posted
Just to be clear, I was NOT voting "nay" on the existence of God. I was specifically pointing out that religious fanatics are bad people, even if their God exists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't see it that way. I don't try to take pot shots at the agnostic or athiest POV or any other belief system (unless I think it is evil). Well, maybe with the athiests because I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on. I would only try to convert them to agnosticism too. But agnostics I sympathize with. They ask, "how can you know for sure?" And I say, "You can't. At least, not yet."
posted
Tom, how can religious fanatics be bad if their God exists?
If their God tells them to convert the heathen and non-believer by word or sword because the greater evil would be to allow their heathen souls to spend an eternity in damnation, are they really bad?
Since they are doing their God's work who is the supreme being and decider of the abritrary concepts of Good and Evil.
You say they are bad, but since you don't believe in their God who clearly, for purposes of this argument does exist, doesn't that render your moral judgement of their actions moot?
posted
It is bad if you believe such a God is Evil and you have to fight against Him tooth and nail in order to keep good. Of course, such a battle would be a losing battle if God is supreme.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, maybe with the athiests because I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on.
That may well be true, but it's only fair to point out that they have exactly as much of a leg to stand on as theists do.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. I don't believe in an arbitrary concept of Good.
If there is an evil god, and no good god, and its servants are doing his bidding, they are evil.
A god which serves the good may also have followers which serve the good; there is no danger in this. A god which serves the good may also have followers which serve it; there is slight danger in this. A god which serves itself, with followers that serve it, is essentially amoral and highly dangerous.
Basically, I demand very high standards of my gods.
posted
Hmmm, maybe it is my bias on the issue. But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits. I thought they just took the lack of more evidence as convincing, which I think is silly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits."
Yes, that would be your bias on the issue. Unless you consider "evidence" on the atheist side to consist of proofs that something invisible does not exist, as opposed to disproofs of theistic evidence.
To do otherwise would be rather unreasonable; I could submit that an invisible purple panda is hovering over me, typing this post as I look on, and I'd have more "evidence" than you have of that fact.
-------
kat, I don't think good or evil "come from" anywhere. I think that, ultimately, they're purely axiomatic and definitional; they are, in fact, divorced from concepts of cultural morality and/or ethics. It's like asking where the color "red" comes from -- not what causes it, or why we choose to call it red, or even its frequency, but why we think of the color we see at that frequency as being THAT color as opposed to any other color. And there may be some people who are insensitive to this morality, and simply don't pick up on it the way most of us do. They may in fact be "color blind" in this way, although their failure to perceive the correct nature of the color does not mean that the color is DIFFERENT for them. I think religions exist to help the colorblind, and to provide larger frameworks for the tough ethical questions like "is it okay to harm someone if, in so doing, I help a hundred people;" in the same way that it's hard to pick out a color from a thousand paint splatters, sometimes it's hard to figure out what's right from millions of conflicting options, and it's nice if you have another pair of eyes or a guidebook to help.
Now, I choose to believe this. I'm almost certainly not right; the concepts of good and evil are almost certainly inventions of morality, and can't be tied to something as concrete and physical as, say, the heat-death of the universe. But I think that it's possible to develop certain basic statements of axiomatic "good" from which you can develop a common morality, and that these axioms are in general shared by human civilization except when artifical moralities -- like, say, religions and creeds -- repress them.
posted
Provided, of course, your belief structure is correct.
But fanatics are only bad if we accept your premise of a Supreme Good, a standard or standards to which all other actions are held.
Although it could be argued that fanatics could actually warp the intent of their God and as such are as opposed to the true Faith as the heathen, pagan and non-believer.
quote: Basically, I demand very high standards of my gods.
Understandable! If someone has so much power and authority, we must demand high standards of them because of the sheer power they have.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmmm, maybe it is my bias on the issue. But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits. I thought they just took the lack of more evidence as convincing, which I think is silly.
As far as I know, there is no objective evidence at all in either direction. Everything that I've ever heard claimed as evidence by either "side" is either highly subject to interpretation or so personal as to be completely unverifiable. It really all boils down to a feeling, what seems right to each person. But that's not really evidence.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I could submit that an invisible purple panda is hovering over me, typing this post as I look on, and I'd have more "evidence" than you have of that fact.
Tom, I'm pretty sure that "invisible" and "purple" are mutually exclusive.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, that would be your bias on the issue. Unless you consider "evidence" on the atheist side to consist of proofs that something invisible does not exist, as opposed to disproofs of theistic evidence.
I have never understood how that proves anything. If there is a God and He wanted to make Himself obvious, He certainly would be able to do so! The only *logical* conclusion for any theist is that He chooses not to. I feel I understand some very good reasons for why He would choose not to. They make sense. But that is not in any way evidence. When I say "evidence" I am referring to, well, actual evidence.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Such hubris to make demands of our Creator. Who are we to dictate what the Supreme Being should believe or value?
Why do we assume the Supreme Being is a good person or a nice guy? Maybe he created life to bask in the glory of pain and suffering. Hope was required to ensure humanity continued to struggle and endure the pain and suffering our God so gloried in.
posted
Saxon, I would agree with you that the evidence that exists isn't conclusive. You will never see me claim that. It is *evidence*. The article I posted earlier is an example of this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Such hubris to make demands of our Creator. Who are we to dictate what the Supreme Being should believe or value?
We are free-thinking beings. We have concepts of Good and Evil whether or not we all perfectly agree on the specifics. We would not have any hope of power to change an evil or amoral god, but we can rebell against him, as I believe many are wont to do. Of course, such efforts would come to naught, but that wouldn't stop people from trying.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Conversely Bev, it's possible God doesn't make Himself known because, well, He doesn't exist.
A lack of proof does not disprove something. A failure or inability to disprove something does not prove something.
Exactly! That is why I didn't cite it as evidence. Because it's not.
How can anyone possibly have evidence that there is no God? That makes no sense. It is far easier to have evidence that he does--but of course, most evidence *can* be refuted. Think about our court system. Can we really know someone is guilty? We can only know "beyond reasonable doubt". We can still doubt.
The only thing we can be relatively sure of is scientific, repeatable observation. And even then we don't understand what is happening. We just know that every time we let go of a rock, it falls to the large body beneath our feet.
posted
"Tom, I'm pretty sure that 'invisible' and 'purple' are mutually exclusive."
Ah, but can you PROVE it? If I tell you that the panda has told me that it's purple underneath its invisibility, does that answer your question? Maybe the ways of the panda are ineffable, and enlightenment can only come when you understand how the panda can be both purple and invisible. It could be that the "purple" bit is a metaphor. It COULD be that your understanding of "purple" is wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, knowing we would rebel, isn't that even more incentive for God not to reveal Himself or to show his true colors?
Sure.
We are capable of imagining a god that is evil and disagreeing with that morally. Whether or not we could *truly* rebell, well that was my point. How can a rebellion against a supreme being be effective?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ah, but can you PROVE it? If I tell you that the panda has told me that it's purple underneath its invisibility, does that answer your question? Maybe the ways of the panda are ineffable, and enlightenment can only come when you understand how the panda can be both purple and invisible. It could be that the "purple" bit is a metaphor. It COULD be that your understanding of "purple" is wrong.
Given that I'm slightly colorblind, it's rather likely that my understanding of "purple" is slightly different from yours. I'd say that "purple" is a word with a definite meaning, though, and is inextricably tied to vision. If light does not reflect from an object, it cannot be purple. I would say that this invisible panda needs to define his terms better.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no possible direct physical evidence on this plane of existence that can prove or disprove the existence of the type of God posited by traditional Christianity. No matter how grand the miracle or how loud the proclamation from the cloud, there is always a conceivable physical explanation that would cover it, and people who will believe that explanation. Conversely, no matter how mundane an event is, there is always the possibility it was the result of direct divine influence.
posted
"There is an invisible panda that, were he not invisible, would be purple, and it's floating over my head."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: That depends on why Humanity was created to begin with.
Yup. Of course I think you know my belief on why humanity was created. God procreation.
quote: Sometimes it's not a matter of winning, but rather losing on your terms.
Yeah, I see this as being Tom's mindset if he were to discover that the God of the Old Testament were indeed the God of this universe.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proof not subject to dispute by the person at hand.
However, I firmly believe any such proof of the Divine would have to be highly individualized as Dag pointed out, no two people can agree on exactly what form that proof would have to take to be accepted.
quote: And how would you react given the same circumstance Bev?
If I had faith that God was evil or *knew* He was evil? I dunno. I think I'd give up hope and be really depressed. I'm really not much of a rebell, especially if the battle was a hopeless one. I'd probably just try to live a good life and be happy with what I could.
quote:I don't see it that way. I don't try to take pot shots at the agnostic or athiest POV or any other belief system (unless I think it is evil).
I read this as: If Beverly thinks something is evil, she believes it's okay to "take pot shots" at it, or otherwise disagree with it.
Isn't that what Tom's doing? It seems that a set of believers often ask the listener to understand "from their point of view" that they're simply doing what they believe is right. And often, the listener acquiesces that fundamental point. Not always, of course. But how many times have you seen someone say, "I don't like prosetylizing, but I understand that in their mind-set, they have to."
So.... in Tom's mind-set, he _has_ to fight the fundamentalist religiosity because They Are Evil To Him. You don't have to agree, but a certain amount of give and take is requested. If it's obvious we have to try to respect your belief even though it contradicts ours, shouldn't you try to respect his belief even though it contradicts yours?
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: How would you feel if you knew, beyond any doubt, that God was something other than what you have believed Him to be?
Ahh! You mean what if I discovered I was wrong? Well, changing your whole paradigm is never easy, but I like to view myself as a seeker of truth. I would like to believe that I am not one who would resist truth just because it isn't what I thought it was. But it is hard to know for sure.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I dunno, Tom is supposedly an agnostic. That means he doesn't believe anything concerning religion. But certainly he has beliefs. He believes that fundamentalism is dangerous. I agree that it can be. But when he starts trying to tear down another's faith, as an agnostic, I find that strange--because a true agnostic thinks any belief system *might* be true. Just, we can't know it. I can see an atheist doing that, but not an agnostic.
quote: I read this as: If Beverly thinks something is evil, she believes it's okay to "take pot shots" at it, or otherwise disagree with it.
I don't mind him disagreeing with me. I don't mind him asking questions, even hard ones. Where atheism is concerned, I criticize it because it is illogical. I don't see how theism is illogical. If you think it is ridiculous, like a big pink easter bunny in the sky, that's fine. But that doesn't make it *illogical*.
posted
It's not the question of beliefs, it's the question of having a sense of what is evil. And I think Tom does live life with a sense of knowing what evil is, to him.
posted
I have no issue with that, dabbler. Others might, but I don't.
Now, if he thinks something is evil and I can think of a specific way that he is misintepreting something, I will point it out. But I recognize that different people have different belief systems and moralities.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I have always felt that theists have more evidence than atheits. I thought they just took the lack of more evidence as convincing, which I think is silly.
Part of the point of atheism is that it doesn't need evidence. It says "I'm not going to believe in things that don't have supporting evidence." Atheism is not an active thing. It is the lack of an active thing (belief). There are militant atheists, so to speak, but it is not a necessary condition of being an atheist.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or Tom is subjecting each Faith to his own rigorous testing process in order to determine it's validity and veracity in his own mind.
Not a bad thing. That is a motivation I can respect. But some of his comments seem more malevolent.... Nothing in this thread, mind you, just other stuff while I've been here.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Part of the point of atheism is that it doesn't need evidence. It says "I'm not going to believe in things that don't have supporting evidence." Atheism is not an active thing. It is the lack of an active thing (belief). There are militant atheists, so to speak, but it is not a necessary condition of being an atheist.
Sounds more like agnosticism to me. Atheists are confident that there is no God. Confidence implies proof or at least evidence.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where atheism is concerned, I criticize it because it is illogical. I don't see how theism is illogical. If you think it is ridiculous, like a big pink easter bunny in the sky, that's fine. But that doesn't make it *illogical*.
I don't see where atheism is any more or less logical than theism. Logic can allow you to arrive at either conclusion. But logic is only useful if your postulates are correct. I don't see where any of the postulates on either side are proven.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your definition of "malevolent" is highly subjective, if not outright erroneous. I hadn't realized you felt so strongly about missionary work. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beverly, it seems that this entire tom-centered portion of the thread was exactly on that topic, though. Tom made a statement, and people were offended that he was using his sense of Evil to call a group Evil.
I'm not trying to argue that you're not allowed to call Tom wrong. But it seems that I have heard some theists say on this board that arguing against them requires a certain tact and respect. It seems reasonable to expect the same tact and respect back at a non-theist.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sounds more like agnosticism to me. Atheists are confident that there is no God. Confidence implies proof or at least evidence.
The line between atheism and agnosticism is blurrier for some people than others. The problem with saying "Atheists are like this" is that different people use the term in different ways. Personally, I agree more closely with your definition of atheism than twinky's, but that doesn't stop lots of people who self-identify as atheists from holding philosophies along those lines.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But agnostics I sympathize with. They ask, "how can you know for sure?" And I say, "You can't. At least, not yet."![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Atheists are confident that there is no God. Confidence implies proof or at least evidence.
