Why do people believe there is a god?
news
I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
fact that there is no god. Just like I know for a fact there are no elves,
fairies or hobbits.
I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
religion and god.
For example, even if you showed me god, and said here he is, this is god,
and here is the certified letter indictating this is god.
My reaction would be -- "nice to meet you". Then I would go back to my
life.
Thus, even assuming there is a god, just for argument's sake -- what's the
point about gathering to pray to him, worship him or otherwise do anything
related to god.
Okay, there is a god, now what? So what.
Since he/she/ or it (if in existence) doesn't make it easy to talk with,
communicate with or
otherwise deal with god, god has no real relevance, even if god did so
exist.
The point being:
1. there is no god
2. even if there is a god, so what. It has no real effect on anyone's
life.
Thoughts?
Googler
What does this have to do with the scientific process? Absolutely
nothing.
As far as the scientific process is concerned, you can hold to whatever
metaphysical or religious beliefs you want to. They are different
kinds of knowledge.
So long as you don't try to force these kinds of knowledge together,
why would it be of interest in a scientific discussion ? It wouldn't
be.
Deadrat
"news" <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote in message
news:43a99849$0$29962$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> I feel like I'm the boy shouting "the emperor has no clothes".
>
> I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
> fact that there is no god. Just like I know for a fact there are no elves,
> fairies or hobbits.
>
> Thoughts?
There are no elves?
Deadrat
Dana Tweedy
"Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mghqf.1990$oW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Ohhhhhh, Santa is going to be pissed at him.....
DJT
Lee Jay
> 2. even if there is a god, so what. It has no real effect on anyone's
> life.
People are afraid. They are afraid of the unknown and they are afraid
of death. Few people are comfortable with "I don't know" and therefore
want an explaination for everything even if that explaination is "god
did it" and therefore provides no real value. Even fewer people are
comfortable with confronting the end of their existence. God can be
used to fill gaps in knowledge. The whole idea of an eternal afterlife
to be spent with a loving all-powerful god comforts their fear of
death.
Those are my thoughts. I do find it ironic that evolution gives us our
fear of death and that fear gave us god and then the opposition to
learning about evolution.
Lee Jay
news
But I remember being in temple as a very young boy -- and thinking -- this
is silly. Why are all these people standing and saying this mumbo jumbo
stuff.
I never thought religion made any sense.
"Dana Tweedy" <redd...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Qjhqf.9168$Dd2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
news
believe in door knobs (makes as much sense as god).
"Deadrat" <ephe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Mghqf.1990$oW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
news
"Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1135189836.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
odin
you are making are thoughts that I recall having when I was very young,
perhaps first when I started school in grade one, and I heard other kids
talk about this strange thing called god. I remember being shocked later,
probably in about grade four, when I started to realize that it was actually
the majority, not just a lunatic fringe minority, that believed in god. Over
the last five decades, I have only grown tired of the stupidity of religion.
> I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
> fact that there is no god. Just like I know for a fact there are no
> elves, fairies or hobbits.
This is the only point on which I do not agree with you. It may only be a
technicality, but for me, it is epistemologically important. It is a
question on the scope of knowledge. For me there is always doubt. I cannot
entirely accept or entirely reject any concept or claim. I don't spend an
inordinate amount of time wondering about the existence of god. But I do see
that it is a hypothesis with a non-zero probability. Ditto for fairies,
hobbits, and elves, which my ancestors thought were types of gods.
> Thus, even assuming there is a god, just for argument's sake -- what's the
> point about gathering to pray to him, worship him or otherwise do anything
> related to god.
Yes. If I was god, I would not expect you to believe in me. If you worshiped
me, I would kick your ass. I think it is an idea that came from social
control. As agriculture changed the political landscape 5000 years ago,
things like land ownership, and thug-government rule developed. Then god
became a king. I can assure you that my anscestors believed in and respected
othin and the believed in and were frightened of thor. But they (IMO) did
not worship them in the way that Zoroastrian/Judaic/Xtian/Islam religion
worshiped a god.
news
they believe in god. I wonder though, deep down, how many really honestly
do. Its more of a knee -jerk reaction to say "yes", when asked.
I also think that family and cultural history has been all mixed up and
intertwined with religion/god, so that people think they are insulting their
family if they reject god.
For instance, many people enjoy the "religious" holidays due to getting
together with the family and having a big dinner, etc. The religious
aspects and god are totally secondary.
So by rejecting god or religion, they may fear they are rejecting these
family gatherings.
As I have pointed out to my wife, there is no need for a religious holiday
to have a family dinner and "traditions".
"odin" <od...@ragnarok.com> wrote in message
news:QuadnQ9OF-z...@whidbeytel.com...
Googler
news wrote:
> Umm, I didn't know this was solely a scientific discussion.
>
>
I'm glad you agree with me that your questions have nothing to do with
the scientific process.
Since we are in agreement on that, I really don't have anything
further to add.
Thanks for your reply.
Dana Tweedy
> Never celebrated christmas -- I was raised in a jewish family.
>
> But I remember being in temple as a very young boy -- and thinking -- this
> is silly. Why are all these people standing and saying this mumbo jumbo
> stuff.
>
> I never thought religion made any sense.
>
believes in you. ;-)
(insert Pascal's wager argument here)
DJT
CreateThis
> ... I know for a fact that there is no god.
No, you don't. Like me, you believe without doubt that there is no god.
But this isn't the same as 'knowing for a fact', and in fact is a leap
of faith, although a tiny one compared with believing in a god - on the
order of believing the sun will rise in the east again next time. Maybe
it should be called a hop of faith.
CT
Stile4aly
Thanks for making that clear. I believe without a doubt that there is
a God, but my belief stems primarily from personal experience. I don't
believe that there is any objective evidence that can lead one to God,
you either make a leap of faith or you don't. As a result, I don't
proselytize, and I really don't appreciate it when others proselytize
to me. This seems to be the mistake most fundamentalists make, that
there is objective evidence for the existence of God, and it's their
responsibility to bring this evidence to light. This often goes hand
in hand with the idea that anyone who disagrees with their evidence is
part of a (liberal-atheist-darwinist) conspiracy designed to supress
it.
I think liberal-atheist-darwinist is my new favorite adjective. I
intend to use it more often.
Stile4aly
news
experience exactly?
And if so, what version of "god"? christian, jewish, buddist, hindu, sun
god, moon god, etc. or what?
And assuming you believe there is such a thing called "god" -- what is the
point in beliving or worshipping or doing anything related to "god". After
all, for sake of argument here, I believe, primarily from personal
experience, in my telephone as an all powerful divine being. However, I
don't make up prayers worshipping my telephone or have holidays centered on
my telephone.
So why is there all that relating to "god".
"Stile4aly" <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135193530....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Taoshan
observation.
It is not quite right to suggest that religion is mainly about an
'eternal afterlife.' That's how it often seems to those raised in a
society where Christianity is the most popular religion. Christianity
has a well-developed set of propositions about the afterlife, so those
who reject religious answers in such a setting find it easy to conclude
that religion exists mainly as a denial response to the fear of death.
But many religions around the world make few or no promises about an
afterlife. A couple of examples are Judaism (belief in an afterlife
developed only in the Maccabean period and even today Jews do not
regard belief in an afterlife as a necessary component of orthodox
belief) and philosophical Taoism (which says only that one 'joins the
Tao' at death and otherwise takes little interest in the subject).
Death and denial of death are not at the core of the religious impulse.
What all religions have in common is not the assertion of an eternal
afterlife or a loving deity. They differ on these points. What all
religions assert is that life has meaning. They all take meaning as a
given and develop ideas about right and wrong, mortality and
immortality, violence and nonviolence through consideration of this
meaning.
If religion emerges from fear, as you propose, it would not be
primarily the fear of dying that fuels religion. It would be the fear
of a meaningless existence.
-
Taoshan
_
Richard Forrest
Belief in an afterlife is one of the most dangerous ideas ever to
inflict mankind.
It is belief in an afterlife which allows people to fly aircraft into
buildings, or detonate bombs strapped to their bodies in crowds, or to
go into battle against impossible odds.
RF
Lee Jay
> It is not quite right to suggest that religion is mainly about an
> 'eternal afterlife.' That's how it often seems to those raised in a
> society where Christianity is the most popular religion. Christianity
> has a well-developed set of propositions about the afterlife, so those
> who reject religious answers in such a setting find it easy to conclude
> that religion exists mainly as a denial response to the fear of death.
>
> But many religions around the world make few or no promises about an
> afterlife. A couple of examples are Judaism (belief in an afterlife
> developed only in the Maccabean period and even today Jews do not
> regard belief in an afterlife as a necessary component of orthodox
> belief) and philosophical Taoism (which says only that one 'joins the
> Tao' at death and otherwise takes little interest in the subject).
> Death and denial of death are not at the core of the religious impulse.
Indeed I was raised a Jew and forced to go to hebrew school for the
first 8 grades. We never once spoke about an afterlife. I mentioned
this fact to a fundamentalist christian friend of mine and he rolled
his eyes and said, "then what's the point?"
So I think you are right that my observation was primarily about
Christians and, more specifically, the Christians I know.
However, I think the fear of the unknown was a primary driver for the
development of many of the world's religions.
Lee Jay
Taoshan
> I also think that family and cultural history has been all mixed up and
> intertwined with religion/god, so that people think they are insulting their
> family if they reject god.
> For instance, many people enjoy the "religious" holidays due to getting
> together with the family and having a big dinner, etc. The religious
> aspects and god are totally secondary.
>
> So by rejecting god or religion, they may fear they are rejecting these
> family gatherings.
-
I submit that much of the passion you see surrounding political
parties--demonizing members of the other party, assuming the best of
'our' guys and the worst of 'their guys, denying due recognition to
worthy ideas and accomplishments by the other side, etc--is the same
kind of thing.
-
Taoshan
_
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.com> wrote in message
news:kYhqf.1994$oW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
I agree with you here. While I find it extremely unlikely that any god
exists, I can only say for certain, that I simply do not know. I believe it
is and will always be unknowable...and I'm ok with that. I suppose that
makes me agnostic.
I guess that's why it is frustrating when people claim to know, without
hesitation, that god exists...and try to prove it with science. To me, it
just seems like a childish thing to do.
JR
>
> CT
>
Brett Aubrey
Your post was appropriate, news. Looks like "Googler's" having a bad day or
thinks (s)he's on sci.bio.evolution.
In response to your question, though, it's a dying hangover to try and
explain the inexplicable, and it mainly afflicts those brainwashed (not in
any draconian sense) from birth to believe. As we move forward, atheism
will become more and more wide-spread, methinks, especially in those
countries where religion plays only a minimal or non-existant role in
schooling (most of the non-Muslin world, ISTM). - Brett.
Jack Strickland
>I feel like I'm the boy shouting "the emperor has no clothes".
>
> I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
> fact that there is no god. Just like I know for a fact there are no
> elves, fairies or hobbits.
>
> I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> religion and god.
It's basically a carry-over from early times when man had just as active and
inquiring a mind as now, but no framework of knowledge to answer any
questions, or even frame them well. Why do the seasons change? Why are there
storms? Why was the hunting good before, but not now?
Then a lot of other things got tacked on to the concept of "gods". God given
rules of behavior, an afterlife, the anger of the god(s) explainung
calamities, etc.
Mitch...@aol.com
news wrote:
> I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
> fact that there is no god.
Incorrect, what you can say that is correct, is that your examination
of the collected edivence supporting the notion of one or more gods
over the last 5,000 years results in the conclusion that the
probability that one or more gods actually exist is less than 0.1% with
95% confidence.
Thus you cannot say that "it is a fact that no gods exist", you cna,
however, say " the probability that gods exist is exceedingly small".
> Just like I know for a fact there are no elves,
> fairies or hobbits.
I see no reason to pick on Hobbits or elves....
> I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> religion and god.
Plain and simple, it makes them feel good.
> For example, even if you showed me god, and said here he is, this is god,
> and here is the certified letter indictating this is god.
>
> My reaction would be -- "nice to meet you". Then I would go back to my
> life.
Incorrect again; this would invalidate your 'fact' that gods do not
exist. The right course of events is to adjust the probabilit of gods
existing from 0.1% to 100%, and then go about your merry way.
Unless you decide to ask that god to show some sort of
omnibenevolence--such as preventing 100% of birth defects for a single
month across the entire world.
> Thus, even assuming there is a god, just for argument's sake -- what's the
> point about gathering to pray to him, worship him or otherwise do anything
> related to god.
Kind of strange to have such a powerful image actually wanting the
wreched amoungst the human race to worship her!
> Okay, there is a god, now what? So what.
>
> Since he/she/ or it (if in existence) doesn't make it easy to talk with,
> communicate with or
> otherwise deal with god, god has no real relevance, even if god did so
> exist.
Unsupported allegation.
Taoshan
> However, I think the fear of the unknown was a primary driver for the
> development of many of the world's religions.
-
That's a broader thing, of course, and an intriguing idea. Certainly
all religions acknowledge, at their best, that there is more out there
in this thing called Reality than we can possibly know. And they assure
us that this is okay.
Fear will rear its head with any belief system, of course. There will
always be timid souls, and nobody likes losing a favorite paradigm,
whatever it happens to be.
But what if the primary driver of religion is not *fear* of the unknown
but *curiosity* about it?
What if there are some kinds of knowledge, valid knowledge absorbed by
the mind as it learns, that can only be expressed in symbols and
paradoxes? Experiences that defy expression in numbers and rational
propositions but that still serve a being as it grows and develops?
It was a cliche of music theorists in nineteenth-century Europe to say
the 'meaning' of a symphony was 'too vague to explain in words.' Felix
Mendelssohn said the cliche didn't really catch it. He said that for
him music's meaning was too *precise* to say in words. Being musical
meaning, it required musical expression. To try to say the same thing
some other way was to lose so much in the translation as to falsify the
experience.
-
Taoshan
_
Scott Draper
life. Thoughts?>>
You'll first have to define what a god is before you can say whether
or not it has an effect on anyone's life.
news
that it requires a meaning. Actually, the only meaning of life is to
continue the particular species.
So, in actuality, there is no "meaning" to life when applied to one
individual.
And it doesn't bother me that life has no meaning. Maybe that's why I
recognize that there is, in fact, no god.
"Taoshan" <taosh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1135194394.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Phil Roberts
news:43a9a62b$0$1812$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> But I remember being in temple as a very young boy -- and thinking --
> this is silly. Why are all these people standing and saying this
> mumbo jumbo stuff.
>
> I never thought religion made any sense.
Sounds pretty similar to me. I spent my first two school years in a
Catholic school, and was raised in a Church of England family which
involved regular church. I was even in the Church Boys Brigade for a
while. None of it took. Even as I child I always thought the notion of
god was rather silly and nonsensical.
Some people just seem to have the need for the kind of mystery that
accompanies religion in their life. The same urge that leads people to
belive in ghosts and read their horoscopes every day. The sad fact of
life is that most people lead incredibly mundane, banal lives and will
never rise above the herd. I guess beliving in a celestial parent figure
must salve this to some degree.
--
news
view, you would have to say, I think it extremely unlikely that flying pink
elephants wearing tutus exist.
To me, god is the equivalent of flying pink elephants wearing tutus. If you
can't say they don't exist, then you can't say anything doesn't exist.
Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, doesn't mean you can't
know for certain, without doubt, that it doesn't exist.
god is merely a fictional character in a story book. Can you say for
certain that Frodo the Hobbit doesn't exist? Frodo is/was a fictional
character.
Why is Frodo any different than god in determing existence?
Clearly it doesn't take faith to say with certainty that Frodo doesn't
exist. Nor does it take any
faith to say with certainty that another fictional character created by
man -- ie., god, doesn't exist.
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Iwiqf.44466$Zv5....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
news
fictional character made up by man.
Same as god.
I know for a fact that Frodo doesn't exist, the same as I know that god
doesn't exist.
No faith or leaping required.
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.com> wrote in message
news:kYhqf.1994$oW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
odin
Why should one think they know anything with certainty?
> In your view, you would have to say, I think it extremely unlikely that
> flying pink elephants wearing tutus exist.
So you think that the converse statement would be more reasonable?
> To me, god is the equivalent of flying pink elephants wearing tutus. If
> you can't say they don't exist, then you can't say anything doesn't exist.
Correct. You were trying to make a point?
> Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, doesn't mean you
> can't know for certain, without doubt, that it doesn't exist.
Well, if that is true, it would amount to what most people call faith.
> god is merely a fictional character in a story book.
Most likely yeas. But that is and perhaps will always remain unkown.
> Can you say for certain that Frodo the Hobbit doesn't exist? Frodo is/was
> a fictional character.
I cannot say for sure. But it is a silly question. Why do you ask?
> Why is Frodo any different than god in determing existence?
No different.
> Clearly it doesn't take faith to say with certainty that Frodo doesn't
> exist.
I would say it does.
Jack Strickland
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.21....@is.invalid...
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:04:31 +0000, it was decided that Jack Strickland
> should write:
>
>
>> It's basically a carry-over from early times when man had just as active
>> and
>> inquiring a mind as now, but no framework of knowledge to answer any
>> questions, or even frame them well. Why do the seasons change? Why are
>> there
>> storms? Why was the hunting good before, but not now?
>>
>> Then a lot of other things got tacked on to the concept of "gods". God
>> given
>> rules of behavior, an afterlife, the anger of the god(s) explainung
>> calamities, etc.
>
>
> Please also note that it is not logical to assume that first the gods were
> invented and then the rules for ("moral") behaviours. These rules were
> always there, but divine inspiration was later claimed to give the rules
> more importance.
Agreed. However, once in a while the priests, or someone else in power,
would tack something on. Like, "god" commands you tithe X to the priest of
blah blah. Or, "god" commands that your best looking daughter be available
for a romp with the king.
Similarly, in the mid 1990's, apparently the christian god became interested
in trade deficits. When Kobe, Japan was hit by a bad earthquake, killing
thousands, a well known American holy man ascribed the event to god's anger
over the US/Japan trade deficit. ;-)) The Japanese should have heeded
god's command for lower Toyota prices.... not to mention big screen TV's.
Googler
Brett Aubrey wrote:
> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:1135192450....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > news wrote:
> > > Umm, I didn't know this was solely a scientific discussion.
> >
> > I'm glad you agree with me that your questions have nothing to do
> > with the scientific process.
> >
> > Since we are in agreement on that, I really don't have anything
> > further to add.
> >
> > Thanks for your reply.
>
> Your post was appropriate, news. Looks like "Googler's" having a bad day or
> thinks (s)he's on sci.bio.evolution.
Please read what I wrote.
I never said the o.p. was not "appropriate". That is your spin.
I said the questions raised had nothing to do with the scientific
process.
>
> In response to your question, though, it's a dying hangover to try and
> explain the inexplicable, and it mainly afflicts those brainwashed (not in
> any draconian sense) from birth to believe. As we move forward, atheism
> will become more and more wide-spread, methinks, especially in those
> countries where religion plays only a minimal or non-existant role in
> schooling (most of the non-Muslin world, ISTM).
You are entitled to your belief system - and to your crystal ball.
I will reiterate that neither has anything to do with the scientific
process.
Thanks for your reply.
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
>I think this is just being weasly. How can you know anything then? In
>your view, you would have to say, I think it extremely unlikely that flying
>pink elephants wearing tutus exist.
>
> To me, god is the equivalent of flying pink elephants wearing tutus. If
> you can't say they don't exist, then you can't say anything doesn't exist.
Correct. You can be of the opinion that something doesn't exist, but you
cannot prove a negative. So, you cannot say something does not exist,
absolutely.
>
> Just because you can't prove something doesn't exist, doesn't mean you
> can't know for certain, without doubt, that it doesn't exist.
I think you are wrong here. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Ok. Beyond all
doubt? You would have to be omniscient to make that statement.
>
> god is merely a fictional character in a story book. Can you say for
> certain that Frodo the Hobbit doesn't exist? Frodo is/was a fictional
> character.
>
> Why is Frodo any different than god in determing existence?
>
> Clearly it doesn't take faith to say with certainty that Frodo doesn't
> exist. Nor does it take any
> faith to say with certainty that another fictional character created by
> man -- ie., god, doesn't exist.
It has nothing to do with faith of any kind. Only pure logic. If you do
not know everything, you can't be certain that something doesn't exist. So,
what's the problem? Do you need an absolute answer? Don't you agree that
anything is possilbe...even if very, very, or most probably, unlikely?
JR
Brett Aubrey
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
> > "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1135192450....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > news wrote:
> > > > Umm, I didn't know this was solely a scientific discussion.
> > >
> > > I'm glad you agree with me that your questions have nothing to do
> > > with the scientific process.
> > >
> > > Since we are in agreement on that, I really don't have anything
> > > further to add.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your reply.
> >
> > Your post was appropriate, news. Looks like "Googler's" having a bad
day
> > or thinks (s)he's on sci.bio.evolution.
>
> Please read what I wrote.
>
> I never said the o.p. was not "appropriate". That is your spin.
>
> I said the questions raised had nothing to do with the scientific
> process.
So which was it? A bad day? Or did you think you were on a scientific
group?
jrs...@sbcglobal.net
"nmp" <add...@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.21....@is.invalid...
> write:
>
>
>> I believe it is and will always be unknowable...and I'm ok with that. I
>> suppose that makes me agnostic.
>
> ridiculous one. Because with the same reasoning you could argue that you
> are agnostic of (tadaboom) pink unicorns. For if they exist or not shall
> also forever be unknown.
>
Well, my position is based purely on logic. Personally, I think the idea of
a god is pretty silly. And, I would agree that it is in the same league
with pink unicorns. However, logic tells me that you can never prove a
negative. So, unless you are omniscient, how can you make an absolute
statement about something unknowable?
> We can rule it out pretty much, though.
Yes, but you qualified your absolute statement with "pretty much".
>
> So we can rule out this "god", too. Same thing.
Yes, again...pretty much?
>
> Besides, we have perfectly logic explanations of how any belief in deities
> came to be. That should be the end of religion (as we knew it).
Well, one would hope...but that is an aside to the topic at hand.
>
> Of course, there will always be a need for religious or spiritual
> experiences in people. That's allright. But there should not be a need to
> invent a deity for it.
>
Yes.
>
>
> Nice one I have seen, for strong atheists who are not so sure at times:
>
> To you I'm an atheist, to God I'm with the loyal opposition :)
I'm what you would call 99.999999999...% atheist--but logic tells me to save
that other .000000000001 for the pink unicorn! ;-)
JR
>
odin
> may exist, or he may not exist, we don't know". That way, the agnost still
> leaves a 50% chance that the unicorn may well exist but without us
> knowing.
Can you show me any credible definition for agnostic that mentions anything
about this 50% chance requirement?
Beautiful and Damned
>fact that there is no god. Just like I know for a fact there are no elves,
>fairies or hobbits.
There's been lots of talk about whether one can say for a "fact" there
is no god. Intelligent folks make statements like this all the time
but omit the verbose qualifications. Maybe the claim to "fact" just
sounds too strong. I suppose one could say:
"The probability that a god exists is so low that for all practical
purposes and all situations that one could conceivably encounter, the
consideration that there is some small probability that god does exist
does not impact our decisions in any significant way. Introducing the
concept 'god' actually produces more confusion and uncertainty than it
resolves. Therefore, we can safely say that god does not exist without
qualification."
"The plesiosaur is extinct." I.e., the probability that a pleiosaur is
living somewhere is so low (although nonzero) that we don't bother
making this explicit.
Taoshan
> Can you say for certain that Frodo the Hobbit doesn't exist?
> Frodo is/was a fictional character.
Then I can say Frodo *does* exist. As a fictional character.
You even use the verb ascribing existence -- be, is, was -- to describe
Frodo. You ascribe a form of existence to him even in the act of
denying him (another form of) existence.
Frodo may not be a biological organism walking around on feet garnished
with shafts of keratin protein. He may not be the kind of creature you
can dissect in a lab. But Frodo is clearly an idea of sufficient
reality that you can name him on a public thread and expect people to
recognize him. He has his reality as a mental construct. This construct
is of sufficient potency that you assume people have read books about
him and concerned themselves with what happens to him.
You're arguing, of course, that Frodo the Hobbit doesn't have the same
kind of *solid, durable 3D* reality the rest of us have. You weren't
sure, for example, about the time element. You said 'is/was'. That's
understandable. In one sense Frodo exists in the present, in the NOW,
every time we engage with his story. We mentally construct him and thus
he has his existence. But the past tense also obtains. Where does Frodo
go once we close the covers of the book? Does he exist anymore at all?
So you've decided that Frodo is so ephemeral as to be hardly real at
all. His existence, such as it is, is not worth dignifying with the
word 'real' because it is not made of the same stuff as ours.
Or is it?
Where do *we* go when the covers of the book are closed?
How real will any of us be in the year 2005? In time, aren't we all
fictional?
I'd give Frodo and those unicorns a bit more respect.
If God is 'nothing more' than a symbol of everything in the universe we
don't know, God is plenty. That's a potent symbol.
-
Taoshan
_
Stile4aly
news wrote:
> What leads you to think there is such a thing called "god"? What personal
> experience exactly?
>
> And if so, what version of "god"? christian, jewish, buddist, hindu, sun
> god, moon god, etc. or what?
I'd rather not go into the specific personal experience. It's an
experience that was personal, hence a personal experience. ;-)
Truthfully the nature of my experience doesn't matter anyway, since as
I said I don't consider it objective evidence, and I don't think it
would mean anything to anyone except me. And I am Muslim, so I believe
in the God of Abraham.
>
> And assuming you believe there is such a thing called "god" -- what is the
> point in beliving or worshipping or doing anything related to "god". After
> all, for sake of argument here, I believe, primarily from personal
> experience, in my telephone as an all powerful divine being. However, I
> don't make up prayers worshipping my telephone or have holidays centered on
> my telephone.
Given that I accept that there is a God and that I identify myself as a
Muslim, it follows that I accept the tenants of Islam which includes
prayer. Now, admittedly I don't pray 5 times a day, or even that
often. I consider it more of a theistic spirituality. All the same, I
believe God created the universe (not in the 6-day, 6000 year old world
sense) and you've got to admit that's pretty impressive.
>
> So why is there all that relating to "god".
I'm sure some of it is adapted from preexisting traditions. I'm a
realist, I know that there was a month long fast as part of the
celebrations in pre-Islamic pagan Arabia and that it was coopted for
the Islamic month of Ramadan, but I don't feel that invalidates the
purpose of the fast which is to reduce your focus on material things
and think about something larger than yourself and also to better
appreciate the needs of the poor. It's no coincidence that Ramadan is
immediately followed by a feast where traditionally 1/3 of your feast
is for your family, 1/3 for your neighbors, and 1/3 for the poor.
Also, this is the period of time where you perform Zakat (almsgiving)
where you donate about 2.5% of your savings.
Why is God necessary for any of this to occur, I don't suppose He is
technically. But if we presume a divine agent (or telephone, as the
case may be) then we also presume that all things flow from that divine
agent.
Stile4aly
<snip>
Taoshan
> How real will any of us be in the year 2005?
I meant to write '3005.' How real will any of us be one thousand years
from now?
If people in 3005 still think about fairies and unicorns and hobbits
but nobody remembers us, won't those creatures be more real than we?
They will at least exist as mental constructs. We won't have even that
existence.
'We are such stuff as dreams are made on...'
- William Shakespeare
Yes, the same question--how real are we?--applies to the present
moment. But that comes further down the philosophical line. I wasn't
going that far this trip.
; )
-
Taoshan
_
Lee Jay
> But what if the primary driver of religion is not *fear* of the unknown
> but *curiosity* about it?
Then they would have invented science and discovered the unknown
instead of making it up.
Lee Jay
Taoshan
> But the way most people understand the concept of God, even the believers,
> he is *outside* the universe, having created it after all.
'Most people' in your neighborhood, you mean. You assume a
Judeo-Christian norm. Huge populations of religious people do not think
this way.
Even within that tradition: Rabbi Isaac Luria did not think so
dualistically; neither did Meister Eckhart.
People in this forum often pit a childish (fundamentalist) idea of
existential purpose against an adult's idea of rational skepticism.
It's easy to declare a winner this way, but it's cheap.
-
Taoshan
_
AC
news <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
> I feel like I'm the boy shouting "the emperor has no clothes".
>
> I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
> fairies or hobbits.
>
> religion and god.
>
> For example, even if you showed me god, and said here he is, this is god,
> and here is the certified letter indictating this is god.
>
> My reaction would be -- "nice to meet you". Then I would go back to my
> life.
>
> Thus, even assuming there is a god, just for argument's sake -- what's the
> point about gathering to pray to him, worship him or otherwise do anything
> related to god.
>
> Okay, there is a god, now what? So what.
>
> Since he/she/ or it (if in existence) doesn't make it easy to talk with,
> communicate with or
> otherwise deal with god, god has no real relevance, even if god did so
> exist.
>
> The point being:
>
> 1. there is no god
> 2. even if there is a god, so what. It has no real effect on anyone's
> life.
>
> Thoughts?
That this the wrong newsgroup. Try alt.atheism and talk.atheism where you
can sing to your choir and get into nasty fisty-cuffs with theists who might
take some umbrage at your claims.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
>
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
>> "Googler" <GOOGLE.4...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>> news:1135192450....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > news wrote:
>> > > Umm, I didn't know this was solely a scientific discussion.
>> >
>> > I'm glad you agree with me that your questions have nothing to do
>> > with the scientific process.
>> >
>> > Since we are in agreement on that, I really don't have anything
>> > further to add.
>> >
>> > Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Your post was appropriate, news. Looks like "Googler's" having a bad day or
>> thinks (s)he's on sci.bio.evolution.
>
> Please read what I wrote.
>
> I never said the o.p. was not "appropriate". That is your spin.
>
> I said the questions raised had nothing to do with the scientific
> process.
To be fair, about 99% of the crap Creationists post has nothing to do with
the scientific process either.
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
news <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
> People make the mistake of thinking that an individual's life has meaning or
> that it requires a meaning. Actually, the only meaning of life is to
> continue the particular species.
>
> So, in actuality, there is no "meaning" to life when applied to one
> individual.
>
> And it doesn't bother me that life has no meaning. Maybe that's why I
> recognize that there is, in fact, no god.
That's far too pessimistic. I believe I am responsible for giving my life
meaning, or for just saying "screw it" and tuning into a Futurama rerun.
I don't think there's a damn thing wrong with trying to find meaning in
life. It's when you decide your meaning in life is so really great that you
have to visit it upon everyone else that things get a little dicey.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
news <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
> I think pressure from society or some sort of guilt feeling makes people say
> they believe in god. I wonder though, deep down, how many really honestly
> do. Its more of a knee -jerk reaction to say "yes", when asked.
While I'm uncomfortable with the notion of mind-reading, I do think that God
is a social marker, a common belief that can unite a diverse group of people
under a common ideology.
>
> I also think that family and cultural history has been all mixed up and
> intertwined with religion/god, so that people think they are insulting their
> family if they reject god.
This gets too far into over-generalization for my liking. I imagine there
are closet atheists and agnostics who might pay lip service, but I have no
reason to think that the majority of people who claim to be theists aren't
sincere.
> For instance, many people enjoy the "religious" holidays due to getting
> together with the family and having a big dinner, etc. The religious
> aspects and god are totally secondary.
Again, this raises questions of sincerity that I really don't think you or I
or anyone can judge. It almost sounds to me like you might be referring to
someone you know.
>
> So by rejecting god or religion, they may fear they are rejecting these
> family gatherings.
>
> As I have pointed out to my wife, there is no need for a religious holiday
> to have a family dinner and "traditions".
Well of course there's no need, but religion is as much about tradition as
anything else. You're right that things are intertwined, but that's because
you can't simply look at human social behaviors in discrete units.
Societies, right down to families, are complex entities. There are all
sorts of social queues, hiearchies, competitive rivalries, co-operative
relationships and traditions all wrapped together, and religious and
traditional celebrations are simply part of the mortar that helps the whole
thing hold together.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
<jrs...@sbcglobal.net> <jrs...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> "CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.com> wrote in message
> news:kYhqf.1994$oW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>> news wrote:
>>
>>> ... I know for a fact that there is no god.
>>
>> No, you don't. Like me, you believe without doubt that there is no god.
>> But this isn't the same as 'knowing for a fact', and in fact is a leap
>> of faith, although a tiny one compared with believing in a god - on the
>> order of believing the sun will rise in the east again next time. Maybe
>> it should be called a hop of faith.
>
> I agree with you here. While I find it extremely unlikely that any god
>
> I guess that's why it is frustrating when people claim to know, without
> hesitation, that god exists...and try to prove it with science. To me, it
> just seems like a childish thing to do.
Well, I'm a confirmed (and possibly damned) atheist, but I think there's a
difference between my statement "there is no god" and any kind of emperical,
factual proclamation. At the end of the day, I don't think anyone can
provide a completely rational argument for or against the existence of God.
At some point, there is always that leap of faith, that stretching belief or
lack of belief beyond anything we could ever hope to emperically
demonstrate.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
news <ne...@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
> I think this is just being weasly. How can you know anything then? In your
> view, you would have to say, I think it extremely unlikely that flying pink
> elephants wearing tutus exist.
Surely you must see the difference. Flying pink elephants, as you formulate
them, could potentially be falsified. The assertion makes a specific claim
about the existence of an entity whose traits would be testable.
God, or at least the God of Abraham, is formulated as being an omnipotent
being, and thus is beyond any such testing. It may seem pretty arbitrary
(and in my opinion it is) but when you claim that such a being exists, then
to refusal to accept that being's existence does entail a certain amount of
faith.
The only fully rational position, so far as I have ever been able to tell,
is that the existence of God is unknowable.
BruceW
news wrote:
> ...
> I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal
> about religion and god.
> ...
Isaac Asimov had some interesting ideas on this in an essay called
"Knock Plastic!", one of the chapters in his essay collection
"Science, Numbers, and I".
IMO "Knock plastic!" and several of the other essays in this book
are among the best Asimov ever wrote.
-BruceW
CreateThis
> ... It doesn't take a leap of faith to realize Frodo the Hobbit is a
> fictional character made up by man.
Yes, it does, although it's a tiny, tiny leap.
> Same as god.
It's not the same as god, except that believing there is no god is also
a tiny, tiny leap (as most of the people on the planet would vehemently
disagree). The big difference is that we have Tolkein's admission that
he made Frodo up and nobody (walking around free) claiming he's real -
but even this doesn't *prove* that Frodo doesn't exist. It's a
technicality, really, but an important one.
If you're not familiar with the word, look up 'hubris'.
CT <-- like I know what I'm talking about
thissteve
that many evolutionists on this newsgroup are theists. If so, why
isn't this thread 50/50?
news wrote:
> I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> religion and god.
We believe in God because it's the common sense explanation for the
majesty of nature. A few thousand years ago people had nothing but
common sense to go on, and belief in higher power was universal. Only
recently, when we have tools other than common sense, have people begun
rejecting God.
So to be an atheist, you are going against common sense. That's okay,
but it's not okay to then state that believing in God is ridiculous, or
that there's no evidence for God.
Science has not demonstrated the lack of the supernatural, it is
declared unable to reveal the supernatural _by definition_. History
has not demonstrated the lack of the supernatural, it is declared
unable to reveal the supernatural _a priori_ with Hume's argument.
Ditto for personal testimony. In order to declare that there is no
supernatural, you must first open a door to let the supernatural in,
then observe that the supernatural is not coming in. You can't close
all doors at the beginning, then wonder why you aren't finding the
supernatural.
Finally, for the Frodo argument: the author of the Frodo story did not
declare that Frodo was real. He did not have followers who declared
that Frodo was real. Nobody suffered and died defending the belief
that Frodo was real. The same cannot be said about God. This does not
prove God, but it shows that your analogy falls apart.
Gordon Hill
> I feel like I'm the boy shouting "the emperor has no clothes"...
Are you the intergalactic epicenter of absolute knowledge we seek?
> I don't waver, or "doubt" or question the existence of god. I know for a
> fact that there is no god.
You know for a fact which means you can prove it. State your
hypothesis, conduct your test, publish your results.
The truly religious believe, they can't prove it. If they could it
wouldn't be a belief.
> I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> religion and god.
That's fine by me. It's your choice.
> For example, even if you showed me god, and said here he is, this is god,
> and here is the certified letter indictating this is god.
People can't show people god, although some say they can.
> My reaction would be -- "nice to meet you". Then I would go back to my
> life.
Good move.
> Thus, even assuming there is a god, just for argument's sake -- what's the
> point about gathering to pray to him, worship him or otherwise do anything
> related to god.
Who says you have to do all that? The point is about behavior--how you
treat yourself, others and the planet. Or I am wrong.
> Okay, there is a god, now what? So what.
Behave yourself, that's all. From what I can see, you seem to be doing
just fine.
> Since he/she/ or it (if in existence) doesn't make it easy to talk with,
> communicate with or
> otherwise deal with god, god has no real relevance, even if god did so
> exist.
That's for you. What about others? If believing in god encourages
others to treat themselves, others and the planet better, where's the
harm?
> The point being:
>
> 1. there is no god
a belief beyond proof.
> 2. even if there is a god, so what. It has no real effect on anyone's
> life.
another belief.
> Thoughts?
You're an atheist. Do what my Mom told me when I went out, "Be good."
That's all religion is about for me, living a right life. It's about
different things for different people.
Question: If you are going to degrade the religious for their beliefs,
why should they show any respect for yours. Do you believe in
fairness?
All the best, GH
Brett Aubrey
news:1135217347.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Some people here claim that evolution is compatible with religion and
> that many evolutionists on this newsgroup are theists. If so, why
> isn't this thread 50/50?
Who said the ng split was 50/50? And maybe many theists have chosen not to
respond. There are a raft of possibilities why this thread isn't 50/50. If
your main point here is that evolution and religion are incompatible, you
have to have read at least some posters who've stated the contrary - that
they are theists and accept evolution as the best answer to the diversity of
life (I know I've seen quite a few).
> news wrote:
> > I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> > religion and god.
>
> We believe in God because it's the common sense explanation for the
> majesty of nature.
Only to theists. Certainly your statement is untrue for me. My common
sense says that all you have to do is look at the regionalisation of
religions to see that religion is a social construct. God is a creation of
man.
> A few thousand years ago people had nothing but common
> sense to go on, and belief in higher power was universal.
Cite, please.
> Only recently, when we have tools other than common sense, have
> people begun rejecting God.
>
> So to be an atheist, you are going against common sense.
Opinion noted and rejected for the obvious reasons.
> That's okay, but it's not okay to then state that believing in God is
> ridiculous,
Not much different than stating that not believing goes against common
sense, ISTM. You like to dish it out but you can't take it?
> or that there's no evidence for God.
What would you have us say when we see no evidence for god(s)? There *is*
no evidence for god(s). I wouldn't be offended by a statement from you that
there is some evidence for your God; are you offended when I say there is no
evidence for god(s)? If so, why? We are each just stating what we plainly
see.
> Science has not demonstrated the lack of the supernatural, it is
> declared unable to reveal the supernatural _by definition_. History
> has not demonstrated the lack of the supernatural, it is declared
> unable to reveal the supernatural _a priori_ with Hume's argument.
> Ditto for personal testimony. In order to declare that there is no
> supernatural, you must first open a door to let the supernatural in,
> then observe that the supernatural is not coming in. You can't close
> all doors at the beginning, then wonder why you aren't finding the
> supernatural.
Opinion noted and rejected for the obvious reasons.
> Finally, for the Frodo argument: the author of the Frodo story did not
> declare that Frodo was real. He did not have followers who declared
> that Frodo was real. Nobody suffered and died defending the belief
> that Frodo was real. The same cannot be said about God. This does
> not prove God, but it shows that your analogy falls apart.
I agree. There is no indoctrination with Frodo. There are better
analogies - just substitute your choice of Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, Thor,
Santa, Odin, The Easter Bunny, Jupiter, Shango, Ra, Ka Tyeleo, Juok, etc.,
etc., etc. in place of Frodo. With these, the analogies hold. But they
don't have to be perfect. Analogies are only analogous, after all
(profound, huh? ;-)). The only difference between Santa and God is that the
Santa-indoctrination stops. The only difference between Thor and God is
that you weren't born in Scandinavia in 200 AD and hence weren't
indoctrinated to believe in Norse gods in the first place. Had you been
born in a sufficiently different culture or at a sufficiently different
time, you would not believe in your current deity. - Brett.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." [Stephen Roberts]
Lee Jay
> That's far too pessimistic. I believe I am responsible for giving my life
> meaning, or for just saying "screw it" and tuning into a Futurama rerun.
How about a Star Trek TNG rerun?
-----
LAL (Data's android daughter)
Father, what is my purpose?
DATA (Android)
Purpose?
LAL
My function, my reason for being?
DATA
It is a complex question, Lal.
I can only begin to answer it by
telling you that our function is
to contribute in a positive way
to the world in which we live.
-----
Anything wrong with that?
Lee Jay
Dave
> [...]
> I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> religion and god.
Here's an idea, why not ask them? Why come to TO asking for religious
instruction?
Brett Aubrey
news:1135225446....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Oh, so ya mean the talkorigins.org site is outdated and theology is no
longer appropriate as a subject?
Peter Besenbruch
> LAL
> My function, my reason for being?
>
> DATA
> It is a complex question, Lal.
> I can only begin to answer it by
> telling you that our function is
> to contribute in a positive way
> to the world in which we live.
>
> -----
>
> Anything wrong with that?
It's good, as far as it goes. How about this:
"Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom
prepared for you since the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and
you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger
and you made me welcome, lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you
visited me, in prison and you came to see me....
"...in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of
mine, you did it to me."
explainer
> I feel like I'm the boy shouting "the emperor has no clothes".
...and I feel like the Grinch trying to steal Christmas.
Why did you change the subject?
You ask, "Why do people believe there is a god?" then proceed to
castigate those who do. Suggestion. If you become a trial lawyer, let
an associate question witnesses.
So much for the fun.
People believe in God, Allah, the Lord, "_ _ _ _" because they do.
Belief transcends reason. When someone says, "I believe..." in its
spiritual sense they are saying, "This is true for me." They are not
saying it is true for you.
Belief is how we deal with the unknown. As for the definition of
terms, if knowledge is defined (for this essay) as "everything we
know", we know what we can prove conclusively (intelligence), what we
can prove partially (opinions) and what we can not prove at all
(belief).
Everyone has all three. No two people have the same mixture of all
three.
Belief is formed from intelligence. Was there a time you believed in
Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny? I did and as I
acquired intelligence I changed my beliefs.
I believe in God (I now use the terms Source or Creator because of the
deterministic, anthropmorphic model so many mean when they say God) and
have since my early memories, but my description of God has change and
will continue to provided I keep expanding my intelligence.
I am struck by the number of creationists and athiests who suggest the
other is somehow less than intelligent because of their differing
beliefs. How intelligent is it to misunderstand that belief is beyond
rational explanation?
"I believe what I believe and you believe what you believe. That's as
it should be, but... when I say you have to believe what I believe or
you say I have to believe what you believe, that's dumb."
Dumb comes in two basic forms: ignorance and stupidity
Ignorance is temporary; stupid is forever.
I will always be stupid about (and believe in) those things beyond my
knowledge--like love--and will continue to reduce my ignorance by
gaining new intelligence, but I would be lying to say I don't believe
in the Source of it all, because I believe there is a cause, a source,
of the universe, which I call God and you call whatever it is to you.
It's that simple.
All the best, Gordon Hill
Dave
> "Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > news wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > I dont' understand why so many people have this whole big deal about
> > > religion and god.
> >
> > instruction?
>
> Oh, so ya mean the talkorigins.org site is outdated and theology is no
> longer appropriate as a subject?
The OP seemed to be saying "I don't believe so convince me." Wouldn't
that be more appropriate for some evangelical hangout where they can
all post reams of "personal life changing experiences," problems they
have overcome through the power of Jesus, miracles they have witnessed,
and other assorted rubbish?
Lee Jay
So you should contribute to society because you will be rewarded at the
end if you do? Why not just do it because it's the right thing to do
("our function") without the promise of a reward or any expressed
threat of retribution (go to hell if you don't)?
Lee Jay
explainer
the end? There's nothing is Peter's quote that says anything about
that.
Lee Jay
> You are right, of course, but why do you ask about being rewarded in
> the end? There's nothing is Peter's quote that says anything about
> that.
Well, I'm not too good at reading that stuff but I thought that's what
the "take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you" stuff meant.
Perhaps I'm wrong about that.
Lee Jay
explainer
It depends on whether you are a creationist, which means you are likely
an exclusivist.
I have been an inclusivist too long and read that as the kingdom here
on earth which is the society we live in.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I wonder how Peter reads it.
MarkJames
silliness. If some group says they are going to heaven because some
space aliens are hiding behind a comet, other religious people call
them weird, insane, or a cult. It seems to me, anyone that:
1. believes an invisible man/woman/what have you controls everything,
2. thus requiring regular butt-kissing/prayer/begging/forgiving,
3. while wearing special hats/clothes/etc,
4. from a special building/church/mosque/synagogue/etc,
5. whilst chanting something in a language you otherwise never use,
6. so you can go somewhere that you, your friends, family, or anybody
else has never been
is seriously unable to cope with reality and belongs to a cult (or the
Masons - take your pick).
explainer
MarkJames wrote:
edited with brackets [] so I can agree with it.
> I find it curious that [idiotic] religious people can compartmentalize such
> [Jackie] Masons - take your pick).
Thought I'd clear this up. All the best, Gordon Hill
Peter Besenbruch
It goes a lot farther than that. One contributes, because one sees Christ
in the other. One seeks to transcend social boundaries, because Christ
resides in someone different than you. One gives of one's time, talent,
and money, not because others are less fortunate, but because that is the
way to meet Christ.
Lee Jay
> > So you should contribute to society because you will be rewarded at the
> > end if you do? Why not just do it because it's the right thing to do
> > ("our function") without the promise of a reward or any expressed threat
> > of retribution (go to hell if you don't)?
>
> It goes a lot farther than that. One contributes, because one sees Christ
> in the other. One seeks to transcend social boundaries, because Christ
> resides in someone different than you. One gives of one's time, talent,
> and money, not because others are less fortunate, but because that is the
> way to meet Christ.
If you just replace "Christ" with "human" or "humanity" or "people",
what would be the difference? I help people because I want to see them
helped and I think it's the right thing to do, not because I wan't to
meet Christ - I don't even believe in Christ.
Lee Jay
Peter Besenbruch
I'll follow up on another post I wrote. The type of literature used in the
Matthew quote is called "eschatological." Where creation myths speak about
beginnings, eschatology speaks about endings. What they both have in
common is that they occur out of time, and they tend to use concrete
methods to describe abstract concepts.
Another way of putting it is that the events in a myth are going on in the
present. Judgment, or the determination of one's closeness to God, is
happening day by day, minute by minute. The claim is that it is part of
the fabric of our existence. The Babylonian creation myth is about the
forces of order overcoming the forces of chaos. The myth is "true" if,
again, such a battle is an ongoing part of existence.
Peter Besenbruch
> I help people because I want to see them helped and I think it's the
> right thing to do, not because I wan't to meet Christ - I don't even
> believe in Christ.
There are a few ways to answer that. I suppose the simplest is to say, the
passage in Matthew is not significant to you.
From a more objective perspective, while Jesus is an historical figure, he
also functions in some ways as a foundational figure, as myth. The
gospels tell a story of God becoming human. This gives humans worth. In
a way, it has something in common with the Genesis 1 creation account.
Genesis 1 depicts humans as created in the image of God. The Gospel of
John tries to link the idea of the descending and ascending god with
creation in its opening verses.
I should add that religious texts need not impart value to all, or even
some humanity. Some strict Calvinists and Gnostics ascribe value to a
distinct minority of people. Babylonian myth saw little value in humans as
a whole.
Lee Jay
> The
> gospels tell a story of God becoming human. This gives humans worth.
Why does god becoming human give humans worth? I've never understood
this.
Lee Jay
explainer
Hope I'm not interfering with this dialog you have going with Peter,
but it's a personal issue for me. My behavior is better as I look to
the teachings of Christ, yours might be better if you look in a
different direction.
Ths question is, "How are we treating the least of these, our
brethren?"
Whatever floats your boat, flies your kite, moves you to live humanely
is fine by me. Find your best way. It will probably change as you do,
even if you identify yourself with the same label. I've been a
Methodist all my life and remain so for three reasons: I was born into
it, I find nothing within it to cause me to leave and, this may be the
most telling, they haven't thrown me out.
As my late buddy, Bob, would say, "It doesn't matter to me what you
believe, but to you it's crucial. It determines how you treat
yourself, others and the planet and it's best not to mess that up."
One thing that seldom comes out in these exchanges is that no two
people--religious, atheist, agnostic or otherwise--believe exactly the
same because belief is born of intelligence which differs across us
all, hence the fine details of our belief differ. Most of what people
call belief is opinion which is different.
The golden rule, in some form, is at the core of every religion I know.
To me, the "treating the least of these" passage is another way of
saying treat others as you want to be treated if you were among "the
least of these."
All the best, Gordon HIll
Lee Jay
to do whatever they want to do, so long as what they do doesn't affect
someone else's right to do what they want to do." Unfortunately, not
all religious people follow the second half of that rule.
I'll do what I want, and you can do what you want. We can both help
each other.
Lee Jay
explainer
We may want to bronze this. I like the "both help each other" part
best of all. Of course, some of my Christian friends know how much
help I need.
All the best to you, GH
Peter Besenbruch
I basically agree with Glen's assessment that seeing Christ in others,
when I remember to do so, makes me a better person. I'll toss in the more
technical explanation of your question.
First, though, the non-technical. If God bothers becoming human, we must
be worth the trouble. If God creates us in the divine image, we, likewise,
must be worth something.
On the more technical side, it pays to examine the story of the Fall, and
the related accounts. In Genesis 3, the snake tells Eve: "God knows in
fact that the day you eat it your eyes will be opened and you will be like
gods, knowing good from evil" (Genesis 3:5). The Fall involves a crossed
boundary. Humans succumbed to the temptation to be God like. Later, God
expels humans from Eden, bringing up the tree of life: "Now that the man
has become like one of us in knowing good from evil, he must not be
allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat
and live for ever!" In short, God reestablishes the boundary between human
and divine.
Genesis 6:1-4 has the odd little story of divine beings having sex with
human women and having offspring. Once again, the line between human and
divine was crossed. Later, Rabbinic tradition made it the cause of the
global flood.
Genesis 11:1-8 recounts the story of the tower of Babel. God's reaction is
interesting: "This is only the start of their undertakings! Now nothing
they plan to do will be beyond them." The resulting confusion of languages
was an attempt to reestablish the divine/human boundary.
What you have with Jesus is another crossing of the boundary, only going
the other way. Paul, in Philippians quotes what is likely an early hymn:
[Jesus], being in the form of God, did not count equality with God
something to be grasped. But he emptied himself, taking the form of a
slave, becoming as human beings are; and being in every way like a human
being, he was humbler yet, even to accepting death, death on a cross"
(2:6-8).
Paul's quote states, in effect, that if we want to be divine, we must act
like Christ, and be truly human. The other aspect is Paul's treatment of
the crucifixion as both redemptive and costly. Hence, Christians see the
whole story as an active, ongoing statement of love for us. If God made
that kind of effort on our behalf, humans must be worth something.
thissteve
Brett Aubrey wrote:
> If
> your main point here is that evolution and religion are incompatible, you
> have to have read at least some posters who've stated the contrary
Evolution forces many Christians to significantly revise their beliefs.
It should be accepted as good science, but it's not as easy as many
people make it out to be.
> > A few thousand years ago people had nothing but common
> > sense to go on, and belief in higher power was universal.
>
> Cite, please.
You need proof that the ancients were religious?? Come on.
> are you offended when I say there is no
> evidence for god(s)? If so, why? We are each just stating what we plainly
> see.
I'm slightly miffed that you had no response to my point that people
like you first close all doors to the supernatural, then declare that
you don't see any supernatural. Put another way, there's no way to
falsify your assertion that there is no supernatural.
For the record, you can falsify my belief by providing _one_
naturalistic explanation for the origin of Christianity that covers all
the facts. But that's appropriately something for another thread.
> The only difference between Thor and God is
> that you weren't born in Scandinavia in 200 AD and hence weren't
> indoctrinated to believe in Norse gods in the first place.
I was indoctrinated to believe in a young earth. I do not believe in a
young earth. I was indoctrinated to be a republican. I am a democrat.
I was indoctrinated to believe in Biblical inerrancy. I do not
believe in Biblical inerrancy.
Lee Jay
> If God made
> that kind of effort on our behalf, humans must be worth something.
What, and to whom?
The only thing I really care about is what we're worth to each other
and what our existance costs to other life forms. I want to maximize
the first and minimize the second.
Lee Jay
Peter Besenbruch
> The only thing I really care about is what we're worth to each other and
> what our existance costs to other life forms. I want to maximize the
> first and minimize the second.
Understood that you would want to do that. Why would you want to do that?
Truman Burbank
I even have trouble calling myself that because i think it's so
completely silly. I'm an agnostic to the god question in the same
regard that I'm am agnostic to the existence of unicorns or invisible
parrots who sit on your shoulder and whisper morality into your ears.
I technically don't have the knowledge of whether such things exist but
i'm pretty certain that they are all ridiculous enough that I can
completely disregard them. Furthermore I'm 100% certain that if there
were a god, unicorns, or invisible parrots, that this would have 0
effect on my life or what happens after I die. It's completely
irrelevant. The only reason I even talk about the topic at all (which
isn't much anyways) is because there are people who don't think the
idea is completely silly (which doesn't bother me).
Lee Jay
Because we all can live happier lives if we cooperate to do so. It's
almost always the case that two people can accomplish a big task more
than twice as fast as one person. The same goes for groups on bigger
tasks. This isn't *always* the case but even in the case of a person
working by themselves, they can usually benefit from some support. By
working together, we can advance the human condition so that we have
more of our limited lives to devote to doing the things we enjoy versus
the things that must be done.
For the second part, it seems to me to be part of the golden rule I
mentioned above.
Lee Jay
Peter Besenbruch
> Because we all can live happier lives if we cooperate to do so. It's
> almost always the case that two people can accomplish a big task more than
> twice as fast as one person. The same goes for groups on bigger tasks.
> This isn't *always* the case but even in the case of a person working by
> themselves, they can usually benefit from some support. By working
> together, we can advance the human condition so that we have more of our
> limited lives to devote to doing the things we enjoy versus the things
> that must be done.
Thanks.
> For the second part, it seems to me to be part of the golden rule I
> mentioned above.
The Golden Rule, I've heard of it. ;)
CreateThis
> Peter Besenbruch wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:17:39 -0800, Lee Jay wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The only thing I really care about is what we're worth to each other and
>>>what our existance costs to other life forms. I want to maximize the
>>>first and minimize the second.
>>
>>Understood that you would want to do that. Why would you want to do that?
>
>
> Because we all can live happier lives
It's one of those endearing religious incongruities: we must be cajoled
and coerced like children to act 'morally', but that somehow makes us
*better* than if we do it willingly out of rational self interest.
Ethical Twister.
CT
Lee Jay
> The Golden Rule, I've heard of it. ;)
I meant mine:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2a1c12f12a88a3ec?dmode=source
Lee Jay
Peter Besenbruch
I like Hillel's version best: That which you hate, don't do to
others.
Brett Aubrey
news:1135303892.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
> > If your
> > main point here is that evolution and religion are incompatible, you
> > have to have read at least some posters who've stated the contrary
>
> Evolution forces many Christians to significantly revise their beliefs.
> It should be accepted as good science, but it's not as easy as many
> people make it out to be.
"Not as easy"? What? Revising beliefs? What's your stand on ToE, BTW?
> > > A few thousand years ago people had nothing but common
> > > sense to go on, and belief in higher power was universal.
> >
> > Cite, please.
>
> You need proof that the ancients were religious?? Come on.
I know many were, but I doubt it was *universal*. A cite saying something
to the effect that there were no atheists among the common folk would be
nice. But if you're right about that, then you're flat-out wrong about
common sense. You need to reword your sentence thusly:
A few thousand years ago people had nothing but brain-
washing to go on, and belief in higher power was universal.
But it's interesting if you're right. It would likely mean that atheism is
growing faster than any religion. Hmmm.
> > are you offended when I say there is no
> > evidence for god(s)? If so, why? We are each just stating what
> > we plainly see.
Why do you get slightly miffed when all your points aren't responded to, but
then don't answer others' points and direct questions? You even snip
questions, don't mark the snips and still don't respond. Should I get
miffed, now?
> I'm slightly miffed that you had no response to my point that people
> like you first close all doors to the supernatural, then declare that
> you don't see any supernatural. Put another way, there's no way to
> falsify your assertion that there is no supernatural.
Do you "open the doors" to Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, Thor, Santa, Odin, The
Easter Bunny, Jupiter, Shango, Ra, Ka Tyeleo, Juok, Akuj, Ahura, Aphrodite,
Apollo, Babaluaye, Cerridwen, Dionysus, Eos, Frigga, Gaea, Lord Genesa,
Hephaestus, Ibeji, Jehovah, Krishna, Loki, Manitou, Nahuiquiahuitl, Obatala,
Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Rama, Rhea, Set, Tammuz, Tir, Vishnu, Wotan,
XodA, etc., etc., etc. If not, why not? Likely it's the same reason that I
don't "open the doors" (what does that really mean, BTW?) to your God.
> For the record, you can falsify my belief by providing _one_
> naturalistic explanation for the origin of Christianity that covers all
> the facts. But that's appropriately something for another thread.
Facts? That's interesting. Give us a few of these facts, please?
> > The only difference between Thor and God is
> > that you weren't born in Scandinavia in 200 AD and hence
> > weren't indoctrinated to believe in Norse gods in the first place.
>
> I was indoctrinated to believe in a young earth. I do not believe
> in a young earth. I was indoctrinated to be a republican. I am a
> democrat. I was indoctrinated to believe in Biblical inerrancy.
> I do not believe in Biblical inerrancy.
Good. There's hope for you yet! ;-) My point still stands. You would
likely not believe in God had you not been indoctrinated at some point in
your life and you likely would have believed in Thor had you been born 2000
years ago in what's now Norway. Common sense has nothing to do with it.
It's a simple combination of a wish for answers to the unknown, and
indoctrination.
Regarding your acceptance of old earth, etc., there's such overwhelming
evidence for this that it's quite beyond me why anyone would believe
otherwise. I mean, these concepts are as old as the ToE. I'm not trying to
say brainwashing is 100% effective, 100% of the time, but it's a very
powerful agent, especially if it's uncontested and with children. To me,
it's the only explanation for the regionalization for religions.
My question would be to you: If you now believe great swaths of your
indoctrination were wrong, why do you believe some was right? It's all the
same source, vis-a-vis religion.
Take care. - Brett.
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." [Stephen Roberts]
thissteve
Brett Aubrey wrote:
> What's your stand on ToE, BTW?
I can't deny common descent, but I'm not satisfied that microevolution
+ time is all that's needed to get from cells (or even worms) to
complex animals. My investigation here is not finished.
> Why do you get slightly miffed when all your points aren't responded to, but
> then don't answer others' points and direct questions? You even snip
> questions, don't mark the snips and still don't respond. Should I get
> miffed, now?
I can snip (and so can you) because the originals don't go away. You
can tell me what I'm ducking, and it's impractical to respond to every
point. But you should have covered the one point I spent the most time
on. I notice that your assertion that there is no supernatural still
cannot be falsified.
Meanwhile, your entire belief system consists of:
1) much religion is regional
2) this regionalism comes from indoctrination
I could hardly avoid answering those. I showed that I have broken free
of indoctrination. Yet I retained some of my brainwashing, such as
algebra and Jesus's resurrection, because their truth survived my
inspection.
> Do you "open the doors" to Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, Thor, Santa, Odin, The
> Easter Bunny, Jupiter, Shango, Ra, Ka Tyeleo, Juok, Akuj, Ahura, Aphrodite,
> Apollo, Babaluaye, Cerridwen, Dionysus, Eos, Frigga, Gaea, Lord Genesa,
> Hephaestus, Ibeji, Jehovah, Krishna, Loki, Manitou, Nahuiquiahuitl, Obatala,
> Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Rama, Rhea, Set, Tammuz, Tir, Vishnu, Wotan,
> XodA, etc., etc., etc. If not, why not?
They mostly have zero historical foundation.
> Facts? That's interesting. Give us a few of these facts, please?
Modern scholarship holds that stories of Jesus's resurrection began
circulating in the 40s and 50s. The original apostles were prominent
in the church at that time. Therefore they must have heard and
endorsed those stories. Therefore Jesus's resurrection (the
resurrection itself, not the small details) can only be either a lie or
a truth. It cannot be a myth from gradually evolving tradition. Myth
is the most popular hypothesis today, but it falls apart on inspection.
Does the explanation behind Thor fall apart on inspection? No. So my
religion is different from most religions.
> I'm not trying to
> say brainwashing is 100% effective, 100% of the time, but it's a very
> powerful agent, especially if it's uncontested and with children.
*sigh* I hoped that this would have come through in my posts, but I'm
not a child anymore.
> To me,
> it's the only explanation for the regionalization for religions.
If I was raised to believe Thor, I would have dropped it like a young
earth.
Oxidized
> I feel like I'm the boy shouting "the emperor has no clothes".
You've seen the vase/faces optical illusion, right?
http://www.gifford.co.uk/~principia/Illusions/vasefaces.htm
Are there faces, or is there a vase? In the end,
after all discussion, the faces remain an illusion.
It is a vase.
***
Why people believe there is a god:
A. It frees their minds from being entangled by the "big questions"
and allows them to get along with life.
and/or
B. It explains beauty, evil, and coincidence.
and/or
C. It provides the basis for a social club.
***
There had to be an "atheogenesis" moment way back
in time when the "god belief" started.
Then the god belief was popularized and encouraged. Beliefs
were codified into religions.
Religions were supercomputers: difficult questions
went in and answers popped out.
***
I don't think you want to say, "there is no god". Rather,
I think you want to say "the supernatural entities people
believe they have encountered do not exist". I suggest this revision
because "god" is defined by Pantheists to be "nature". Plus,
it better specifies your objection to god _belief_.
***
Oxidized
Brett Aubrey
> Brett Aubrey wrote:
> > What's your stand on ToE, BTW?
>
> I can't deny common descent, but I'm not satisfied that microevolution
> + time is all that's needed to get from cells (or even worms) to
> complex animals. My investigation here is not finished.
Good luck with it. FWIW, my favorite book on this is Darwin's On The Origin
Of Species. He described it as "one long argument", and it you can overlook
the obvious flaws of this book (not many, given it was the first attempt at
specifying the ToE), it's an enjoyable read.
> > Why do you get slightly miffed when all your points aren't responded to,
but
> > then don't answer others' points and direct questions? You even snip
> > questions, don't mark the snips and still don't respond. Should I get
> > miffed, now?
>
> I can snip (and so can you) because the originals don't go away. You
> can tell me what I'm ducking, and it's impractical to respond to every
> point. But you should have covered the one point I spent the most time
> on. I notice that your assertion that there is no supernatural still
> cannot be falsified.
I'm not saying you can't snip - just that getting miffed seems inapproprite
when you do the same or "worse" (not the word I want, but I think you will
catch my meaning.) This is like your earlier complaint that "not okay to
then state that believing in God is ridiculous" when it's obviouly OK for
you to state that atheism goes "against common sense"... you seem to have
one set of expectations for those you communicate with, and another set for
you. Even more pronounced was your statement that "it's not okay to then
state that ... that there's no evidence for God". If it's okay for you to
state that there's evidence for God, then surely it's okay for me to state
there isn't. As for your point, the lack of existence of anything cannot be
absolutely falsified. That's a major problem with it, IMV.
> Meanwhile, your entire belief system consists of:
>
> 1) much religion is regional
> 2) this regionalism comes from indoctrination
Oh, no. These are only part of why I reject organized religions and the
existence of God(s) - i.e. not all religions can be right. You never asked
what's behind my entire belief system. Here are a few of those parameters:
1) I was brainwashed to believe that God is a creation of man.
2) The ToE provides an answer for 99.9999% of life (just not
that first spark) - and the diversity of life is one of the main
reasons why religions gained a foothold in the first place.
3) Other sciences - notably astronomy and cosmology - have
provided answers to other areas where none previously
existed - the reasons for belief in the supernatural seem
to be falling by the wayside at a fantastic rate ever since
geocentrism was squashed. I expect this trend to continue.
4) There's zero evidence for God(s) (obviously, your milage
may vary).
5) There's abundant evidence that he doesn't exist (or alterna-
tively doesn't care about us) with the amount of suffering that
so many innocent creatures endure - whether through warfare,
natural disaster, disease, predation, or whatever.
6) Just as ID proponents suggest the eye and clotting systems are
too complex to have evolved, I think an infinitly more complex
deity is too complex to exist.
7) The intolerance of one religion towards another throughout
history leaves me with no desire to get involved with any
particular religion.
8) If a God exists, I can't believe he'd care one iota about this
planet in general and humanity or me in particular. I also
can't believe that if an invisible God exists that he'd punish
those who don't believe - a God like that seems most petty.
This is especially true, IMV, when one considers that most
of humanity has not even been exposed to Christianity.
9) The Bible has been shown to have an enormous number of
errors in it, and much else is to my mind either trivial or goes
against my grain as being morally or ethically questionable.
10) The whole thing - whether the flood, the resurrection or the
parting of the Red Sea, is just too improbable for me to believe.
> I could hardly avoid answering those. I showed that I have broken
> free of indoctrination. Yet I retained some of my brainwashing,
> such as algebra and Jesus's resurrection, because their truth
> survived my inspection.
I think that's a healthy attitude. Another coupl'a years and I figure
you'll be free of God entirely.
> > Do you "open the doors" to Zeus, The Tooth Fairy, Thor, Santa, Odin, The
> > Easter Bunny, Jupiter, Shango, Ra, Ka Tyeleo, Juok, Akuj, Ahura,
Aphrodite,
> > Apollo, Babaluaye, Cerridwen, Dionysus, Eos, Frigga, Gaea, Lord Genesa,
> > Hephaestus, Ibeji, Jehovah, Krishna, Loki, Manitou, Nahuiquiahuitl,
Obatala,
> > Poseidon, Quetzalcoatl, Lord Rama, Rhea, Set, Tammuz, Tir, Vishnu,
> > Wotan, XodA, etc., etc., etc. If not, why not?
>
> They mostly have zero historical foundation.
I would bet you've tested that out on very few, if any, of the Gods
mentioned, and there are still hundreds (or thousands?) of others that I
didn't mention. How "open" have those doors been in actuality - as open as
the door to your Chritianity? Have you consciously studied all other
deities? And how about Allah then - it seems that Islam has even more
concrete basis than Christianity - have you ever considered conversion to
Islam? (Of course the resurrection would be your problem here, I suppose.)
> > Facts? That's interesting. Give us a few of these facts, please?
>
> Modern scholarship holds that stories of Jesus's resurrection began
> circulating in the 40s and 50s. The original apostles were prominent
> in the church at that time. Therefore they must have heard and
> endorsed those stories. Therefore Jesus's resurrection (the
> resurrection itself, not the small details) can only be either a lie or
> a truth. It cannot be a myth from gradually evolving tradition. Myth
> is the most popular hypothesis today, but it falls apart on inspection.
> Does the explanation behind Thor fall apart on inspection? No.
Presumably you meant 'Yes' here. At best, your resurrestion point is
contested by secular scholars - some even question the existence of Jesus.
Can you point me to a couple of reputable non-religious sites discussing the
resurrection? (I've googled on it and note that there are non-miraculous
explanations for this, as well - many Muslims, for example, believe that
Jesus' crucifixion never happened. Rather, another individual was executed
in Jesus' place. Others believe he survived the initial crucifxion and died
later. I mention these re your point that it "can only be a lie or a
truth"... these explanation would allow for a third possibility - a
mistake.)
> So my religion is different from most religions.
But of course, most adherents of most religions think that, ISTM.
> > I'm not trying to
> > say brainwashing is 100% effective, 100% of the time, but it's a very
> > powerful agent, especially if it's uncontested and with children.
>
> *sigh* I hoped that this would have come through in my posts, but
> I'm not a child anymore.
I wasn't suggesting you're a child. I was merely pointing out that
indoctrination is a very powerful agent, especially if it's uncontested and
with children. To expand and provide an example - since you misread my
meaning - I think that the reason Muslims (IMV) seem to be generally more
devout than Christians, is because they are more thoroughly indoctrinated
from a young age and there tends to be less information to counter this than
in most Western nations. Basically, the more indoctrination one gets as a
young child and throughout the formative years, the higher the chance of
retaining your views as an adult. And I think there's a danger that the
more devout one is to one set of beliefs, the greater the level of
intorerance towards another set of beliefs. (I know this goes a little
beyond my original point, but these are the reasons I tend to be against
indoctrination as a child, even though it happened to me in a somewhat
innocuous - IMO - way.)
I'm reminded of a recent article in the National Review whereby a Muslim
suggested that a nation under God is most acceptable to Muslims, but "a
nation under Darwin" is considered a plague - one that presumably (as with
most plagues) should be eradicated. To me, we need more tolerance in the
world, not less.
> > To me,
> > it's the only explanation for the regionalization for religions.
>
> If I was raised to believe Thor, I would have dropped it like
> a young earth.
I'm not so sure you can say this with such certainty. The reason you
dropped a young earth was likely because of the huge information base
pointing to an alternative. I don't think that there was much pointing to
any alternative re Thor, Odin, et al. I'll also note that this flies in the
face of your claim that belief in a higher power was universal - here you
are saying that you would be the only atheist in Scandinavia - you surely
don't consider yourself to be that far above all Scandinavians of yore. My
expectation is that you might be able to drop it is some communities where
belief was not particularly prominent, but that it's unlikely that you'd be
dropping it in more strongly religious communities (it's my guess that
there'd be a range). - Brett.
thissteve
Brett Aubrey wrote:
> you seem to have
> one set of expectations for those you communicate with, and another set for
> you.
Well, comparing me to the original poster (not to you), I readily state
that I can't prove God. Also, stating that there's evidence for God
isn't going very far. There's evidence for a young earth too; it just
pales next to the evidence for an old earth. And for a higher power
being common sense, you prove that better than me with your long list
of names, a list which you say can be greatly extended. It can't be
indoctrination all the way back.
> As for your point, the lack of existence of anything cannot be
> absolutely falsified.
If you believed in the lack of existence of waffles, I could falsify
that for you quite easily.
> 4) There's zero evidence for God(s) (obviously, your milage
> may vary).
This still bothers me. Evidence for God from science is _not allowed_,
not nonexistant. Evidence for God from history is _not allowed_, not
nonexistant. Evidence for God from personal testimony is _not
allowed_, not nonexistant.
> I would bet you've tested that out on very few, if any, of the Gods
> mentioned, and there are still hundreds (or thousands?) of others that I
> didn't mention.
Most religions fit the generic mold of myth from long-descended oral
tradition. If some obscure religion does not fit that mold, I'm afraid
it's up to one of their evangelists to tell me about it. I can't be
everywhere.
> How "open" have those doors been in actuality - as open as
> the door to your Chritianity?
My first religion needs to be wrong before I need another one, so
Christianity gets most attention. I've given Mormonism a good look and
concluded it can be dismissed as a guy making stuff up. (If you say
the same thing about Jesus's apostles, you run into the fact that their
lies never paid off. They stayed dirt poor and kept ending up in
prison. Why persist in a lie that's not working?) Jehovah's witnesses
don't stand up either. Even Judaism is weak historically. (Explaining
why I think the new testament is stronger history than the old
testament would take too long.)
> have you ever considered conversion to
> Islam?
So far it seems like a guy making stuff up, but giving it a closer look
is on my to-do list. (I'm daunted by the importance they attach to
their language.)
> Can you point me to a couple of reputable non-religious sites discussing the
> resurrection?
My reference to scholars concerns the origin of resurrection _stories_
only, not the fact of the resurrection, so I don't think what I said
about them was controversial (Paul's letters suffice to date them in
the 50s). JD Crossan says the stories started in the 40s. But he and
other scholars never seem to ask the obvious question--did anyone check
with Peter (or another apostle) after hearing the story?
> (I've googled on it and note that there are non-miraculous
> explanations for this, as well - many Muslims, for example, believe that
> Jesus' crucifixion never happened. Rather, another individual was executed
> in Jesus' place. Others believe he survived the initial crucifxion and died
> later. I mention these re your point that it "can only be a lie or a
> truth"... these explanation would allow for a third possibility - a
> mistake.)
Most explanations, such as Jesus never crucified, make the apostles
into liars. The only one that doesn't--Jesus surviving the
crucifixion--is easily defeated.
> I think there's a danger that the
> more devout one is to one set of beliefs, the greater the level of
> intorerance towards another set of beliefs.
Of course we aren't going to disagree on people being allowed to do and
think what they want. But at most one religion can be true, so if I
want religion to be more than a social club, I have to think that most
religions are flat wrong in no uncertain terms.
> these are the reasons I tend to be against
> indoctrination as a child
The way my church "teaches" children creeps me out. But what else can
parents do if they have the "truth"?
> I'll also note that this flies in the
> face of your claim that belief in a higher power was universal - here you
> are saying that you would be the only atheist in Scandinavia - you surely
> don't consider yourself to be that far above all Scandinavians of yore.
I meant I would drop Thor today. I would not have dropped him
thousands of years ago.
Geez, I snipped and snipped and this post is still too long...