "Read, Ponder, and Pray" he says "Receive these things, and pray." Alma very literally espouses studying and action, with the absolutely positive results of the experiment being the beginnings of proof, which should give you confidence to ask God.
quote:All of the Mormons I know, personally are good people, as far as I can tell. Then again, most of the non-Mormons, Jews, Buddhist, Atheists, Agnostics, and Wiccans I know are good people. My mother is a good person, too. If she were less so, she'd probably have a less difficult time of reconciling her understanding of her religion with her life experience. I think I'm basically a good person. I attribute quite a lot of that to my upbrining which was highly influenced by Mormonism. The fact that I am still around to be a good person I attribute to being honest enough with myself to leave. Please don't take this as a slap against Mormons. It isn't. It is simply my experience, honestly related. There are any number of people, many on this forum, whose experiences are different. I simply submit that Mormonism (as implemented in the world) isn't for everyone, and can actually be harmful to some.
I certainly agree that the docterine ought to make for good people. I do not know what Mormons you know, but most of the ones I know are good people, some of the best I have seen.
quote:You're misstating the arguement. You submitted as an alternative possibility to receiving no answer in response to an honest and sincere seeking of divine guidance the possiblity that "He expects you to continue trying your best to live a moral life and when HE thinks you are ready he will reveal himself to you in the way that would benefit you the most?" Both James and Moroni promise a witness in response to prayer, albeit faithful and sincere prayer. But the promise is to reward sincerity, not persistence (or gullibility). Neither of them say "take all these things and live a good life and at some unspecified time perhaps years down the road you'll get a witness". If that is what they meant, then well, something definitely got lost in the translation.
My statement that one should continue to live their life as best they can and they will find God when THEY are ready, does not make Moroni or James worthless.
quote:Again, you're playing fast and loose with your restatement of my arguements. I'd pretty much be happy if he would just give all honest seekers the same answer. Clearly he doesn't. To believe otherwise is to believe the majority of humanity is insincere, or unworthy of coherent direction. My 10% wasn't 10% of what people expect of God, it was 10% of what people expect of fathers for them to even qualify for the title in a non-biological sense. What kind of "father" is it who leaves his children in a room alone with dozens of different notes providing conflicting instruction and no sure way to tell which one is from Him? The words to describe this kind of action do not also describe any kind of "father" anyone would be happy to have. 10 percent, to me, would at the very least be to leave a number and a phone and actually be there to answer it for everyone. You will say God did this. Here is the number and phone (prayer). Well, I called that number and got dead air. I didn't even get his answering machine. I got this consistently a thousand times.
You have said you would be happy if God would do 10% of what people expect of him. 1: You cannot see to the full extent what God DOES do. 2: What exactly would constitute 10% for you?
quote:As Missionaries, in my mission, prospective members were discouraged from partaking of the sacrament (i.e. communion, i.e. bread and water, etc.) after explaining to them what it represented, specifically a renewal of convenants they had not yet made. I guess YMMV.
OR discouraged from partaking in communion).
quote:What proof do you have of this? Assuming that you believe Mormonism is the "right way," there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I KNOW God is capable of convincing anybody sufficiently that his way is the right way.
quote:This is a tough thing for many people to accept. I was a practicing Christian for at least 10 years, then a doubtful but sincerely searching Christian for about 10 more. During that time, during thousands of prayers, hundreds of church visits and sermons, I never felt convinced that God was real to me.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I KNOW God is capable of convincing anybody sufficiently that his way is the right way. It remains for the individual to allow him that window of opportunity.
quote:brings me very close to my next question (for you all):
Originally posted by MightyCow:
It sounds to me that according to your method of reasoning, all religions are equally true. People don't seem to have any ability to determine truth objectively, only blindly follow which faith they were born into.
quote:Probably not. This makes me very grateful that I was born where and when I was.
Do you (really) think that you would have come to the same conclusions about religion as you hold now (i.e. the one in particular that you subscribe to, or atheism/agnosticism or something else) if you had been born in another place on Earth (in a society following another religion as a majority)?
quote:Probably not. But then again I doubt that I would have come to the same conclusions (or be the same person) if I had lived any life that differed significantly from my own.
Do you (really) think that you would have come to the same conclusions about religion as you hold now (i.e. the one in particular that you subscribe to, or atheism/agnosticism or something else) if you had been born in another place on Earth (in a society following another religion as a majority)?
quote:Except insofar as it is to make apologies on his behalf. (
I am loathe to speak for God.
)quote:Well wouldn't that be a silly thing for an atheist to do? I'm more pointing to the incredible preponderance of religions and creeds as evidence that God either doesn't exist; is happy with letting people do their own thing; loves chaos; or is a singularly poor entity for arranging circumstances to ensure that the sincere find and follow him. (Of course, I'm an optimist when it comes to assumptions of sincerity. YMMV).
Are you blaming God for all the religions that exist in the world? For all the evil that exists?
quote:This is the most pernicious tautology of this type of discussion. "You have to be faithful. You didn't get an answer, ergo you weren't faithful enough." Or more precisely, "You have to allow God a window of opportunity. No, not that window. He clearly didn't mean that one or you would have gotten an answer."
It remains for the individual to allow him that window of opportunity.
I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but LORD! that lands on my ears with such arrogance. quote:What knowledge are you presuming I am devaluing?
just don't make the mistake of devaluing that knowledge.
quote:39 and counting*. And in math once you learn that 2+2 doesn't equal 5, you do yourself a disservice holding onto the possiblity that it might, someday.
As I said before, knowing there is a God and his plan for us is the most important thing that could ever be known. It takes 11 years of schooling to learn calculus, how long have you tried to learn about the existance of God?
quote:Unfortunately, from a standpoint of someone looking for the one, true faith, I'm sure most religious people feel the same way. Thank God I was born into the TRUE faith, not like all those other poor schmucks who are even now being lead astray.
Originally posted by katharina:
Probably not. This makes me very grateful that I was born where and when I was.
quote:Not really. The long answer is too long for me right now, and probably would just derail this thread again. (Though I believe there is some relevant stuff in my Landmark).
KarlEd, from what you said in your last posts I deduce that:
1) You needed at some point the “support of religion” but have been somehow let down
2) You are now happier without the same need of that specific “support”
Is that a correct “summary”?
quote:I would not be who I am now had I lived in a different circumstance within the culture I know now, much less so in a completely foreign (to me now) culture. To me the question is the same as asking "would you be the same if you were different?" The only way to answer your question in the affirmative is to believe in a "right path" to "God" and that you are special enough for him to speak to you regardless of circumstance. I'm not now, so I have no illlusions that I would be were I born elsewhere.
Do you (really) think that you would have come to the same conclusions about religion as you hold now (i.e. the one in particular that you subscribe to, or atheism/agnosticism or something else) if you had been born in another place on Earth (in a society following another religion as a majority)?
quote:If he said "yes," would you believe him?
Are you sure you were knocking on the right address Might Cow?
quote:Saying he was knocking on the right address would be a statement of disbelief concerning my own religion
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If he said "yes," would you believe him?
Are you sure you were knocking on the right address Might Cow?
quote:I suspect you either missed, or misunderstood, the last part of my post at the end of page 8. As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in God's court, but I'm not holding my breath.
If you have come to the conclusion that God does not exist thats fine, just bear the idea in the previous paragraph in mind.
(Both by MightyCow and BlackBlade) [side joke: Isn't it a wonderful "coincidence" that all those houses are on the same street? ] quote:I wouldn't hold your breath, but the occasional glance towards the other side of the court could prove profitable one day
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I suspect you either missed, or misunderstood, the last part of my post at the end of page 8. As far as I'm concerned, the ball is in God's court, but I'm not holding my breath.
If you have come to the conclusion that God does not exist thats fine, just bear the idea in the previous paragraph in mind.
quote:About the part in boldface, you are right, it really sounds like an oxymoron.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I would not be who I am now had I lived in a different circumstance within the culture I know now, much less so in a completely foreign (to me now) culture. To me the question is the same as asking "would you be the same if you were different?" The only way to answer your question in the affirmative is to believe in a "right path" to "God" and that you are special enough for him to speak to you regardless of circumstance. I'm not now, so I have no illlusions that I would be were I born elsewhere.
Do you (really) think that you would have come to the same conclusions about religion as you hold now (i.e. the one in particular that you subscribe to, or atheism/agnosticism or something else) if you had been born in another place on Earth (in a society following another religion as a majority)?
[emphasis added]
Sorry. My intention was to give the opportunity to the people reading my question to think if they are “truly themselves” or simply the product of their environment. And I’m not trying to imply neither that the former is actually “possible” or that the latter is somewhat “bad”. (Not even that there are only those two “options” ). But if we acknowledge the degree we are influenced by our environment it might help us “place ourselves” in the “great picture”. And I also think that everyone should eventually be allowed to place themselves where they want on the … landscape. quote:I've always been kind of a fan of the old booming voice from the sky, "This is God. Yes, I'm real. Ignore all that other crap, here's the rules.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think we can all agree that it'd be great for God, when He drops by the court, to hang around for a while so that even those people who've gotten tired of waiting for Him might notice He finally showed up.
quote:I’m sure there are people saying: “No, you see, <insert deity name here> is right there, throwing the ball in your face most of the times, you are just ignoring it …”
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think we can all agree that it'd be great for God, when He drops by the court, to hang around for a while so that even those people who've gotten tired of waiting for Him might notice He finally showed up.
quote:Not in Mormon doctrine, generally speaking.
Originally posted by Javert:
Just want to repost my question:
Here's a question that has always bothered me:
If God exists, and you don't believe in God (or the true God) but nonetheless live a good/moral/otherwise-not-evil life, does not believing in God trump that and send you to Hell or otherwise get you punished?
quote:No, what I said is that it is only evidence if it is true - meaning if you believe it is true. You can't just make up a fictional encounter with God that you don't believe and then claim it is evidence for a given religious belief.
Do you realize that what you said here is equal to saying "It is only true if it is actually true"?
quote:No. All religions that I know of do have evidence to support them, as does atheism, but that doesn't mean all evidence is equally weighted. That is where human judgement comes into play. People must judge which conclusion all the evidence seems to point to.
It sounds to me that according to your method of reasoning, all religions are equally true. People don't seem to have any ability to determine truth objectively, only blindly follow which faith they were born into.
quote:Well, God did the first part (in person) and decided that if we were going to be grown up we would fix the rest of it ourselves. And we might have managed it, too, if we paid attention to the first part.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
]I've always been kind of a fan of the old booming voice from the sky, "This is God. Yes, I'm real. Ignore all that other crap, here's the rules.
Be nice to everyone.
Stop killing each other, I don't care what reasons you think you have, just stop.
Try to eat a little more dessert.
Oh, and I took care of the famine, disease, and poverty stuff. And check your driveway, you all have a new car.
OK, that's it for now. See you next week."
quote:Nor in Catholic doctrine (contrary to popular belief).
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Not in Mormon doctrine, generally speaking.
Originally posted by Javert:
Just want to repost my question:
Here's a question that has always bothered me:
If God exists, and you don't believe in God (or the true God) but nonetheless live a good/moral/otherwise-not-evil life, does not believing in God trump that and send you to Hell or otherwise get you punished?
quote:I'm sure you realize why this (the first part) is not what MC is talking about. There's a huge difference between a booming voice from God heard by all contemporary human beings, and highly suspect ancient stories of booming voices.
Well, God did the first part (in person) and decided that if we were going to be grown up we would fix the rest of it ourselves. And we might have managed it, too, if we paid attention to the first part.
quote:You probably understand it correctly - as it was originally intended. Since then, however, we've "loosened it up" rather considerably to mean something like "God has given grace to the church; that same grace makes it possible for all people to be saved as GOd knows what is in their hearts, so, whether formal or not, there is a relationship to the church."
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
kmbboots: I suppose I misunderstand the meaning of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"
Could you explain this to me? Or are you merely speaking of purgatory/limbo as opposed to straight up hell?
quote:Sure. A big, booming voice from God is coersive in a way that stories about God becoming man and saying all those things isn't.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I'm sure you realize why this (the first part) is not what MC is talking about. There's a huge difference between a booming voice from God heard by all contemporary human beings, and highly suspect ancient stories of booming voices.
Well, God did the first part (in person) and decided that if we were going to be grown up we would fix the rest of it ourselves. And we might have managed it, too, if we paid attention to the first part.
quote:Hey, it was good for those guys way back then. Why not us now?
Sure. A big, booming voice from God is coersive in a way that stories about God becoming man and saying all those things isn't.
quote:Which, to me, is another arguement in favor of a less inconspicuous God.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Given enough time I am convinced that any booming voice from heaven would eventually become "highly suspect ancient stories of booming voices."
quote:Therein lies the disconnect in our discussion. You think that is a good illustration because you think that your religious beliefs are as evident as the moon landing and that those of us who don't believe are just refusing to see in the face of such strong evidence. I, for my part, do not believe that there is any evidence for Christianity anywhere near the same vein as the evidence for the moon landing, so I must reject that as an appropriate metaphor.
I was amazed when I found out that some people already do not believe we landed on the moon and that it was all done in a hollywood studio we actually WATCHED that with our eyes and we have people bearing witness that they actually did it.
For me it was a very good modern illustration for why merely seeing God or hearing his voice would not be enough for everyone, as much as they think it would.
quote:You are (once again - didn't we just do this already?) confusing me with a biblical literalist.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Indeed; how come your god doesn't object to coerciveness against, say, Sodom and Gomorrah? "Behave or I blow you up" is pretty coercive, in my opinion.
quote:I never said that my religion is as evident RIGHT now as the moon landing, though I would argue that when God communicates to the individual it can be stronger then all 5 senses combined.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Which, to me, is another arguement in favor of a less inconspicuous God.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Given enough time I am convinced that any booming voice from heaven would eventually become "highly suspect ancient stories of booming voices."
quote:Therein lies the disconnect in our discussion. You think that is a good illustration because you think that your religious beliefs are as evident as the moon landing and that those of us who don't believe are just refusing to see in the face of such strong evidence. I, for my part, do not believe that there is any evidence for Christianity anywhere near the same vein as the evidence for the moon landing, so I must reject that as an appropriate metaphor.
I was amazed when I found out that some people already do not believe we landed on the moon and that it was all done in a hollywood studio we actually WATCHED that with our eyes and we have people bearing witness that they actually did it.
For me it was a very good modern illustration for why merely seeing God or hearing his voice would not be enough for everyone, as much as they think it would.
quote:Well, if you aren't going to accept the Bible as proof of X, then why the devil is it proof of Y? You can't have it both ways; either the old stories are a reliable guide to what really happened, or they ain't. Can you please say which it is, one way or the other?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:You are (once again - didn't we just do this already?) confusing me with a biblical literalist.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[qb] Indeed; how come your god doesn't object to coerciveness against, say, Sodom and Gomorrah? "Behave or I blow you up" is pretty coercive, in my opinion.
quote:In some cases, yes. In others, he damn well blows up cities.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And even in the stories, God usually appeared to one person at a time, yes? He told only Abraham what he was going to do.
quote:Which is an excellent reason for God to drop by more often.
I was only arguing that were God to accept your invitation and to simply show up one day leave some instructions, edify everybody, and then leave, even if we had it on video, tape, God left some hair for DNA purposes, given enough time, even that story would become a popular story, then then a legend, then a folk tale, and then a myth.
quote:If you are refering to S&G. According to the story, God told Abraham what he was going to do. There was no booming voice that everyone could hear. I imagine the folks getting blown up could only speculate on the reason. Maybe the resident loony preacher blamed it on the gays. Perhaps they attributed it to natural causes? (Perhaps they were right!)
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well, if you aren't going to accept the Bible as proof of X, then why the devil is it proof of Y? You can't have it both ways; either the old stories are a reliable guide to what really happened, or they ain't. Can you please say which it is, one way or the other?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:You are (once again - didn't we just do this already?) confusing me with a biblical literalist.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[qb] Indeed; how come your god doesn't object to coerciveness against, say, Sodom and Gomorrah? "Behave or I blow you up" is pretty coercive, in my opinion.
of course not. As I have told you (really - don't you read my posts?) The Bible is not one entity. It is a group of writings. Written over a long period of time. By a bunch of different peopel. History, fable, letters, poetry. All gathered together. Some of it should be taken literally; some of it shouldn't.
quote:In some cases, yes. In others, he damn well blows up cities.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
And even in the stories, God usually appeared to one person at a time, yes? He told only Abraham what he was going to do.
quote:If there is one True God with a True Faith, particularly if there are benefits to belonging to the faith, and if a person's salvation depends on being a member, I think it only makes sense for God to make an effort to make it clear to everyone.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
MightyCow: Do you think its a neccesity that God makes sure everyone belongs to his religion within each individuals life time?
quote:Ok that being said, what makes you think that if there was a God that it is neccesary that we all join his club in this life? When it comes to eternal beings and their creations isnt it entirely possible he has a plan that involves more than the mere lifetime we have?
Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:If there is one True God with a True Faith, particularly if there are benefits to belonging to the faith, and if a person's salvation depends on being a member, I think it only makes sense for God to make an effort to make it clear to everyone.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
MightyCow: Do you think its a neccesity that God makes sure everyone belongs to his religion within each individuals life time?
As I see it, fast food chains put more time and effort into convincing me that their food will make me happy, popular, and sexy, than God does in trying to convince me that I'm missing out on the most valuable and worthwhile knowledge around.
quote:This is off topic, but if you watch the tape of the landing, enough evidence points to a forgery. I'll post a link here .
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Given enough time I am convinced that any booming voice from heaven would eventually become "highly suspect ancient stories of booming voices."
I was amazed when I found out that some people already do not believe we landed on the moon and that it was all done in a hollywood studio we actually WATCHED that with our eyes and we have people bearing witness that they actually did it.
For me it was a very good modern illustration for why merely seeing God or hearing his voice would not be enough for everyone, as much as they think it would.
quote:The fact is that if God is God, he could simply make us believe in him by flipping a switch in our minds. No proof needed, just change the logical bit to "true."
I was only arguing that were God to accept your invitation and to simply show up one day leave some instructions, edify everybody, and then leave, even if we had it on video, tape, God left some hair for DNA purposes, given enough time, even that story would become a popular story, then then a legend, then a folk tale, and then a myth.Which is an excellent reason for God to drop by more often.
quote:Or in life at all? Who says that we have to make that choice before we die?
Ok that being said, what makes you think that if there was a God that it is neccesary that we all join his club in this life? When it comes to eternal beings and their creations isnt it entirely possible he has a plan that involves more than the mere lifetime we have?
quote:And that isn't coersive!? How horrid!
The fact is that if God is God, he could simply make us believe in him by flipping a switch in our minds. No proof needed, just change the logical bit to "true."
quote:Ok, but in that case, how can any of it count as evidence for anything? Let me remind you of the context : We were discussing what the evidence for the existence of gods is. The Bible is basically it. So, if you're going to say that parts of that aren't evidence on the grounds that they don't feel right, then we're back to having no evidence at all! Because what we've got then is your internal feeling of which parts of it 'count' and which do not; and that just takes us back to the original 'personal belief'. That ain't evidence of nuffink.
of course not. As I have told you (really - don't you read my posts?) The Bible is not one entity. It is a group of writings. Written over a long period of time. By a bunch of different peopel. History, fable, letters, poetry. All gathered together. Some of it should be taken literally; some of it shouldn't.
quote:And threats of eternal hellfire are quite OK? (Not necessarily in your watered-down version, I know, but plenty of people believe it.)
And that isn't coersive!? How horrid!
quote:There isn't one. Not a single drawback. Period.
Humor me and TRY to come up with at least one honest draw back for a God that actively makes his presence known on a regular basis to people he is trying to make better.
quote:I hate to ruin a good conspiracy theory, but Flaming Toad, you might want to read this site.
This is off topic, but if you watch the tape of the landing, enough evidence points to a forgery. I'll post a link here .
quote:Not at all. If you read my post I said that I offered my mind to be changed. If there is a God, I'd be happy to believe in it. If I make an offer to God (call it a form of prayer) to allow him to change my state of belief as a form of proof, that's not God coercing me, it's him providing the proof that I've asked for.
And that isn't coersive!? How horrid!
quote:This makes me think of an interesting scenario:
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Not at all. If you read my post I said that I offered my mind to be changed. If there is a God, I'd be happy to believe in it. If I make an offer to God (call it a form of prayer) to allow him to change my state of belief as a form of proof, that's not God coercing me, it's him providing the proof that I've asked for.
And that isn't coersive!? How horrid!
Unfortunately, he has not provided said proof.
quote:That isn't true. As I mentioned earlier, there are many sorts of evidence for God. One of the most important is experiences of God, by you or by other people. If someone tells me they have seen, heard, or experienced something then that is definitely evidence that that thing happened - although not absolute proof. There is also the nature of the world, itself, which lacks explaining. While science has offered feasible explanations for the evolution of the physical organisms within the universe, it has largely failed to offer complete explanations for its nonphysical components, such as human experience and meaning in general. Once again, not absolute proof of anything, and certainly not proof of Christianity above other religions, but a piece of the puzzle nonetheless. Thirdly, there is the spread of Christian, Islamic, and Jewish belief systems. The western world been largely united under belief in essentially the same God for hundreds of years. Pretty much only Buddhism is comparable. And fourthly, and most importantly for many people, there is the effectiveness of Christianity as a way of living. Christian values are shared even by atheists in our society, and they are in a significant part responsible for our being a much more ethical culture than those in the past.
We were discussing what the evidence for the existence of gods is. The Bible is basically it.
quote:There would be no freedom of religion, for one thing - there are mroe than enough fanatics even with the little proof we have. In fact, I suspect there would be virtually no freedom in general.
quote:There isn't one. Not a single drawback. Period.
Humor me and TRY to come up with at least one honest draw back for a God that actively makes his presence known on a regular basis to people he is trying to make better.
Any claims of potential drawbacks are sour grapes from people who are struggling to reconcile the invisibility and inaccessibility of a fictional God with their own belief in His omnipresent benevolence.
quote:Seems to me that Positive values are shared by even Christians. Unless you want to claim that nobody was good before Christianity came along.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
Christian values are shared even by atheists in our society, and they are in a significant part responsible for our being a much more ethical culture than those in the past.
quote:Why would anyone need freedom of religion, if everyone knew the right one? The reason freedom of religion is so important now is that everyone is convinced that all the other religions are false, and wouldn't want to be forced into a false religion.
There would be no freedom of religion, for one thing - there are mroe than enough fanatics even with the little proof we have.
quote:God has already taught us how to behave and respect others, even without being blatant about it.
Like the difference between a child who is a spoiled brat delinquent, and a child who has been taught to behave and respect others by parental discipline and teaching. Maybe the child who has free reign thinks it's great to do whatever he wants, but the child who is being taught good manners and behavior is better off in the long run, and is better able to function in society.
quote:I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe. But hey, I don't put too much stock in my own guesses regarding peoples motives.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:There isn't one. Not a single drawback. Period.
Humor me and TRY to come up with at least one honest draw back for a God that actively makes his presence known on a regular basis to people he is trying to make better.
Any claims of potential drawbacks are sour grapes from people who are struggling to reconcile the invisibility and inaccessibility of a fictional God with their own belief in His omnipresent benevolence.
quote:I found these arguements very compelling and quite interesting to read. I agree that a God that loves perfectly would want all his children to obtain the benefits of his wisdom and his presence. I know not the reason why God seems to have put so much of the responsibility of spreading his word on human shoulders. All I know is that, I suppose I could guess that it is because it helps cultivate selflessness if people share the good they have found with others. Indeed it is taught within my church, "It becomes everyone that has been warned to warn their neighbor." I am sure you remember these words from another book, "Doth a man light a candle and put it under a bushel? Nay but on a candle stick and it giveth light unto all that are in the house."
If there is an all powerful and supremely good God, then it makes sense that life knowing this God, and basking in his glory, both in this temporal world and in any possible future existence, would be infinitely better than life without the complete goodness and love of such a being. If that is the case, I would think that this God would want everyone to experience that.
Because everyone does not experience this supreme love and union with God, something is obviously wrong with the picture. Either God is not all powerful, or is not all loving, or does not want what is best for all people, or does not exist as described.
quote:You're probably right. On the other hand, were I to receive a direct and satisfactory answer from God, I'd almost certainly accept it.
I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe.
quote:Fair enough
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You're probably right. On the other hand, were I to receive a direct and satisfactory answer from God, I'd almost certainly accept it.
I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe.
quote:Nowhere. But if she'd had a better grasp of what her religion actually says, she wouldn't have been dating outside it.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I briefly dated a Jewish girl and after discussing the nature of the soul I found out she did not believe I had one. Now I don't know where in their scriptures it says that non believers do not possess souls, but that is what she firmly believed . . .
quote:I would probably think I was having delusions.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You're probably right. On the other hand, were I to receive a direct and satisfactory answer from God, I'd almost certainly accept it.
I am convinced Tom that were I to get a direct answer from God that perfectly explains his apparent lack of empathy for the human race, it would either not convince you, or with that question answered you would simply come up with another reason to not believe.
quote:Evidently the God you describe is not all powerful as he is "unable" to communicate in such a way as to be reasonably believed.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How exactly (Ebeneezer) would you recognize the differene between direct communication from God and psychosis? That's why it isn't a matter of "evidence".
quote:I will fight to the death for your right to express your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Rivka,
Her religion and yours may have a lot in common, but her religion is not yours, and hers allows her to date whomever she thinks it allows her to date.
quote:The limitation is in our senses, not in God.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Evidently the God you describe is not all powerful as he is "unable" to communicate in such a way as to be reasonably believed.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
How exactly (Ebeneezer) would you recognize the differene between direct communication from God and psychosis? That's why it isn't a matter of "evidence".
Just because thousands of people mistake a supernatural occurence, or even more so an event that cannot be explained wrongly as God sent, does not warrant the conclusion that God is inept or unable to communicate with us in such a manner as to remove all reasonable doubt.
quote:I didn't say that I could.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
But you cannot tell her what she believes.
quote:I can think of a dozen ways off-hand that God could demonstrate His existence to my satisfaction within the limitations of my senses.
The limitation is in our senses, not in God.
quote:Inconsistent.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do not know enough about Judaism to say what she was exactly.
quote:how so?
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Inconsistent.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do not know enough about Judaism to say what she was exactly.
quote:You did imply that you know what her religion says better than she did, didn't you? If so, and you don't think that you know what she believes better than she does, then you must mean you think her religion is something other than what she believes. How is that possible? Only if you think her religion is not determined by what she believes.
I didn't say that I could.
quote:She certainly kept Kosher. She also had a prearranged marriage for when she came of age.
Originally posted by rivka:
Only marrying another Jew is a BIG deal in Judaism -- and not just in Orthodox Judaism either.
The other things you describe (blessings over food, praying three times a day) are consistent with Orthodox or traditional Conservative. (Although you didn't specify whether she kept kosher or Shabbos, which are more significant.)
Dating outside the faith is NOT consistent with either.
quote:But in the meantime, it was ok to date???
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
She certainly kept Kosher. She also had a prearranged marriage for when she came of age.
quote:oh I'd like to think that rebellion wasn't the only reason she decided to date me
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:But in the meantime, it was ok to date???
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
She certainly kept Kosher. She also had a prearranged marriage for when she came of age.
I take it back. She wasn't inconsistent. She was young and confused. And possibly rebelling.
quote:This seems to me to be a testable assertion. What would you say if MC dies without hearing from your god, having made a good-faith effort to listen?
Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
quote:Oops?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:This seems to me to be a testable assertion. What would you say if MC dies without hearing from your god, having made a good-faith effort to listen?
Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
quote:I'm not sliding out of anything.
Originally posted by King of Men:
No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
quote:I would argue that this is untrue. God has not taught us how to behave. Various religious doctrines have all claimed to have God's teachings, while often teaching very different and inconsistent ways to behave and respect others.
Originally posted by Tresopax:
God has already taught us how to behave and respect others, even without being blatant about it.
quote:Or she knew exactly what she was doing and did it because she thought it was best, given her religious beliefs.
She was young and confused. And possibly rebelling.
quote:I'm not sure it is possible to clearly state how we should act, without stepping in to individual tell us what to do in every situation we face. Right and wrong are far too complicated.
I'm not advocating God leading people around by the hand, but I do believe that if a God exists, and cares about our beliefs and actions, and has the power to do so, such a God should make clear how we should act, not by dropping off a bunch of writings thousands of years ago, but by actively participating in the lives of people.
quote:Do you keep an open mind about the possibility of God's nonexistence?
If there is no God you still gain from cultivating an open mind to ideas you are not used to.
quote:I think you are. You began by suggesting that MC would receive a proof of your god's existence. I pointed out that this was testable in principle, and instantly you backpedaled into 'well, an open mind is good for you anyway'. So, again. If MC dies without receiving this revelation that you are so confident of, providing of course that he's made a good-faith effort, what would that say about your faith?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I'm not sliding out of anything.
Originally posted by King of Men:
No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
quote:I never once backed down in my suggestion that MC could receive an answer from God. You are trying to steer me into making an affirmative statement as to WHEN that would occur. I am not going to try to speak for God, and suggest how he does things. Nor will I suggest that the way he answered my querie is the formula by which all will receive His affirmation. I CANNOT argue persuasively that a man/woman will receive an answer today, tomorrow, in a week, in a month, in a year, in a decade, in a lifetime an answer from God. All I have is God's promise that the answer will come. In my case it took 19 years, but to be more accurate several weeks of conssertive study and contemplation.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I think you are. You began by suggesting that MC would receive a proof of your god's existence. I pointed out that this was testable in principle, and instantly you backpedaled into 'well, an open mind is good for you anyway'. So, again. If MC dies without receiving this revelation that you are so confident of, providing of course that he's made a good-faith effort, what would that say about your faith?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I'm not sliding out of anything.
Originally posted by King of Men:
No, seriously. Would that not be evidence against your faith? Are you really going to just slide out with a weak joke?
quote:No? Then what are these?
I am not going to try to speak for God, and suggest how he does things.
quote:
Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.
quote:
"And when she shall receive these things I would exhort you that you would ask God the eternal father in the name of Christ if things are not true....he will manifest the truthfulness of these things unto you by the power of the holy ghost"
quote:
Karl Ed: Moroni does not say "Read, Ponder, and Pray" he says "Receive these things, and pray." Alma very literally espouses studying and action, with the absolutely positive results of the experiment being the beginnings of proof, which should give you confidence to ask God.
quote:
I KNOW God is capable of convincing anybody sufficiently that his way is the right way. It remains for the individual to allow him that window of opportunity.
quote:But you have plainly backed away from stating that it would be before his death. And if it's going to be in some sort of afterlife, then there won't be any need for prayer, will there? Obviously, if an afterlife exists, then there will be empirical evidence of a god. Further, as I understand your doctrine, someone who does not accept your god before their death is given a lesser glory, yes? So is MC condemned to the lesser glory, having made a good faith effort all through his life, merely becaue your god does not feel like giving him a sign? Not very nice, is it?
I never once backed down in my suggestion that MC could receive an answer from God.
quote:I'm not at all sure this is exactly true. I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that no man can serve two masters. At some point you have to make a decision about what you believe, and start acting on those beliefs. Every ounce of effort you spend "keeping an open mind" about a potential falsehood is an ounce of effort stolen from searching for the truth. If you're out of gas on a lonely country road and you knock loud and long at the first farmhouse and no one comes to the door, at some point you become a fool for not moving on to the next one. Sure, one more knock might wake someone at that house, but it's just as likely that house is empty.
We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing, as well as understanding why our experiences were thus.
): Do you believe in "afterlife"? quote:I think this concept came about naturally as a by-product of the grief of losing loved ones.
I think this concept was introduced as a means of control by those that “brought” religion in society.
quote:If we think of this universe as a 4 dimensional object, (or more), it's entirely possible that it is an eternal entity of some sort. It's possible that this moment (and all moments in our timestream) exist simultaneously from this outside perspective and that we are - each one of us - eternal, existing as threads within this entity. I find this idea comforting, even if it does imply an eventual end to my own experience of traveling along my own 4 dimensional thread.
I am sure that this “life” is not all there is to existence, and that even if my consciousness as I know it will cease at the moment of my death, there is something more, very possibly in a form that I cannot even imagine right now. I am sure I am part of something bigger, that I fail to see using my present senses.
quote:How old were you?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I briefly dated a Jewish girl
quote:You've got the docterine almost down KOM. Even within the quotes you have listed you do not see me stating WHEN it will all happen. I never once said it must happen before death, so consequentially I cannot back down from a position I never made. I CAN say that I am confident that a person will get an answer well within his lifetime, but I cannot say it MUST happen in that time period.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Yes, I would.
quote:No? Then what are these?
I am not going to try to speak for God, and suggest how he does things.
quote:
Keep your eyes open MC. I am confident that if you do, you will not be dispointed forever.quote:
"And when she shall receive these things I would exhort you that you would ask God the eternal father in the name of Christ if things are not true....he will manifest the truthfulness of these things unto you by the power of the holy ghost"quote:
Karl Ed: Moroni does not say "Read, Ponder, and Pray" he says "Receive these things, and pray." Alma very literally espouses studying and action, with the absolutely positive results of the experiment being the beginnings of proof, which should give you confidence to ask God.quote:
I KNOW God is capable of convincing anybody sufficiently that his way is the right way. It remains for the individual to allow him that window of opportunity.quote:But you have plainly backed away from stating that it would be before his death. And if it's going to be in some sort of afterlife, then there won't be any need for prayer, will there? Obviously, if an afterlife exists, then there will be empirical evidence of a god. Further, as I understand your doctrine, someone who does not accept your god before their death is given a lesser glory, yes? So is MC condemned to the lesser glory, having made a good faith effort all through his life, merely becaue your god does not feel like giving him a sign? Not very nice, is it?
I never once backed down in my suggestion that MC could receive an answer from God.
quote:I'll accept confused, except that I'd call it curious. Rebelling is a term that is reserved for use by the authority that is being "rebelled" against. The rebellious person is merely exercising their freedom.
I take it back. She wasn't inconsistent. She was young and confused. And possibly rebelling.
quote:What about hers?
I will fight to the death for your right to express your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
quote:I think it's fairly clear that rivka would also fight for hers. Why would you think otherwise? Neither case requires that rivka agree with the opinions expressed.
What about hers?
quote:You call them loopholes I call them sound ideas. I hope you don't mind my saying but it seems silly to say that you are in fact MORE open minded, and then argue that you have no reason to be.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:I'm not at all sure this is exactly true. I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that no man can serve two masters. At some point you have to make a decision about what you believe, and start acting on those beliefs. Every ounce of effort you spend "keeping an open mind" about a potential falsehood is an ounce of effort stolen from searching for the truth. If you're out of gas on a lonely country road and you knock loud and long at the first farmhouse and no one comes to the door, at some point you become a fool for not moving on to the next one. Sure, one more knock might wake someone at that house, but it's just as likely that house is empty.
We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing, as well as understanding why our experiences were thus.
"You'll get an answer, someday" is a cop-out for those who need to believe that God has given them some sort of Universal Truth. It's the loophole that allows believers to lay all responsibility on the un-believer for his unbelief. "You will get an answer. You have to be sincere. You have to be patient. No, more patient than that. Well maybe you won't get one in this lifetime, but God always answers." Loophole after loophole.
For all the "keep an open mind" that is being preached in this thread, it seems to me that its the non-religious who are most open minded. To a man we've maintained that there are possible ways that God could reveal himself to us. The question above about being open-minded enough to entertain the possiblity that there is no God went ignored. The thing is, MC, Tom, and myself have had the same experience that you have had. We had questions and need of enlightenment from God. We did what we believed necessary to gain that enlightenment. Maybe the insight we gained was that God isn't what most believers say he is, and that all organized religion is false (not to speak for MC or Tom on specifics). How is it less open-minded of us to go forward with our lives, building on that insight, than it is for you to go on with yours clinging to the insight you gained from that experience?
quote:I think the big problem is the arrogant assumption that we aren't already doing that. No one here has said that they are closed minded to the possibility of God revealing himself to us. In fact we have all said that we can think of many ways in which he might, but that it hasn't happened yet. We've expressed disillusionment with the idea that he works the way you seem to think, but that is hardly shutting him out were he to choose to make himself known.
Explain to me what is lost by a person being open to the idea that God might one day reveal himself to him/her? You are not being asked to pray, or to constantly think, "Is God trying to speak to me?." You are being asked to be humble enough that when God does actually speak to you, you are not so prideful as to reject him.
quote:I think this is an overstatement of my arguement. I'll admit I could have been a bit clearer, but was not because I didn't want to argue specifics here out of deference to our host's religion. However, since you press it, I think that banging my head against the door of Mormonism would be a detriment to my happiness. I feel that I did more than was required in Moroni's promise and in James, and got nothing. Mormonism isn't easy, and is even less so for a gay male. I'd feel bad if I thought I left the church simply because of personal inconvenience, though. I left because I found myself in desperate need of some kind of conviction that the pain, sacrifice and inner struggle were worth it, and the God of Mormonism left me bloody-knuckled and practically dead (spiritually) at his doorstep. I did reach that crisis of faith, and in the heat of it, I did feel enlightenment and peace, and that enlightenment and peace were inextricably tied to the idea that all that I had been taught about God was untrue, and that either he did not exist or that if he did, he was just fine with my sexuality and my lack of Mormon faith. Since then I believe I have maintained an open mind, looking for "truth" that I could understand and trust. But I do not feel that I need to knock at the door of Mormonism anymore. I'll refer again to my farmhouse metaphor above. At some point in petitioning succor from a mute and lifeless door one becomes a fool to continue.
You keep arguing that you need not keep an open mind to the existance of a God, and that it is in fact a retardent to a happy existance, and then you argue that you your mind is more open then mine is.
I say it might be a good quality, as it may have played a role in the fact that we haven’t extinguished ourselves yet, and it might be the “force” that will keep us alive a few more eternities …quote:I never once said any of you were not keeping an open mind. I was criticizing your apparent disbelief that it would do any good.
I think the big problem is the arrogant assumption that we aren't already doing that. No one here has said that they are closed minded to the possibility of God revealing himself to us. In fact we have all said that we can think of many ways in which he might, but that it hasn't happened yet. We've expressed disillusionment with the idea that he works the way you seem to think, but that is hardly shutting him out were he to choose to make himself known.
quote:I would not presume to offer excuses on behalf of the creator of the universe. Indeed there are a good number of times where the Lord says, "I excuse not myself." But then again that statement was in regards to the commandments he has established. I can see how the thought that God might out of the blue announce his intentions concerning you might be upsetting seeing as how he apparently did not when you felt you needed him to.
This probably sounds harsh to you. I'm also sure that you have a thousand opinions at your disposal with which you can rationalize my personal experience. The point is, at no time have I told you that you are a fool for believing what you feel was revelation. I do not think that of you. However, can you see, even a little, why "just keep an open mind" might come across as belittling and trite to some of us? As much as you say you don't speak for God, making excuses for him is speaking for him. "He will in His Own Good Time" is making an excuse for him.
quote:I have said that exact thing several times in different words. I am glad we are in agreement that its up to God to explain why he deals with an individual in the manner that he does. Read the story of Job, you might find that God simply saying "I was testing you," after allowing so much catastrophe to occur to him and his family would be inadequate to you. But apparently for Job is was good enough and he went on to live a happy life. Assuming the biblical account of what happened is close to being accurate.
Maybe He will in his own good time, but if he does, he will also have to explain "His" answer of 15 years ago.
quote:I'd have to swallow many more assumptions before I could begin to swallow this one. It's not even in my top 10.
Assuming the biblical account of what happened is close to being accurate.
quote:Perhaps you should dwell more on the implications of your assertions, then. "Keep an open mind" is an admonition to do so. One does not admonish someone to do something without the tacit assumption that they are not already doing that thing.
I never once said any of you were not keeping an open mind.
quote:Or I was simply adjuring you to do so if you were not. If you already were (I dont recall ever asking you if you were) then the advice obviously does not apply.
Perhaps you should dwell more on the implications of your assertions, then. "Keep an open mind" is an admonition to do so. One does not admonish someone to do something without the tacit assumption that they are not already doing that thing. [/QB]
quote:"We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing"
Originally posted by suminonA:
You know, you could be sufficiently ambiguous next time if you use this version:
Keep your mind open!
A.
quote:You seem to imply the logical continuation: “Because we do miss something, I know because I found it already.” So it is not only the words you use, it is also the context that matters. Sometimes it is just too easy to “put words in your mouth” …
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
"We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing"
[changed emphasis]
]quote:I mean “anthropomorphic” as in “human form” as in “a head, two hands, two legs etc”. The other characteristics (intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish etc) are obviously not human (as it is supposed to be a “perfect” being).
Originally posted by KarlEd:
I think I know what you are driving at for "anthropomorphic" but I think it's the wrong word for your question. That word means "suggesting human characteristics for animals or inanimate objects". Are you asking if God has to be recognizeably "human"? Or are you asking "Does God have to have any recognizeably human characteristics?"
quote:]
Originally uttered by: A. Einstein
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
quote:I must confess I did not catch the assumption that there must be something we are missing for that statement to be true.
Originally posted by suminonA:
[QB] BlackBlade, I think you managed to make yourself clear, defining your position, and it is quite OK with me.
I just want to point out that when you say:
quote:You seem to imply the logical continuation: “Because we do miss something, I know because I found it already.” So it is not only the words you use, it is also the context that matters. Sometimes it is just too easy to “put words in your mouth” …
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
"We lose nothing however by keeping our minds open in the hopes of perhaps one day learning what we were missing"
[changed emphasis]
[/irrelevant comment
quote:Again, we're talking at cross purposes here. I deny the existence of a God, so these 10 Commandments and messages from Jesus, no matter how right they seem, are not to me "messages from God."
Originally posted by Tresopax:
God has given us some pretty clear rules, though. There is the ten commandments. More importantly, though, there are some very clear messages sent through the stories we have about Christ. Love God. Love thy neighbor.
quote:OK, I still think that's a misuse (or at the very least imprecise use of the term.
I mean “anthropomorphic” as in “human form” as in “a head, two hands, two legs etc”.
quote:You've lost me again. I'll agree in theory that these traits are not exclusively "human", but they are certainly characteristics that humans possess and therefore are "human characteristics". Or were you saying that because God is supposed to be perfect, His intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish, etc, are beyond human? (If so, that makes sense, but I got that more from guessing due to context than from actually parsing what you wrote.
The other characteristics (intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish etc) are obviously not human (as it is supposed to be a “perfect” being).
)quote:It is precisely so. I’m quite lucky that you are interested enough in this topic so you make additional effort to parse my badly written posts. I am also glad the context helped this time.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
[…]Or were you saying that because God is supposed to be perfect, His intelligence, strength, capacity to love and punish, etc, are beyond human? (If so, that makes sense, but I got that more from guessing due to context than from actually parsing what you wrote.
No way! ]quote:Not that I mind being left out, but I don't really see how your question applies to atheists (or the non-religious). From whence comes this "message" if not in a religious context? I mean, unless you appeal to some outside authority for what exactly the "letter" of the law is (i.e. religion), all there is to do is follow the spirit of it.
[NOTE: that (moral) message is not exclusive to religion, so the atheists should not feel left out ]
quote:KarlEd, maybe you are right. I mean, “religion” (and not “a religion”) is around since the dawn of time of humanity. But my question comes from the fact that I consider that any given religion that was born, was a product of those “moral values” (i.e. "the message")that were necessary for any human society to function properly. So I think that “morality” predates “any religion” and therefore predates “religion”.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Not that I mind being left out, but I don't really see how your question applies to atheists (or the non-religious). From whence comes this "message" if not in a religious context? I mean, unless you appeal to some outside authority for what exactly the "letter" of the law is (i.e. religion), all there is to do is follow the spirit of it.
[NOTE: that (moral) message is not exclusive to religion, so the atheists should not feel left out ]
quote:No, I don’t assume that at all. Quite rarely that distinction can me made 100% clear.
Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
Is your assumption that the letter and spirit of the law are at odds? In what way?
quote:I meant the two reactions as "limits to a range of possible reactions". Sure, there are more extremist ones, but these were the first ones to pop into my mind.
Originally posted by Leonide:
Really? Those are the only two reactions atheists can have? Or merely the first two to pop into your mind?
quote:But see, the aliens prove that they are not "tools of some deity". They can show that there are no "broken laws of the universe" involved in any "recorded miracle". Just high technology and impressionable people.
Originally posted by rivka:
Why? I have no problem with the notion that miracles may or may not actually violate the basic laws of the universe. My faith does not depend on miracles. God uses what tools He chooses, and if that were proven to be aliens, so what?
quote:Nope. Just that they are not aware of being tools.
Originally posted by suminonA:
But see, the aliens prove that they are not "tools of some deity".
quote:Maybe I missed it, but how would the aliens prove this, exactly?
But see, the aliens prove that they are not "tools of some deity".
quote:What she said. Miracles are nice, but they are certainly not the basis of my faith. At all.
Originally posted by rivka:
Why? I have no problem with the notion that miracles may or may not actually violate the basic laws of the universe. My faith does not depend on miracles. God uses what tools He chooses, and if that were proven to be aliens, so what?
quote:Noemon, we are here on "what if" territory. It never happened and I‘m not saying it will ever happen.
Originally posted by Noemon:
Maybe I missed it, but how would the aliens prove this, exactly?
Exactly.
quote:Fair enough. Thanks.
Originally posted by Leonide:
I think what those who believe are trying to say is that just because something looks like proof, doesn't mean it is, and that their faith would hold up through evidence like that.
quote:I believe that I have said this - many times on many threads. Doesn't it sound at least a little familiar by now?
Originally posted by King of Men:
So what you are saying is that evidence is not relevant, and you will believe what you believe, regardless? Why not say so right away?
quote:
My beliefs are such that proving or disproving is essentially impossible.
quote:Then they are going to get an Arizona of an asskicking from me for all the miracles they declined to perform. Only God's higher wisdom and purpose gets him off the hook for me. If the Aliens have a genuine higher purpose and wisdom, in what way are they not God? Since I believe that when God does manifest to mankind, he's basically going to have to tell a lot of people "Depart from me, I never knew you." The Aliens saying they are not God will just mean I'm one of those.
But what if they showed that every “miracle” that we (as humans) attribute to some deity, they did it (they even demonstrate, if needed), and they did if for us to believe further in the deity (at that time).
quote:King of Men, please try not to jump to conclusions.
Originally posted by King of Men:
How can you justify to yourself believing in something that you have no evidence for, or reason to believe?
[emphasis added]
quote:Hmm, I saw Wang-mu as an unfortunate victim of a flawed education system. She believed in those gods that did some specific things. To have someone tell you "no, it wasn't the gods that did it, it was us" and still believe in the same gods is to me a sign of a wishful thinking. If on the other hand you believe in another type of gods, then why? Were you deluding yourself before? Why are you sure you're not deluding yourself now? What if the new reasons to believe get disproved and so on and so forth. You can always pile up more reasons, but don't you see how that looks like taking the easy way out? "I believe because I believe, no reasons needed" will make no difference between the Christian God, Allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.
Originally posted by Leonide:
I think you have to look at it like Wang-mu did in Xenocide...just because it looks like there wasn't a god, or that someone has shown you what looks like irrefutable proof that god never existed, and that everything "godlike" or "miracle-like" that you've ever seen or heard of didn't actually occur or wasn't from a deity, that doesn't mean that the deity doesn't exist. I think what those who believe are trying to say is that just because something looks like proof, doesn't mean it is, and that their faith would hold up through evidence like that.
quote:Because it's faith. Because I choose to. I could choose to believe in those other things, but that would be silly.
Originally posted by King of Men:
But how can you possibly believe it, then? How can you justify to yourself believing in something that you have no evidence for, or reason to believe? If you are going to believe things completely without cause, why not believe that everything is pink, or that the Earth rests on the back of a giant turtle, or that Catholicism is the work of the Devil? If evidence is not relevant, how can you possibly choose to believe one thing over another?
quote:I'm having a hard-time actually thinking of a way that proof could be incontestable.
Originally posted by Corwin:
To have someone tell you "no, it wasn't the gods that did it, it was us" and still believe in the same gods is to me a sign of a wishful thinking. If on the other hand you believe in another type of gods, then why? Were you deluding yourself before? Why are you sure you're not deluding yourself now? What if the new reasons to believe get disproved and so on and so forth. You can always pile up more reasons, but don't you see how that looks like taking the easy way out? "I believe because I believe, no reasons needed" will make no difference between the Christian God, Allah, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.
Of course this is not real now. We haven't disproved anything (or almost anything?) and nobody came to us to tell us that we were lied to. But what if?
quote:Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
quote:Wait a minute! Time travel is not on the “high technology” list.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Go back in time 1000 years with a television. […]
quote:Ouch. That's kind of the problem though, right? If there's no reason that you can share with us to support your belief, what makes one right and others wrong?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Perhaps the best way to judge a belief from the outside of it, is to judge the results of that belief. This is tough to do en masse, though, because people will have different motivations for and different reactions to what may appear to be the same beliefs.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
quote:I think he's just saying that someone more evolved could fool us, as we could fool those that lived 1000 years ago. Time travel isn't really needed, it was just an analogy that wanted to exclude aliens.
Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:Wait a minute! Time travel is not on the “high technology” list.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Go back in time 1000 years with a television. […]
Just wanted to say it for the record.
A.
quote:I do not think you can apply such a standard. Consider : If Luther's beliefs had been applied, the Jews of Europe would all have been killed. (Incidentally, Hitler was a strong admirer of Luther.) Is that a bad thing? Not according to Luther's beliefs. Why should your standards, and not his, be applied to the judgment? Conversely, in judging your beliefs, why should your standards and not mine be applied?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Perhaps the best way to judge a belief from the outside of it, is to judge the results of that belief. This is tough to do en masse, though, because people will have different motivations for and different reactions to what may appear to be the same beliefs.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Fine; choose another example. Martin Luther, for example, believed that there was more to the universe than we can see, and that it meant it was ok to kill Jews. I think this is moderately important. How is that belief different from yours, if it's not because of evidence?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
That's your opinion. I'm not sure it is worth my time outlining the differences to you between the importance of thinking everything is pink and believing that there is more to the universe than what we can see and that it means something.
quote:Ok. I’ll play the “aliens’ advocate” part.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Still waiting on what sort of proof the aliens are offering, or are we to just assumed its "undeniable?"
quote:Because he was wrong. Clearly.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[I do not think you can apply such a standard. Consider : If Luther's beliefs had been applied, the Jews of Europe would all have been killed. (Incidentally, Hitler was a strong admirer of Luther.) Is that a bad thing? Not according to Luther's beliefs. Why should your standards, and not his, be applied to the judgment? Conversely, in judging your beliefs, why should your standards and not mine be applied?
quote:Your choice. But you brought up Hitler so I win anyway.
Originally posted by King of Men:
You are wrong. Clearly.
quote:As Corwin clarified, the 'time-travel' phrase in my example was a tool I used to indicate a vast difference in technological level. Let's just say that these aliens are 20,000 years beyond our current technological level.
Originally posted by suminonA:
They produce recordings (full 3D holographic + sound) of any past events required. They also reproduce any “effect” that “required a deity” (i.e. was beyond human possibilities at the time).
quote:Not the question I asked. Try again. Would the scenario I outlined be proof that Islam was false?
Seriously though demonstrating that you had created an entire religion that was totally counterfeit does not prove that every religion is false.
quote:Why, you said so yourself:
King of Men, what facts do I not care about?
quote:There is absolutely no fact, even hypothetically, that could possibly dissuade you from your belief? Come now.
Call me simple. But I can't imagine any other life. Religion is not a just nice tradition for me or an extracurricular activity. It is what I use to keep me close to God. I don't believe that there is anything that could ever be done that could eradicate religion.
quote:More accurately, you are astoundingly intellectually dishonest. To merely assert your own beliefs as correct, with no attempt to ground them in fact, is morally repugnant. It is an abdication of everything that makes humans unique. I have no words for how much this disgusts me.
Your choice. But you brought up Hitler so I win anyway.
quote:I already asserted a page ago that if you produced "undeniable" proof of my religion being false, that I would give up that belief as I wouldnt elect to fight against "undeniable" evidence.
Originally posted by King of Men:
[QB]quote:Not the question I asked. Try again. Would the scenario I outlined be proof that Islam was false?
Seriously though demonstrating that you had created an entire religion that was totally counterfeit does not prove that every religion is false.
quote:Thank you for your contribution.
Originally posted by DaisyMae:
Still, I don't know if anyone cares much if the original question gets answered but for the benefit of suminionA I'll share my personal belief.
). quote:It most certainly is an intellectual question; it is about, firstly, what is true, and secondly, about how we know what we know. And for either question, mere assertion is to descend to the level of the kindergarten bully, who says it's his turn on the swings because he says so and wants to believe it. We usually expect rather more of adults.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
It isn't an intellectual question. To claim that it is and that I have intellectual answers would be dishonest.
quote:But that's all part and parcel of the set of beliefs that you are merely asserting, without offering proof. Until you show some kind of evidence that humans are more than their intellects, this is just more circular reasoning based on the same vacuous premises.
edit to add: I believe that human beings are more than their intellect, so I don't believe that it goes against "everything" that makes humans unique.
quote:Well, this is not an argument in favor of any deity, as it starts with the assumption that there are things “only deities” can do ( --> so there must be deities), even if you see the technology used to accomplish such things.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
As Corwin clarified, the 'time-travel' phrase in my example was a tool I used to indicate a vast difference in technological level. Let's just say that these aliens are 20,000 years beyond our current technological level.
How would them showing us 3d holo-images and impressive works that only diety could do any different than showing a caveman a television and demonstrating we can create light with our divine light stick?
[emphasis added]
quote:But I'm not kicking you off your swing.
And for either question, mere assertion is to descend to the level of the kindergarten bully, who says it's his turn on the swings because he says so and wants to believe it.
quote:It's an analogy. You are working on the same moral level.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:But I'm not kicking you off your swing.
And for either question, mere assertion is to descend to the level of the kindergarten bully, who says it's his turn on the swings because he says so and wants to believe it.
quote:It is an assertion about facts. What other apparatus do you suggest we use?
King of Men, for you, proving that "the deity X exists (or not)" is an intellectual (as in scientific) exercise?
quote:Facts are interpretable (scietifically and otherwise). Now, what kind of facts are you considering when talking about the existence of a given deity?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It is an assertion about facts. What other apparatus do you suggest we use?
King of Men, for you, proving that "the deity X exists (or not)" is an intellectual (as in scientific) exercise?
quote:What about the kid who believes it is his swing, but let's other kids swing anyway. Is he also a bully? Or the kid who believes that he should share his swing? Or who believes that it is some other kid's swing. Also bullies?
It's an analogy. You are working on the same moral level.
quote:There exists a chair in my office. This is an assertion about facts. You can check it by going to my office and having a look.
Originally posted by suminonA:
Facts are interpretable (scietifically and otherwise). Now, what kind of facts are you considering when talking about the existence of a given deity?
quote:Precisely my point : That's what makes it morally repugnant.
BTW, I thought that religion was, by definition, a matter of faith.
A.
quote:The middle kid is not in the same category as the other two; he is making a moral, not a factual, assertion. The other two are indeed being intellectual bullies, unless they have some reason to believe as they do; which, for the beliefs in question, they generally would.
What about the kid who believes it is his swing, but lets other kids swing anyway. Is he also a bully? Or the kid who believes that he should share his swing? Or who believes that it is some other kid's swing. Also bullies?
quote:Um, kate's post implies - I think - that most people would consider those beliefs wrong for a moral reason. From where you draw your morals, that's your problem.
Originally posted by King of Men:
You are wrong. Clearly.
quote:Short and to the point.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Corwin,
No.
Could you explain why? I don't mind if you don't for whatever reasons, but I'm also not helped by your current answer. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
quote:On what are we basing the middle kid's moral assertion?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The middle kid is not in the same category as the other two; he is making a moral, not a factual, assertion. The other two are indeed being intellectual bullies, unless they have some reason to believe as they do; which, for the beliefs in question, they generally would.
[QUOTE]What about the kid who believes it is his swing, but lets other kids swing anyway. Is he also a bully? Or the kid who believes that he should share his swing? Or who believes that it is some other kid's swing. Also bullies?
quote:Without the faith, none of the facts support the same thing. Sure facts can disprove the faith, but people of faith require a much higher level of evidence to disprove what they believe than they do to believe it.
Religion is not just about faith
quote:I don't understand how the specific attributes of a religion refute the claim that all religion is based on faith.
Sure tons of people say, "There are many ways to heaven, if somebody just tries to be a good person they are fine." But PLENTY of religions totally reject that belief.
quote:I don't care. He is probably basing it on what his parents told him about being nice; and they in turn are passing on accumulated wisdom about how communities work. But it's not relevant. Moral questions have to be based on some kind of axioms, and you can get those from your inner convictions for all I care. It's when you try asserting things about the state of the Universe, based on nothing but what the little fairies told you, that I get mad.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
On what are we basing the middle kid's moral assertion?
quote:Perhaps an anger management course would be in order.
It's when you try asserting things about the state of the Universe, based on nothing but what the little fairies told you, that I get mad.
quote:There's no particular reason to think that those two explanations (let's avoid the term "hypothesis" since it's a term of art in an inapplicable field) are equally good just because both explain the known facts.
If two hypotheses are equally good, you cannot choose the one you like better; you have a plain duty to seek out more facts, meanwhile keeping both options open.
quote:No, it wasn't. The quotation:
Originally posted by King of Men:
I agree, but that was the assertion made. I'll respond to your other post when I have a little more time.
quote:This quotation makes no assertion about whether "those two explanations are equally good." It simply states that both explain the known facts and there is no way to know which is true. That's an entirely different assertion, and your response is exactly what I'm talking about when I accuse you of recasting the words of others into your worldview.
"The story the oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life,and the life that disgusts me-your life, your view of life-is the lie."
quote:kmb has asserted
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Failing that, you might want to try not rewriting what other people say into your tiny little worldview.
quote:You are referring to the implicit assumption that it's his swing to share or not? Sure. If he is saying that without some factual basis, he's making the same mistake. But that's not the important part of the sentence.
BTW, the middle kid you approved - he made a factual assertion , too, it was merely implicit rather than explicit. Perhaps you'd like to take a second look and see if you can spot it. Hint: it's the same factual assertion one of the "bully" kids made.
quote:I'm just annoyed that somebody who I respect so much apparently thinks my way of life is "disgusting."
Originally posted by King of Men:
Fair enough; I completely disagree with that criterion.
But everybody's got an opinion, after all!
quote:O...k...
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Corwin, pretty much the same answer as the alien question.
quote:The first “fact” is easier to check because, by the definition of a “chair”, it is not impossible to see it if you look directly at it. Yet there are deities that by definition “are everywhere but cannot be seen by those who don’t believe in them”. (Circular definition intended)
Originally posted by King of Men:
There exists a chair in my office. This is an assertion about facts. You can check it by going to my office and having a look.
There exists a deity. This is an assertion about facts. It is a little more difficult to check.
I do not understand why this is difficult.
quote:As said above in this post, some see the trust in the scientific method as a matter of faith too. But a different kind of faith. Yet it is faith, and if you reject that kind of faith there is no “proof” that could convince you to accept it.(You know, gravity might still not work the same tomorrow!)
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Precisely my point : That's what makes it morally repugnant.
BTW, I thought that religion was, by definition, a matter of faith.
A.
quote:Maybe there is no need to say this, but I want to note that this is a completely different question than the one in my what if scenario. I see it very easy to believe/accept a deity that comes saying to all it is a deity (and proving it). Yet the need for religion is measured when people are confronted with “proof” about the deity’s non-existence. Isn’t it?
Originally posted by Corwin:
O...k...
Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
quote:Yes, it's a different question. But since we can't seem to agree on what would constitute the absence of God, I was trying to figure out the opposite. What would, for you, be proof enough that a certain being is God. The problem is, I wouldn't find it that easy to accept that this being is God. Maybe he's lying. To me, there's always doubt.
Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:Maybe there is no need to say this, but I want to note that this is a completely different question than the one in my what if scenario. I see it very easy to believe/accept a deity that comes saying to all it is a deity (and proving it). Yet the need for religion is measured when people are confronted with “proof” about the deity’s non-existence. Isn’t it?
Originally posted by Corwin:
O...k...
Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
A.
quote:I think most of the deities “known to man” come with quite a baggage. What they have said, what they have done, what they expect us to do/think/believe. Even what they look like!
Originally posted by Corwin:
Open question: What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God? Maybe he would say that many have interpreted his words in a wrong way - hence the multitude of different religions -, and none of them has got the truth. What if he gave you new laws, directly? Would you believe him?
quote:I don't mind the goodnes, even if it comes from some aliens posing as some deity.
If you made any mistakes they were explained to you and a method for correcting your mistake was shown to you. Punishment wasn't meted out except in cases of refusal to correct the mistakes or comply with official rulings.
quote:Don't you mean in all your ways of judging whether a belief is good, other beliefs fall short?
You think that if I can choose based on nothing provable, then people with considerably less benign beliefs can choose, too. And that their choice is as valid.
But it isn't. They are only equal in the method of choosing a belief. In all they other ways of judging whether a belief is "good", those other beliefs fall short. And mine has the advantage of recognizing that it is a choice - and a choice that can only be made with complete freedom.
quote:BQT, I don't, off the top of my head, know what your beliefs are. I haven't breyerchic's amazing and caring knack. I don't know enough about them to know what I think. And I find that guessing about an individuals beliefs based on the generally held beliefs of a certain group is inaccurate as often as not. If you want to have a discussion about them and where I feel they are right or wrong, I would be willing to, but I wouldn't presume to otherwise - unless your beliefs somehow imposed on the rights of others.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
Don't you mean in all your ways of judging whether a belief is good, other beliefs fall short?
As a member of a religion that's beliefs you feel no doubt fall short, I find your comments to be in the same vein as KOM's.
quote:I'd be curious as to what type of God they were saying they were. Are they essentially just advanced people that happened to create our planet and all the species on it? If that's the case, I think I'd like an explanation of how they did it and some sort of record keeping that shows the process. If they could provide these in a satisfactory way, I don't think I'd have too many qualms. Beyond that, I don't know. There are so many different conceptions of God and each would need different proofs to convince me.
What if... What if those aliens at first say that they ARE actually God? How would you tell the difference? Why would you believe them or why wouldn't you? For all you know, God himself could show up; what would it take to believe he's God?
quote:*pat pat*
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Oh, I can be scary.
quote:Now I'm curious: Hou many types of deities do you (all of you) think there are/might be?
Originally posted by Amanecer:
I'd be curious as to what type of God they were saying they were. Are they essentially just advanced people that happened to create our planet and all the species on it?
]quote:One question for those agreeing with this definition: If, by definition, that god cannot be understood or comprehended (by Humans), then what about those who claim that they’ve got some message from the deity? Are they all lying? And of course, what is the use of such incomprehensible deity? (Ok, that wasn't just one question…)
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The Western conception of "god" now includes concepts of moral authority and/or omni-omnience -- the idea that any god you can understand or comprehend must not, by definition, be a real god -- that would be considered unusual by our ancestors.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
quote:True, that.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
(Rivka, at least my syntax is scary.)
quote:
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
This thread is starting to remind me a bit of Jasmine in the latter half of Angel Season 4.
quote:
Originally posted by Amanecer:
I think that Jasmine presents an interesting case study in how people perceive deity, but I think it's a bit different than what we're talking about. Nobody is talking about a God that is really a people-eating hell demon.
If such a God were said to be real, I would like to think I would fight against Him/Her since it does not line up with my own moral compass. However I am a human full of my own weaknesses and I think it's possible that I would react as Conner initially did and choose to stay by her because of the joy she made me feel.
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that the way a lot of people think of God is closer to Jasmine than it is to what I think of as (I mean believe is) God.
quote:Great! Now I have to watch Angel ...
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
It really seems like the alien scenario, except there is an element of mind control involved. However, Conner is exempt from that, and it's his situation that is even scarier than anyone else's.
quote:I would think that an ignoring deity would lose fast its supporters.
Originally posted by Morbo:
Tom and suminonA, how it might have happened
quote:1) Why would a deity exist, in the first place?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I don't really see why a diety would create a race of beings for the sole reason of deceiving them.
How many humans have children JUST so they can teach them lies?
quote:1: This is not relevant to what I was saying. I'm assuming there IS a creator of the human race.
Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:1) Why would a deity exist, in the first place?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I don't really see why a diety would create a race of beings for the sole reason of deceiving them.
How many humans have children JUST so they can teach them lies?
2) Why is an analogy with Humans relevant?
A.
quote:Perhaps not, but when was the last time you played with a GI Joe? Typically as you grow older a cheap thrill such as stealing candy from a baby becomes at best immoral, at worst just boring.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
In response to number 2, I don't believe power due to advanced technology is necessarily an indicator of moral maturity.
quote:I take the challenge:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I think that the difference between a people-eating demon and how some people (not necessaily any of you) perceive God, is less than the difference between the tribal Zeus-on-steroids way some people perceive God and what I think (I mean believe) is the reality.
Go ahead. Parse that. I dare ya.
code:<parsing>
<facts>
a) there are (or might be) "people-eating demons",
or at least one of them
b) "some people (not necessaily any of you) perceive
God" in some specific (unspecified) manner.
c) "some people perceive God" in a "tribal
Zeus-on-steroids way".
d) you (i.e. kmbboots) have some specific belief
about what "the reality" is.
</facts>
<statements on the facts>
1) There is a difference between a) and b).
2) There is a difference between c) and d).
</statements>
<meta-statements (on the statements)>
MS): kmbboots thinks that the difference
in 1) is less than the difference in 2)
</meta-statements>
</parsing>
<analyzing>
<variables>
b) and d) contain references to unspecified
information, therefore we introduce the variables:
V1) = the way some people perceive God (in b)
V2) = what kmbboots thinks about what reality
is (in d)
</variables>
<deductions>
D-i (From 1) : As the two facts are not directly
comparable, we must assume that the unspecified
specific manner in b) (i.e. V1) is not “we
perceive God as a people-eating demon”.
D-ii (From 2) : As there is only one “unknown”
in 2) it follows that V2) is not “I think
(believe) that God is some kind of Zeus-on-
steroids, just like the way of (my) tribal
ancestors.”
</deductions>
<constants>
For further simplification of the analysis, we pose
the two constants:
C1) = “we perceive God as a people-eating demon”
C2) = “I think (believe) that God is some kind of
Zeus-on-steroids, just like the way of (my) tribal
ancestors.”
</constants>
<formalization>
<restrictions>
R1 (from D-i): V1 is not C1
R2 (from D-ii): V2 is not C2
R3 (from MS): [V1 – C1] < [V2 – C2], where “[ …]”
stands for “absolute value”.
</restrictions>
<reasoning>
V1 and V2 take values in a multidimensional space:SEP
(the space of the English phrases).
We can easily define “non coincidence” by direct
observation. Therefore, the restrictions R1 and R2 are
relevant. Yet, the vastness of SEP makes R1 and R2
really weak.
Then, in order to talk of “differences” between such
quantities (e.g. [V1 – C1] and [V2 – C2]), we must
define some concept of “distance”.
So the relevance o R3 depends on that definition.
<final conclusion>
Given the weakness of R1 and R2, and the missing
definition to give relevance to R3, the conclusion
is that “It’s all just a matter of interpretations”.
</final conclusion>
</reasoning>
</formalization>
</analyzing>
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
quote:1) Wait, are you talking about the “Angel Universe”? You’ll have to excuse my ignorance because I’m not “up to date” with the watching.
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:1: This is not relevant to what I was saying. I'm assuming there IS a creator of the human race.
Originally posted by suminonA:
quote:1) Why would a deity exist, in the first place?
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I don't really see why a diety would create a race of beings for the sole reason of deceiving them.
How many humans have children JUST so they can teach them lies?
2) Why is an analogy with Humans relevant?
A.
2: People are giving "What if God turned out to be an ALIEN? A mean SOB? I am simply trying to identify a viable motive for why an empowered individual would have such immature backward moral codes.
quote:The point of the “what if” alien scenario on the page 11 is their claim that the reason behind the eradication of religion is the fact that they have introduced it in the first place, and that the knowledge level of the Humans makes it now obsolete for the intended purposes (imposing moral values to the early Humans). Would such a claim, and the proofs that they present, make a difference in your system of (religious) beliefs? [Again, just restating the question.]
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The aliens in page 11 are even stupid enough to introduce religion without any sort of concensus as how it should introduced.
quote:This reminds me of:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
___A_B_______________________________________________________________C_>
A) Jasmine type "god"
B) Tribal, alien, super Zeus type God a lot of people believe is God
C) What Kate (not just Kate, of course) believe God is.
edit: that little pointy thing is supposed to be an arrow.
edit again: Why I think the scenarios where we are talking about a B-like God are irrelevant to my faith.
quote:Oh, that's. so. wrong. o_O
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Kate, I love how you insist your infinity is bigger than everyone else's.
quote:Could you explain what does it mean that B is between A and C on that line? Thanks.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
___A_B_______________________________________________________________C_>
A) Jasmine type "god"
B) Tribal, alien, super Zeus type God a lot of people believe is God
C) What Kate (not just Kate, of course) believe God is.
quote:Angel spoilers-Like, it spoils the entire series. Don't read if you plan on watching it. You've been warned.
Originally posted by suminonA:
One more thing, could anyone explain what "Jasmine type deity" means? I'm one of those that didn't watch Angel before, and I don't mind spoilers.
Thanks.
A.
quote:See, this is what I can't quite get my head around.
If we didn't fall into that trap, we wouldn't be having conversations about aliens proving or disproving God.
quote:Cannot be completely experienced. Where did I give the "officially retreats" idea?
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm having real difficulty seeing the utility of a God that cannot, by definition, be experienced, and in fact "officially" retreats from any experience lest it be limiting.
quote:I’m going to comment on this, but I have no intentions to take sides or to “judge” what each one thinks.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:See, this is what I can't quite get my head around.
If we didn't fall into that trap, we wouldn't be having conversations about aliens proving or disproving God.
If a group of aliens showed up and demonstrably and inescapably proved -- through some method -- that they had created this world, or even this universe, and they had overseen all of human evolution, and they had created all the religions of the Earth, I honestly don't understand what's left for your "infinite" God at that point. He becomes just another attribute of the universe, as useful as the word "big."
Let me explain:quote:Well they might come with a reasonable/reasoned (for them!) explanation about the apparition of live biological molecules capable to feed and reproduce themselves, and then, by an extraordinarily complex (but fully documented) chain of modifications, they have grown into the present form. [Yes, basically they talk about some sort of evolution.]
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Who created the aliens?
And we're still falling into the "entity" trap. "God" for me is just an entity but also a force. That creative force is part of "God".
quote:What if we (or the aliens) duplicate (many, many times) the initial conditions of the apparition of first living organisms and find that the "apparition of life" has a 17.32% probability of occurring, on any planet that reaches a certain chemical composition?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
No, you are not wrong. But it doesn't go far enough.
The only way to judge whether there is intention/purpose is to decide.
quote:I understand what you are saying, but you'll have to do better than that to support "not so rare". You, my dear, and I say this with the utmost respect and friendship, are not one to be held up as evidence of the un-extraordinary.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Not so rare. I've been "admitting" it here since I started on this forum.
None of this is to say that what I observe and how I reason doesn't support my beliefs.
quote:What's your opinion about those people that don't?
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Explaining the origins of the universe is (or at least in my opinion should not be) the most important thing on the agenda of those people who believe in God.
quote:From where I'm sitting, the obvious answer is the weak anthropic principle: if the "rules" that describe the universe were not what they are, we wouldn't be here talking about it.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Why does that chemical combination have a chance at life? Why are there chemicals? Why do they combine? Why are the "rules" that govern the universe what they are at all?
quote:Fair enough. I’ll try to come up with better questions.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
A, I should have phrased that better. The "how" of the origins of the universe is not really (in my opinion) a very good religious question. It is a great question for cosmologists (for example).
]quote:Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. Technically, if there was at least a person to delete their post (in the first 13 pages) in this thread, or that will do so in the future, then this won’t be the case anymore.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
[Just Great! You ask about accepting a self-proclaimed 'god' and I respond with an atheist's POV and wouldn't you just know this is post number 666 on this thread.
quote:I wonder if the real Anti-Christ's position is so fragile.
Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. Technically, if there was at least a person to delete their post (in the first 13 pages) in this thread, or that will do so in the future, then this won’t be the case anymore.
A.
quote:That’s one valid interpretation of it.
Originally posted by KarlEd:
So what you're basically asking is how flexible is one's definition of God. I.E. how far removed from one's personal concept of God could a manifest "God" be before an individual rejects him as an imposter. Right?
quote:Wait, I hope you don’t think that I consider my scenarios as “proof” of anything. They are “what if” questions and I don’t claim that they are more than a product of my imagination.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
c) Would people accept they are “wrong” were they presented with that kind of proof?
The scenaroios you have presented are not proof. They are not even particularly relevant.
quote:I think this is a very good point, and one of the reasons that facts or proof of the existence of God or of what God may or may not have done just don't matter to a lot of religious people.
Originally posted by kmbboots:
But this isn't the point. Explaining the origins of the universe is (or at least in my opinion should not be) the most important thing on the agenda of those people who believe in God.
quote:And if someone doesn't want to believe that there is anyone with the right to tell them what they ought to be doing with their life, they will refuse to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
If a person wants a higher authority to call to for support, or to tell them who to kill, or make their mistakes OK, or love them when nobody else will, they're going to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
quote:In general, though, I think this is less true. It's easier to demonstrate the existence of something than its nonexistence.
And if someone doesn't want to believe that there is anyone with the right to tell them what they ought to be doing with their life, they will refuse to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
quote:I don't think that follows in the same way. How do you prove to someone that God doesn't exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by faith.
Originally posted by rivka:
And if someone doesn't want to believe that there is anyone with the right to tell them what they ought to be doing with their life, they will refuse to believe in that authority, no matter what you tell them.
quote:How do you prove to someone that God does exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief.
How do you prove to someone that God doesn't exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by faith.
quote:He has. And you do.
If God performed a miracle for me, it would be impossible for me to reasonably disbelieve.
quote:This may be accurate. But it is not the same thing as the falsehood, which is that all evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief. If God provided appropriate evidence, disbelief would be impossible; it is only the continued inappropriateness of this evidence that permits disbelief.
Any evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief.
quote:It would be irrational to disbelieve reasonable evidence. It is not irrational to disbelieve based on a lack of any clear evidence.
Originally posted by rivka:
How do you prove to someone that God does exist? Any evidence can easily be cast aside by disbelief.
quote:You and I are operating on a different definition of miracle. I can only assume that you mean this miracle I should believe in to be something completely normal, like being alive or seeing a sunset, which are not miracles in my book, as I see no reason to believe a supernatural power against natural laws has created these things for the purpose of showing me His glory.
If God performed a miracle for me, it would be impossible for me to reasonably disbelieve.
He has. And you do.
quote:Again, you're playing with words. Calling the belief that something does not exist when there is no obvious evidence of it "faith" seems like such a stretch of the word that it ceases to have any real meaning.
I know y'all believe that disbelief is the more rational choice, but that is your belief. It is every bit a matter of choice and faith as my belief is.
quote:That depends on what we are talking about.
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
In general, though, I think this is less true. It's easier to demonstrate the existence of something than its nonexistence.
quote:I dislike the lumping of all three of these into "equally improbable". Personally, I think that "hallucinations" and "mental instability" are far more common than most people realize. (Though I'll grant that people might be reluctant to categorize the more common instances as "mental instability" as such.)
short of claiming hallucinations, mental instability, or another equally improbable reason such as extra terrestrial aliens.
quote:Then say what you mean, which is that "any of the individual pieces of evidence that our hypothetical God has chosen to provide can be dismissed."
Evidence that cannot be dismissed violates free will. It is coercion, not choice.
quote:If I were unique during my "pre-natal-dreaming" in having experienced religion, clearly it must be something special about me. I must be the prophet sent into this new world to spread the truth about the wonders of religious convictions. I mean, clearly.
The bottom line is that they have never heard of such a thing as “religion”.
quote:"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far."
Originally posted by KarlEd:
The human mind is fantastically capable of creating wholly subjective experiences, and notoriously prone to filter memories through personal desires or external suggestion. [/QB]
quote:kmbboots, don't worry, there are more levels of "what if" ...
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Would make no difference. (Anyone surprised?)
quote:I suspect there is much sarcasm in this quote.
Originally posted by Tristan:
quote:If I were unique during my "pre-natal-dreaming" in having experienced religion, clearly it must be something special about me. I must be the prophet sent into this new world to spread the truth about the wonders of religious convictions. I mean, clearly.
The bottom line is that they have never heard of such a thing as “religion”.
Yet I think it raises an interesting question:quote:If people in this new brave world of yours are anything like the people of the real world, I suspect spreading spreading religion won't present any particular proplems. There are a number of prophets, gurus and the like that have managed to amass a surprising amount of followers with no other evidence than their personal religious or mystical experience.
How do you think this “spreading” could be achieved (in practice), knowing that all you have to support your “knowledge” about this subject is your personal experience (in dream-state)?
I simply try to present them in different scenarios, so different perspectives/nuances could be revealed. quote:One thing. Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. If such a circumstance were to happen, and the angel told me there was no god but God and Muhammed is his prophet, that would be different. I personally would convert to Islam, but that's just me.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
In most of my various religious discussions, I've learned that highly religious people will believe in their religion regardless of any hypothetical, and most likely almost any real-life circumstances. If an angel appeared to a Christian and told them that there is no God but Allah, wouldn't they see that as a demon trying to fool them, or a test from the Christian God to see if they would remain faithful?
Religion is about belief in the unknowable, the unprovable. If you already firmly believe that something exists which cannot be seen or measured or examined or directly experienced except through feelings and emotions and thinking about it and so forth, there's no physical reason that can be shown to change that belief. The belief already exists in spite of any physical evidence.
quote:Peanut butter, jellies, and strawberry cream cheese.
Originally posted by suminonA:
Ok, next question(s): What exactly do you (all of you) think that should be “spread”.
quote:I think you kind of missed the context.
Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Peanut butter, jellies, and strawberry cream cheese.
Originally posted by suminonA:
Ok, next question(s): What exactly do you (all of you) think that should be “spread”.