# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Thoughts on Atheism

## atiguhya padma

1) Atheism is not a belief system. It is non-belief or an absence of belief in theism, hence a-theism.

2) Agnosticism is not in the same league as theism and atheism. Agnosticism talks about knowledge, whereas theism and atheism talk about belief.

3) An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. Maybe everyone is an agnostic, after all:

4) Theists are presumptuous to assume a knowledge of god, therefore theists are really at best agnostics.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me." 

Feynman, Richard, quoted in Gleick, _Genius: The life & Science of Richard Feynman_, p. 438

----------


## MaryLupin

Atheism for me is the disbelief in the god and goddesses of mankind. The very fact that such limited minds (as are all human minds) came up with the notion seems to me to point toward a problem with its veracity. Of course the fact that most divinities take on human shape also makes me question the epistemological validity of such systems.

On the other hand...the question of the existence of some non-corporeal entity with abilities far different than our corporeal human ones...not a concern of ours since we have enough trouble coming to grips with the exigencies of corporeal life.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Atheism for me is the disbelief in the god and goddesses of mankind. The very fact that such limited minds (as are all human minds) came up with the notion seems to me to point toward a problem with its veracity. Of course the fact that most divinities take on human shape also makes me question the epistemological validity of such systems.
> 
> On the other hand...the question of the existence of some non-corporeal entity with abilities far different than our corporeal human ones...not a concern of ours since we have enough trouble coming to grips with the exigencies of corporeal life.


Oh, precisely! And I do speculate at times that those who involve themselves with the mind-boggling intricacies of their gods & goddesses stories are doing that in preference to dealing with "the exigencies of corporeal life".

----------


## Redzeppelin

My favorite part of listening in to these discussions is the erroneous and sefl-aggrandizing attitude of atheists implied above that theists believe as they do by reason of some sort of dysfunctional way of dealing with life (a leftover of Dr. Freud's ridiculous assertions about religion). I'm fine with atheists believing as they do, but it gets tiresome to listen to some of them patronize believers as deluded, as in denial about reality, et al. Spare me, OK? 

Choosing atheism over theism is a matter of personal choice - fine. But I don't recall ever psycholanalyzing atheists to explain why I think their choice is absurd.

----------


## Logos

General Mod Note to All: _only_ because this is posted in the Philosophical section it will stay open for now, even though the OP has made comments on religion/theism.

If this becomes a religion(s) bashing/insulting/inflammatory my-way-is-better-than-your-way topic it will be treated as a religious topic and as per the recently updated Religious Texts forum rules it will be closed. http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410
.
.
.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

As I think I suggested before, it might be more informative if we got into our personal reasons for the choices we have made. I know I have mine and am prepared to set them out if you are as well. I've bolded those parts of your latest posts that lead me to see that your argument is a personal rather than a purely philosophical/theological one:




> *My favorite part* of listening in to these discussions is the erroneous and sefl-aggrandizing attitude of atheists implied above that theists believe as they do by reason of some sort of dysfunctional way of dealing with life (a leftover of Dr. Freud's ridiculous assertions about religion). *I'm fine with atheists believing as they do*, but *it gets tiresome* to listen to some of them patronize believers as deluded, as in denial about reality, et al. *Spare me, OK?* 
> 
> *Choosing atheism over theism is a matter of personal choice* - fine. But I don't recall ever psycholanalyzing atheists to explain why I think their choice is absurd.


You might wish to argue that to recognize, say, an oak tree as an oak tree is not a matter of choice. It is something apparent to all, but some (pantheists) see God in that oak tree. You, I assume, do not. And I take that as a matter of choice - or conditioning.

----------


## Ludmila607

There are Atheist , Agnostic and Theist authors.Their personal assumtion of religion and human origin influence their work of course.Their vision to life,determinism, rational or divine order, human destiny ,Theleology....whatever.It is possible talk about Atheist or Theist , not defining them by their believes but including them into one or other groups.[/FONT]

Sartre is Atheist and Existencialist.Jaspers is Existencialist and Christian...Hegel is dialectic and theist ,Marx will be against any religion....mainly because religions attempt against the PRAXIS and protects the Statu Quo.
Descartes was rationalist but he believes in God and try to rationally proobe his existence.Most of Phylosophers believe something trascendental untill the Positivism treated Philosophy as Methaphisich as a second order Knowledge wich will be substitued by Science.
But big scientist believe God,Keppler, Copernico , Galileo , Descartes ,Pascal , Spinoza , Leibniz , Einstein ,The modest , human and intellectual gifted Wittgenstein....
So.Phylosophy is against doctrines.That is why we pay no such attemption to the Author beliefs.Enjoy so much to read your posting.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> There are Atheist , Agnostic and Theist authors.Their personal assumtion of religion and human origin influence their work of course.Their vision to life,determinism, rational or divine order, human destiny ,Theleology....whatever.It is possible talk about Atheist or Theist , not defining them by their believes but including them into one or other groups.[/FONT]
> 
> Sartre is Atheist and Existencialist.Jaspers is Existencialist and Christian...Hegel is dialectic and theist ,Marx will be against any religion....mainly because religions attempt against the PRAXIS and protects the Statu Quo.
> Descartes was rationalist but he believes in God and try to rationally proobe his existence.Most of Phylosophers believe something trascendental untill the Positivism treated Philosophy as Methaphisich as a second order Knowledge wich will be substitued by Science.
> But big scientist believe God,Keppler, Copernico , Galileo , Descartes ,Pascal , Spinoza , Leibniz , Einstein ,The modest , human and intellectual gifted Wittgenstein....
> So.Phylosophy is against doctrines.That is why we pay no such attemption to the Author beliefs.Enjoy so much to read your posting.


That intelligent men and women have believed one way or another about the existence of God is in the end irrelevant. We are talking about our relationship to the unknown and possibly unknowable. Therefore no man or woman is a more credible witness than you or I.

If someone came along with an iron-clad, reasonably irrefutable 'proof' as to the existence of 'God," I predict that not one atheist would become a believer.

Similarly If someone came along with an iron-clad, reasonably irrefutable 'proof' that God does not, did not and could not exist, I am reasonably confident that not one believer would abandon his or her present convictions.

What might be interesting or useful to any of us here is if each person spoke of his or her *personal* experience of God or of the probable non-existence of God, or that God if He or She exists must be different from any of the ways of describing Him or Her.

----------


## MaryLupin

> What might be interesting or useful to any of us here is if each person spoke of his or her *personal* experience of God or of the probable non-existence of God, or that God if He or She exists must be different from any of the ways of describing Him or Her.


Damn good idea.

----------


## NikolaiI

Well, thank you for allowing me that choice, Red.  :Wink: 

I'm just teasing.




> Atheism for me is the disbelief in the god and goddesses of mankind. The very fact that such limited minds (as are all human minds) came up with the notion seems to me to point toward a problem with its veracity. Of course the fact that most divinities take on human shape also makes me question the epistemological validity of such systems.
> 
> On the other hand...the question of the existence of some non-corporeal entity with abilities far different than our corporeal human ones...not a concern of ours since we have enough trouble coming to grips with the exigencies of corporeal life.


Anyway, I agree completely. About God - God is a hypothesis. Hehe, here's a stanza I found from a search on google; I read about this story in _The God Delusion,_ by Richard Dawkins:

Laplace, Marquis, did write some works on motions up in heaven.
He started work when but a lad of only ten and seven.
Napoleon said "I see no sign of God in this!"
Laplace replied "I have no need for that hypothesis."

That poem is here: http://math.bu.edu/people/jeffs/mathdrink.html

A mathematics book and Napoleon wanted to know why or how he could write it without mentioning God, and Laplace said "I have need for that hypothesis."

-Which basically gives rise to my reason for disbelief. We are living inside this God culture, and it is put on us so hard; I mean, there is pressure to believe, since all these other people do, but if you see that outside of this culture there is not that pressure, then you wonder about the hypothesis. Outside of the Christian culture, there are other religions, and outside of the human culture, there are no religions. In other galaxies where there is intelligent life, what kind of religions exist there? Certainly ones that have been revealed by another One and True God; but maybe something completely different! who knows?

I guess my guiding light has been the story of the parallel-yet-perfect dreamworld in "The Dream of A Ridiculous Man," by Dostoyevsky. In it everyone's happy, and they love each other, and they sing songs that praise each other; they don't know any other way to live; they don't lie, they don't cheat or hurt each other. They're happy and grateful for every day, and none of them has heard of any of our religions, or anything like that. They're happy, _and they don't need any of the things that we do to make them happy._ The premise is that such happiness is possible. He ends the story with, "If only everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once." I was amazed to come across this for the first time, because I used to be so fixated upon this as a child, as the cure-all for suffering. There are so many problems, and the only solution is a seeming paradox, is that everyone has to realize something, say compassion, all at once, and if everyone wants it, it can be arranged at once. I love that because there's no pessimism in it. Anyway, that's my guide, and it also fits with my ontology.

The thing is, for me it doesn't make sense. I mean I don't see the necessity of a relationship with God for me to be a good person, or for me to be a satisfied or happy person, or anything like that. And the arguments for God seem mostly to be either restating it, or having some reliance on the bible, which is sort of the source of the absurdity. Outside of the arguments for Chirstianity, there are higher things, like love for oneself and neighbour, and love and reverence of the Earth. Personally, if Christian meant Christian, and not Bible, Christian would be a lot more respectable.

Don't get me wrong, I have no disrespect for believers, I mean, I used to be one, right? As Nietzsche says, the surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to value more highly those that believe alike to him than those that believe different. And since my ontology tells me we're arguing over nothing, I don't think it's a big deal.

There's no need for words like delusion. Okay, it's understood, that's a position, but it's not one I'm taking. I do think my beliefs are based on first principles that are closer to reality, and therefore, more ontologically open, but when you say something like delusion, it's just derisive.

I don't think God spoke with anyone ever, other than being an idea, or speaking through others, who made it all up, and I don't think he's responsible for the things in the old testament, so that's my belief, but it's not important. I believe in Buddhist ontology, and logic; which, as I know since I've talked about it with a friend in a philosophical debate, excludes me from debates, since I believe contradictions may exist, and paradoxes may be reconciled, etc. If I say something may exist and not exist at the same time, or that we're all one, well, that just isn't accepted by other people, so I'm excluded, which is fine..I just happen to think that kind of ontology and logic is the best way of looking at things, and it helps to open my mind.

Oh, okay. So I guess that's my take on atheism, hehe. By the way, no one is atheist or deist, Catholic or Presbyterian, American or German, black or white, male or female, adult or infant; so there!  :Smile:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I really coulnd't care less what anyone else thinks. I don't think there's anyone else. I think there's no I, or any other person. I mean, I think ego and all that are illusion, I think self and other don't exist in reality. I mean, okay.


What is this silly solipsistic folderol? I have received emails from someone who purported to be "Nikolai1" and I (who have no doubt as to my existence) know also that but for some unfortunate materialistic misadventure these very words that I am typing are going to be read by that same Nikolai1.

You may enjoy this sort of metaphysical macrame but I doubt you could make pancakes out of it whereas I (who have no doubt as to my existence) can make truly excellent pancakes out of a mix that I have here in my actual home in this actual city in this actual universe...

----------


## NikolaiI

Well, gee, if you put it that way, I'm convinced.  :Smile: 

Just kidding - I worded it around a little, I think it reads different now.

Tell me, what are you saying? I said self and other was illusion, I don't know what position you are taking in your response. As for self being seperate from other, what is this folderol? Where is the boundary? We're part of the world, from our bodies and from the air that we breathe. What's inside comes from the ouside, and vice-versa. 

It's like the sun, where do measure it's boundary? It's kind of hard to. It's easy to say, I end at the skin, and it's fairly clear. It's less clear with the sun, though; it has no skin, and it's heat and energy and light extend very far. It's hard to say where the surface is. I think it's the same with us, we're just not taught to think that way.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I don't see the necessity of a relationship with God for me to be a good person, or for me to be a satisfied or happy person, or anything like that.


Yes. I find it completely satisfying--intellectually, morally, emotionally and physically--just being a hominid. I have a wonderful time.

A really lovely post.

----------


## NikolaiI

Thank you very much, Mary.  :Smile:  Yours too, always.

----------


## MaryLupin

> It's like the sun, where do measure it's boundary? It's kind of hard to. It's easy to say, I end at the skin, and it's fairly clear. It's less clear with the sun, though; it has no skin, and it's heat and energy and light extend very far. It's hard to say where the surface is. I think it's the same with us, we're just not taught to think that way.


I like this. It reminds me of _The Turning Point_ by Fritjof Capra. I actually had an experience like that once while I was walking around in London. It was wonderful. What I experienced was being overwhelmed by the sun, joined with it as it were. (Weird stuff happens to me.) As surely as I know that my fingers pressing these keys are causing these letters to appear, I knew all kinds of things about the nature of the world in which I lived. (Never found it necessary to have a god to explain the experience though, but maybe that is because I already knew something about brain chemistry and mechanics and maybe if people who are imbibed in the god-story before science experience this kind of transcendental awe they just gravitate to what they know to explain the sensation?)

Overwhelming as it was, even so, in the midst of the experience there was still me there, this composite of feeling, memory, knowledge and sensory apparatus. It is that composite that I think of as the self. Kind of like the Buddhist concept of skandhas. And while it is true that it is pretty much impossible to draw a line around what we are, there is still a recognizable pattern to it...to what it means to be an individual...a human.

Actually, you know, I think "self" is properly a verb.

----------


## NikolaiI

> What is this silly solipsistic folderol? I have received emails from someone who purported to be "Nikolai1" and I (who have no doubt as to my existence) know also that but for some unfortunate materialistic misadventure these very words that I am typing are going to be read by that same Nikolai1.
> 
> You may enjoy this sort of metaphysical macrame but I doubt you could make pancakes out of it whereas I (who have no doubt as to my existence) can make truly excellent pancakes out of a mix that I have here in my actual home in this actual city in this actual universe...


_My ontology also tells me that we're all family._

----------


## NikolaiI

> I like this. It reminds me of _The Turning Point_ by Fritjof Capra. I actually had an experience like that once while I was walking around in London. It was wonderful. What I experienced was being overwhelmed by the sun, joined with it as it were. (Weird stuff happens to me.) As surely as I know that my fingers pressing these keys are causing these letters to appear, I knew all kinds of things about the nature of the world in which I lived. (Never found it necessary to have a god to explain the experience though, but maybe that is because I already knew something about brain chemistry and mechanics and maybe if people who are imbibed in the god-story before science experience this kind of transcendental awe they just gravitate to what they know to explain the sensation?)
> 
> Overwhelming as it was, even so, in the midst of the experience there was still me there, this composite of feeling, memory, knowledge and sensory apparatus. It is that composite that I think of as the self. Kind of like the Buddhist concept of skandhas. And while it is true that it is pretty much impossible to draw a line around what we are, there is still a recognizable pattern to it...to what it means to be an individual...a human.
> 
> Actually, you know, I think "self" is properly a verb.


Hehe. You know, I have been under the fairly powerful illusion that I've made the clouds move, that is, made them start and stop, and even change directions, just with my mind. It's very interesting what you said about your experience, I think that kind of thing is good, since we are feeling the world, with our nerves and what not, and we are in a very real sense directly connected to it. From sensations on our fingers to our brain, we are connected. I don't know if this makes any sense, but it's what came to mind reading your post.

I feel the same way about not needing a god to explain it. My parents - my father was atheist, and my mother Christian, and I was raised by her to believe in God, and I did. I mean I guess I did. But at one point I realized I didn't, mainly because I didn't see any reason to. I became gradually aware of the opposing sides and the debates and arguments for it. I knew there were books about the subject, but I also knew there was nothing more, nothing deeper than anything I knew or had experienced, since my mother was very intelligent and had gone to ministry and had enlightened view of Christianity. I decided atheism was the truth..

About the self and other, I just see no need for it either. I guess. I mean I understand the idea of self, and in fact everything is based on that, and there's a lot of strength in the idea, but I don't think it's pure reality. I think atiguhya padma said it best when he said "everything you see is you." It might seem a paradox, but I think it's accurate.

And interesting, perhaps not wholly relevant, is this quote by the Buddha about, I think, the infinite.

Buddha said: "I consider the positions of kings and rulers as that of dust motes. I observe treasures of gold and gems as so many bricks and pebbles. I look upon the finest silken robes as tattered rags. I see myriad worlds of the universe as small seeds of fruit, and the greatest lake in India as a drop of oil on my foot. I perceive the teachings of the world to be the illusion of magicians. I discern the highest conception of emancipation as a golden brocade in a dream, and view the holy path of the illuminated ones as flowers appearing in one's eyes. I see meditation as a pillar of a mountain, Nirvana as a nightmare of daytime. I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."

----------


## RobinHood3000

> It's like the sun, where do measure it's boundary? It's kind of hard to. It's easy to say, I end at the skin, and it's fairly clear. It's less clear with the sun, though; it has no skin, and it's heat and energy and light extend very far. It's hard to say where the surface is. I think it's the same with us, we're just not taught to think that way.


You may be interested to know that the physical body of the Sun does have discernible layers and boundaries, the names of which you can find in most high school earth science textbooks.  :Smile:

----------


## NikolaiI

To quote Alan Watts: "Let me show you the same phenomenon in the dimension of space instead of the dimension of time. Let's ask 'How big is the sun?' Are we going to define the sun as limited by the extent of its fire? That's one possible definition. But we could equally well define the sphere of the sun by the extent of its heat. We could also define sphere of the sun by the extent of its light. And each of these would be reasonable choices, except that it's rather difficult to keep track of the extent of its light, because we are inside it. And therefore we have arbitrarily agreed to define the sun by the limit of its visible fire. But you will see by all these analogies that how big a thing is, or how long an event is, is simply a matter of definition. Now, therefore, when by simple definition, for purposes of discussion, we have divided events into certain periods, we say, "The First World War began in 1913, and ended in 1918." Now actually, all those things which lead up to the First World War started long before 1913, and the repercussions of that war have continued long beyond 1918. How are we to distguish an event from its repercussions? So you see, because we have divided events, from one another, in this arbitrary way, we do that, and then we sort of forget that we did that. And then we have a puzzle! How do events come from one another? Because in reality, there are no seperate events. Life move alongs like water. And, it's all connected like the source of a river is connected to the mouth of an ocean. And all the events, or things going on, are like whirlpools in this stream. Because you go there today, and you see a whirlpool. You go there tomorrow, and you see a whirlpool. But it isn't the same whirlpool, because all the water is changing every second. What is happening is not really what we should call a whirlpool, but rather a whirlpooling. It is an activity, not a thing. And indeed ever so-called thing can be called an event. We call, say a house, housing..."

That went long beyond the sun definition, but I didn't know where to stop. It's not a written article originally, its from a youtube video, I just typed it out. Just before he talks about the sun thing, he is talking about when do we conceive of life, and he is actually very eloquent, it's worth seeing. The whole thing in general is about time. Anyway, that video is here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rTaklXTSDPE.

I guess what I get from it is how arbitrary the definition we decide of the sun is. The limit of its visible fire. Why not the limit of its light or heat? If we do that, we have a different way of looking at things, and we keep in mind how the sun is part of every star's light that reaches it, and how we are in fact inside the sun. And just because we are not able to say how large the sun is, in our terms of space, I think it's perfectly reasonable to define the sun by the extent of its light and heat. Why not?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> As I think I suggested before, it might be more informative if we got into our personal reasons for the choices we have made. I know I have mine and am prepared to set them out if you are as well. I've bolded those parts of your latest posts that lead me to see that your argument is a personal rather than a purely philosophical/theological one:


Perhaps you ought to read my post a little closer next time. First, I did not present any "argument" pertaining to atheism or thesim; nor did I provide personal reasons for my choice to believe as I do; my comments were my observations on an _attitude_ I find prevalent in the conversations of atheists in these discussion forums. Here's what you said that I've read here in countless permutations over the last 8 months or so:




> I do speculate at times that those who involve themselves with the mind-boggling intricacies of their gods & goddesses stories are doing that in preference to dealing with "the exigencies of corporeal life".


This comment reveals the stereotypical attitude that we who believe in theism are somehow involved in some avoidance of day-to-day reality in our devotion to our spiritual lives ("mind-boggling intricacies of their gods..."). Such commentary moves from why YOU think atheism is correct to why you think WE do what we do. At that point, you are now discussing that which you do not know, nor completely understand. 




> You might wish to argue that to recognize, say, an oak tree as an oak tree is not a matter of choice. It is something apparent to all, but some (pantheists) see God in that oak tree. You, I assume, do not. And I take that as a matter of choice - or conditioning.


But the pantheist still acknowledges that the oak tree is an oak tree; he doesn't try to tell you it's God Himself. In other words, I call an oak tree and oak tree too - but I have a different explanation as to how it got here and why it does what it does.

PS - the subtle "conditioning" comment? That term goes _both_ ways, by the way.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I look upon the judgment of right and wrong as the serpentine dance of a dragon, and the rise and fall of beliefs as but traces left by the four seasons."


I hadn't read that one before. Yes. Reading any history at all is a lesson in how right this is.




> You may be interested to know that the physical body of the Sun does have discernible layers and boundaries, the names of which you can find in most high school earth science textbooks.


Of course it does and I suspect Nikolai knows that, but the remarkable thing is that what we perceive as a boundary with one sense in not the same boundary we perceive with another. For example what we see as the surface of the sun is not its surface (if such a thing can be said to be true of the sun). We see it because the energy surges in a frequency perceivable by our eye. Yet our skin can also perceive the sun's energy (which is why I get brown on one side and stay pale on the other [driver's dilemma]. So the question...which is the true "surface" of the sun becomes possible because our senses both perceive a boundary but they are not the same. Of course the disagreement between our eyes and our skin is just that ... between the eyes and skin. It says nothing about the sun and its state. It only speaks of the differing capacities of our senses. To get to the true nature of the sun (reality) we would have to find a way to stand with and at the same time not with all of our senses operating under the guidance of some master synthesizer (normally the role we see reason playing.)

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;414029]But the pantheist still acknowledges that the oak tree is an oak tree; he doesn't try to tell you it's God Himself.{/QUOTE]

Actually a number of pantheists would say exactly that. The tree is god. Its flesh, bark, roots, xylem and phloem...god. And the grass is another god... and the waters...the fires, etc. The material world is not harboring god. It is god...at least for some.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Actually a number of pantheists would say exactly that. The tree is god. Its flesh, bark, roots, xylem and phloem...god. And the grass is another god... and the waters...the fires, etc. The material world is not harboring god. It is god...at least for some.


A fair correction (but the pantheist wouldn't try to tell you that the tree was a bird - the point being that spiritual people still understand the material world). Your correction also clarifies why pantheism fails to account for reality because it makes God a created thing - and He is the only _uncreated_ thing in the universe.

----------


## NikolaiI

> A fair correction (but the pantheist wouldn't try to tell you that the tree was a bird - the point being that spiritual people still understand the material world). Your correction also clarifies why pantheism fails to account for reality because it makes God a created thing - and He is the only _uncreated_ thing in the universe.


God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.

----------


## Ludmila607

Oh well maybe I went into Philosophy quiclky and forget to tell about own experience.It is sometimes hard to talk about personal experiences with religions and spirituality(without identify one to another).If you startr to talk about a personal experience of God can be acused of beig on a CAthequist...
I never try to convince anyone.I have a profound cponvinction of God or a Higher Intelligence, or Primal Force.Whatever you call it.I think it is not definible, not spatially situed, not explained by human concepts.I think it does express by everything that exists(am I a Pantheist?)from a glowing star to a piece of dirt.Religions make a mistake trying toi define, and poining rules and sins and simbols.But all this help humanity to raise from ANIMAL STATE
and have some control over society eveyday more complex and vaste.
I like to call god, Big Intelligence or Higher Reason , wich undestands wich we wont...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.



 :Confused:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> But the pantheist still acknowledges that the oak tree is an oak tree; he doesn't try to tell you it's God Himself. In other words, I call an oak tree and oak tree too - but I have a different explanation as to how it got here and why it does what it does.
> 
> PS - the subtle "conditioning" comment? That term goes _both_ ways, by the way.


MaryLupin will have corrected you on the first part of this statement. As to your PS, you flatter me (I think): I didn't think my reference to conditoining was subtle. It goes to the heart of my belief that believers, once they have made the choice to believe (or it had been made for them by their upbringing and peer-pressure) then seek out that which will reinforce their beliefs: e.g. Sunday School; regular church attendance; Bible Study groups...

No one, so far as I am aware, conditioned me to my doubts as to a) the knowable existence of God; b) His Her or Its nature if indeed there is a God; c) the authority on which the myriad of mini-popes pronounce on "God's" intentions, whether by ingenious readings of the existing texts or simply - as far asis apparent - by virtue of divine guidance, or their intuitions.

My reading has been haphazard and random; I've never had an atheist or an agnostic mentor.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> MaryLupin will have corrected you on the first part of this statement. As to your PS, you flatter me (I think): I didn't think my reference to conditoining was subtle. It goes to the heart of my belief that believers, once they have made the choice to believe (or it had been made for them by their upbringing and peer-pressure) then seek out that which will reinforce their beliefs: e.g. Sunday School; regular church attendance; Bible Study groups...
> 
> No one, so far as I am aware, conditioned me to my doubts as to a) the knowable existence of God; b) His Her or Its nature if indeed there is a God; c) the authority on which the myriad of mini-popes pronounce on "God's" intentions, whether by ingenious readings of the existing texts or simply - as far asis apparent - by virtue of divine guidance, or their intuitions.
> 
> My reading has been haphazard and random; I've never had an atheist or an agnostic mentor.


You make vast and stereotypical assumptions about religious belief and how people come to choose it. The term "conditioning" is interesting - it is applicable in some situations, no doubt - but there are many things we "condition" people to do and believe (we call some of them things like "manners" and "morals") and nobody seems to have a big issue with that kind of "conditioning."

Either way, do you find it strange that people seek out others like themselves? I mean, come on - you think atheists go and find churches to go hang out in? Your criticizing believers for being normal - all people seek out those who resemble themselves in some ways. Who goes out and seeks company composed of people fully different from ourselves?

Secondly, I think you radically underestimate "cultural conditioning" (I'll borrow your term here). Culture is encoded with many, many conventions and assumptions - a large majority of which go unquestioned/unexamined by people. For example - if you were raised in an atheistic home and went to public schools, you were given textbooks that tacitly ASSUMED evolution to be FACT (rather than a _theory_); as well, turn on your TV: newscasts routinely pass on comments that appear to confirm the factuality of evolution. That's just one example of cultural conditioning - young people grow up assuming evolution to be true because their culture fed to them from the beginning the idea that it was. Ditto for something more trivial like (here we go!) women shaving their legs and underarms: your average US male freaks out about the idea that European women don't see the need to be as obsessive as US women do - and why is that? Are European males less discerning? Or have the US males simply been conditioned to certain ideas about feminine beauty? 

You may not have had a direct "mentor" - but there's plenty of "conditioning" that culture gives - and not all of it is correct. Modern culture - since the 18th century Enlightenment - has largely predicated its existence on the idea of Naturalism/materialism and that science is the arbiter of what is "real." 

You've been "conditioned" as much as any Christian - just in a different way.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.


I dissent with this. I do not think "God" is either a thing nor an action. I suggest that God was originally a conjecture that hardened over the years into a plausibility, then a probability and finally a carved-in-stone (so to speak) certainty, gathering to it a heirarchy of administrators, salesmen, interpreters, translators and buildings that grew larger and more splendiferous and that in themselves attested or were taken to attest to the majesty of "God," the most successful metaphor in human history.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Your correction also clarifies why pantheism fails to account for reality because it makes God a created thing - and He is the only _uncreated_ thing in the universe.


It is the only uncreated thing in your universe. Many traditions have stories about the creation and/or birth of their gods. As an account of reality, pantheism easily makes as much sense as a virgin birth and an uncreated creator. These things are an act of faith...whether to feel the divine curling with the edge of a leaf as it falls in autumn...or to interpret ecstasy as the touch of god's grace...both are subjective, both have belief/thought systems to back them up (i.e. holy books and sacred stories), both are fundamentally unprovable. Because of that they can only be said to "account for reality" if the basic premises are accepted as true, and pantheists will not accept that god is outside the material world and christians will not accept that it is not. All we can argue (with reason) is whether the system is coherent, whether the system is practicable, or specific facts (i.e. history, translation, textual).

----------


## MaryLupin

> God is not a thing, God is an action. Everything we think of as things is better described as actions, so it's not so much a God, but a Godding.


Interesting concept. I think the same of the word "self." I have always thought that it really isn't a noun but a process and therefore should be a verb. 

With respect to god...I might even be able to go with god as a process if it is not a conscious one. That is more like the force of adaptation (evolution), or gravity, or quantum. Anyway something "blind" but fundamental to the way things change and evolve in the universe.

----------


## weepingforloman

Now we have come to the point where even God can be verbed.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Now we have come to the point where even God can be verbed.


Okay, let's say you go to a stream and see a whirlpool. You go again the next day and see a whirlpool. But it is not the same whirlpool you saw, because the water in it is changing every second. So it's not so much a whirlpool, but a whirlpooling. So instead of a thing, it is better described as an action, and the same is true of all of our things, though less obvious. A tree is a treeing, a house is a housing, and God is a Godding.




> Either way, do you find it strange that people seek out others like themselves? I mean, come on - you think atheists go and find churches to go hang out in? Your criticizing believers for being normal - all people seek out those who resemble themselves in some ways. Who goes out and seeks company composed of people fully different from ourselves?


Since when is church closed from non-believers? Lots of atheists go to church.




> Secondly, I think you radically underestimate "cultural conditioning" (I'll borrow your term here). Culture is encoded with many, many conventions and assumptions - a large majority of which go unquestioned/unexamined by people. For example - if you were raised in an atheistic home and went to public schools, you were given textbooks that tacitly ASSUMED evolution to be FACT (rather than a _theory_); as well, turn on your TV: newscasts routinely pass on comments that appear to confirm the factuality of evolution. That's just one example of cultural conditioning - young people grow up assuming evolution to be true because their culture fed to them from the beginning the idea that it was. Ditto for something more trivial like (here we go!) women shaving their legs and underarms: your average US male freaks out about the idea that European women don't see the need to be as obsessive as US women do - and why is that? Are European males less discerning? Or have the US males simply been conditioned to certain ideas about feminine beauty?


Are you sure you know what the difference between theory and hypothesis is? For instance, gravity is "just a theory." But theory and fact are not necessarily in opposition.

----------


## atiguhya padma

RedZeppelin said:

<Either way, do you find it strange that people seek out others like themselves? I mean, come on - you think atheists go and find churches to go hang out in? Your criticizing believers for being normal - all people seek out those who resemble themselves in some ways. Who goes out and seeks company composed of people fully different from ourselves?>

Firstly you misrepresent pantheism, then you reveal your own stereotypical attitude to atheists: I am a staunch atheist, my favourite cafe is run by christians and I often hang out in churches and cathedrals. You really shouldn't reproach atheists for being stereotypical and then reveal your own stereotypical thinking in the same post (!), after all that's being hypocritical.

Plenty of freethinking broad-minded people seek out those who are very different to themselves. Generally, I find, people gravitate around similar people when they feel insecure or threatened regarding their beliefs or their lifestyle.

I can't believe we are still discussing the "evolution is only a theory" argument. Gravity is only a theory. That the sun will continue to exist tomorrow is only a theory. Where they are similar to the theory of evolution is that, unlike the theory of monotheism, there is bucket loads of evidence to suggest that anyone disbelieving these theories should be regarded as naive, foolish or a crackpot.

----------


## NikolaiI

Ah..them's fightin' words?

----------


## RobinHood3000

> To quote Alan Watts: "Let me show you the same phenomenon in the dimension of space instead of the dimension of time. Let's ask 'How big is the sun?' Are we going to define the sun as limited by the extent of its fire? That's one possible definition. But we could equally well define the sphere of the sun by the extent of its heat. We could also define sphere of the sun by the extent of its light. And each of these would be reasonable choices, except that it's rather difficult to keep track of the extent of its light, because we are inside it. And therefore we have arbitrarily agreed to define the sun by the limit of its visible fire.
> 
> I guess what I get from it is how arbitrary the definition we decide of the sun is. The limit of its visible fire. Why not the limit of its light or heat? If we do that, we have a different way of looking at things, and we keep in mind how the sun is part of every star's light that reaches it, and how we are in fact inside the sun. And just because we are not able to say how large the sun is, in our terms of space, I think it's perfectly reasonable to define the sun by the extent of its light and heat. Why not?


To that, I say "bollocks." Just because something's arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't practical. At any rate, the boundaries Sun is not defined by visibility in any way - it's defined by physical presence. The energy it gives off is no more closely associated to the Sun itself than is the energy I'm using to type this. You may as well consider a squirrel or a cockroach identical extensions of the Sun, because the energy necessary to create them came from the Sun.

If you want to make your point, make it - but frankly, I think the analogy made above is ludicrous. Simply because he says something is a "reasonable definition" does not make it so.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It is the only uncreated thing in your universe.


Only IF I'm wrong; gues what? If I'm right, He's the only uncreated thing in YOUR universe too.




> Many traditions have stories about the creation and/or birth of their gods.


Of this I am aware. That does not mean they are all true. Traditions generally are mutually exclusive in their assertions of truth; either one is right or all of them are wrong.




> As an account of reality, pantheism easily makes as much sense as a virgin birth and an uncreated creator.


Problems with pantheism:

1. Because pantheism believes that everything that exists is a part of God, that means we are a part of God. Considering some of the atrocious behavior humans are capable of, this idea contaminates God. As well, nothing can be transcendant if all is a part of God. To be God requires _transcendance_.

2. Pantheism posits an impersonal God - such a God cannot have a moral will or intelligence. As such, there can be no moral distinctions (supported by pantheism's refusal to recognize oppositions/dualities).

3. Because logic and reason deal with dualitites/oppositions, pantheism sees these ideas as meaningless and non-existent.

4. Pantheism suggest that the universe is eternal, but that would require the existence of _actual_ infinities (only _potential_ infinities can exist in reality).





> These things are an act of faith...whether to feel the divine curling with the edge of a leaf as it falls in autumn...or to interpret ecstasy as the touch of god's grace...both are subjective, both have belief/thought systems to back them up (i.e. holy books and sacred stories), both are fundamentally unprovable. Because of that they can only be said to "account for reality" if the basic premises are accepted as true, and pantheists will not accept that god is outside the material world and christians will not accept that it is not. All we can argue (with reason) is whether the system is coherent, whether the system is practicable, or specific facts (i.e. history, translation, textual).


I agree with much of what you said - but the word "coherence" suggest sinterpretation - and that is where we begin to part ways. It is possible for one individual to use his reason/logic and find coherence in something that someone else using his reason/logic dismisses as totally meaningless - because interpretive evaluations ("this is coherent, this is logical") is established (at least in part) by the "frame" from within which we do the interpreting.




> Okay, let's say you go to a stream and see a whirlpool. You go again the next day and see a whirlpool. But it is not the same whirlpool you saw, because the water in it is changing every second. So it's not so much a whirlpool, but a whirlpooling. So instead of a thing, it is better described as an action, and the same is true of all of our things, though less obvious. A tree is a treeing, a house is a housing, and God is a Godding.


You're describing a behavioral variation of a thing (water). A _whirlpool_ is a description of water doing a specific action. Water is not an action - it performs actions and is acted upon.




> Since when is church closed from non-believers? Lots of atheists go to church.


I never suggested church was "closed" from anybody. Re-read my post.




> Are you sure you know what the difference between theory and hypothesis is? For instance, gravity is "just a theory." But theory and fact are not necessarily in opposition.


I didn't suggest they're in opposition - but what I object to is people treating them as if they're _synonyms_.




> Firstly you misrepresent pantheism, then you reveal your own stereotypical attitude to atheists: I am a staunch atheist, my favourite cafe is run by christians and I often hang out in churches and cathedrals. You really shouldn't reproach atheists for being stereotypical and then reveal your own stereotypical thinking in the same post (!), after all that's being hypocritical.


I do not "reproach" atheists for "being" anything - I "reproached" a sterotypical (and inaccurate) presentation of Christian attitudes/behavior/belief. Please read my post carefully: I did not indicate that people with opposing beliefs cannot have interaction - I was confronting the criticism launched against Christians for engaging in groups and social circles of like-minded people. A suggestion was made as if this was some sort of dysfunctional behavior. I corrected that idea.




> Plenty of freethinking broad-minded people seek out those who are very different to themselves. Generally, I find, people gravitate around similar people when they feel insecure or threatened regarding their beliefs or their lifestyle.


No: it is human nature to like being around people with whom you share common goals, ideals, beliefs. That's human nature - not a Chrisitian defense mechanism. You are posting here on Lit Net because you share things in common with the other posters - do you spend time on webpages dealing with things that totally disinterest you or that you totally disagree with?




> I can't believe we are still discussing the "evolution is only a theory" argument. Gravity is only a theory. That the sun will continue to exist tomorrow is only a theory. Where they are similar to the theory of evolution is that, unlike the theory of monotheism, there is bucket loads of evidence to suggest that anyone disbelieving these theories should be regarded as naive, foolish or a crackpot.


Gravity is _here_, _now_ for us to examine, experiment with and observe. Abiogenetic evolution is *not* _here_, _now_ to examine, experiment with and observe. The "evidence" you tout is subject to interpretive "frames" - and it can point to a number of potentially valid conclusions. I let go the idea a long time ago that I could prove that God exists - why don't evolutionists show the same understanding and admit that ultimately, they cannot prove their position either?

Nice _ad hominem_. Care to try and deal with me without insulting me? That would be refreshing.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Only IF I'm wrong; gues what? If I'm right, He's the only uncreated thing in YOUR universe too.


And if I am right you are living and preaching a delusion and honestly, I would rather be punished for following the evidence (that--in the possible scenario of Its reality--had been put here in [if I do say so myself] a rather mean spirited trick unworthy of my pet cockroach) than be deluded.




> Problems with pantheism:
> 
> 1. Because pantheism believes that everything that exists is a part of God, that means we are a part of God. Considering some of the atrocious behavior humans are capable of, this idea contaminates God. As well, nothing can be transcendant if all is a part of God. To be God requires _transcendance_.


Only if you think that our "atrocious" behavior is not, in part, what defines "human." If the totality of what it means to be human is to be a "Dependent, rational animal" then god is also these things and there is no "contamination." There is even evidence of this in the bible since all the ones killed in the flood, the devastation of all the people at Sodom and Gommorah, the mass murder of the priests of Baal, the drowning of a horde of Egyptian soldiers, etc etc is really rather like the "atrocious behavior humans are capable of." This god is clearly not above a bit of violence.




> 2. Pantheism posits an impersonal God - such a God cannot have a moral will or intelligence. As such, there can be no moral distinctions (supported by pantheism's refusal to recognize oppositions/dualities).


Yes in the sense that the world is recognized to be made for itself's sake and not for humans. Many pantheistic deities had a rather large component of intelligence...i.e. the creation of fire, of tools, of cloth, even story all can be attributed to a variety of earth gods.. As for moral will, well I suppose what you mean to talk about is the inclusion of the "thou shalts" in the developing Judeo-Christian tradition. Most pantheistic traditions had stories that talked about human behavior and provided stories and models for myriad life situations. They were/are explanations of why we are this way and what one can do about it. The moral code of a region was traditionally based and separate from the worship. This is a strength of pantheism not a weakness. The devastation wrought by Christianity throughout the last couple of millennia is directly related to the audacity of the idea that priests think they can run a country.




> 3. Because logic and reason deal with dualitites/oppositions, pantheism sees these ideas as meaningless and non-existent.


There is a huge body of evidence that dualities etc are fundamental to all human thought and they show up over and over in all faiths of all sorts. What pantheism can do is count past the number 2. Again this is a strength.




> 4. Pantheism suggest that the universe is eternal, but that would require the existence of _actual_ infinities (only _potential_ infinities can exist in reality).


Pantheism, like all human faith, relates time to what we can understand, i.e. the human life span. So even 100,000 years seems like an eternity. Even today, when we have the capacity to see the evidence of much longer time spans, the great extinctions of the Permian and the Ordovician, for example, we still can't handle it so we postulate that no, the world began 4004 years ago (and compound the error by measuring it in "begats"). So pantheism is no different. The sense that the seasons go on and on, the knowledge that the seasons were turning when their grandparents were here (as far back as most people can really imagine without a good historical knowledge) is translated into, the seasons will turn and turn even when my grandchildren have children of their own. (This is eternity, because it is about as far forward as we are capable of really imagining.) So the suggestion that the world's vegetative cycle is eternal in no way suggests what is today meant by "infinities." Rather is bespeaks both human mental limitations and human hope.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> And if I am right you are living and preaching a delusion and honestly, I would rather be punished for following the evidence (that--in the possible scenario of Its reality--had been put here in [if I do say so myself] a rather mean spirited trick unworthy of my pet cockroach) than be deluded.


I'm OK with the risk because it doesn't have _eternal consequences_. The _delusion_ can go both ways; you speak of "evidence" as if it is self-explanatory and beyond question; that is not so: some is, some isn't. Gravity's pretty obvious, but not everything we take as "evidence" is so clear cut in its interpretation. God does not put contrary evidence here - we look at things that point to His existence and come up with an alternative explanation.





> Only if you think that our "atrocious" behavior is not, in part, what defines "human." If the totality of what it means to be human is to be a "Dependent, rational animal" then god is also these things and there is no "contamination." There is even evidence of this in the bible since all the ones killed in the flood, the devastation of all the people at Sodom and Gommorah, the mass murder of the priests of Baal, the drowning of a horde of Egyptian soldiers, etc etc is really rather like the "atrocious behavior humans are capable of." This god is clearly not above a bit of violence.


No: God is the only non-contingent creature in the universe - He cannot be "dependent" and still be God. Illogical. 

Please don't ask me to accept the atrocities of genocide and child rape as part of human nature.

You speak as if violence is some sort of evil to be avoided at all costs - and as if human life should be maintained at all costs. Violence has its uses - I assume if you were in danger of being killed and I had the power to save you (through violent, potentially deadly force) that you'd like me to do so. (For the record, I would). Secondly, people seem to have a problem with the idea that the Creator of all decided what should happen to a number of His creations. He who creates life and knows all has the prerogative to end life for His reasons (which, if He is as described, must be good reasons - though we will probably [lacking the complete picture that He is privileged to] not like the choice because it disagrees with _our_ values). If we look at God as no more than some glorified human being, then we'll object to His decisions - but He is the Creator of all. I don't understand many of His choices - but I'd be hesitant to believe in a Divine Being of whom I understood completely.





> Yes in the sense that the world is recognized to be made for itself's sake and not for humans. Many pantheistic deities had a rather large component of intelligence...i.e. the creation of fire, of tools, of cloth, even story all can be attributed to a variety of earth gods.. As for moral will, well I suppose what you mean to talk about is the inclusion of the "thou shalts" in the developing Judeo-Christian tradition. Most pantheistic traditions had stories that talked about human behavior and provided stories and models for myriad life situations. They were/are explanations of why we are this way and what one can do about it. The moral code of a region was traditionally based and separate from the worship. This is a strength of pantheism not a weakness. The devastation wrought by Christianity throughout the last couple of millennia is directly related to the audacity of the idea that priests think they can run a country.


Describing how people are and how they can respond to human behavior is different from what they _ought_ to do. 

The moral code IS worship; the bible states in a number of places that God desires "obedience more than sacrifices." Many strains of Christianity see moral choice as a way of worshiping God because it demonstrates a love for God to do as He has commanded. If my child does what I ask even though I know he doesn't like what he's been asked to do, I see that as an act of love and respect.

Priests ought not run a country - but they should be consulted in terms of morality and judgment. Christianity has done its damage - but pantheism lacks the necessary moral strength to do what needs to be done.





> There is a huge body of evidence that dualities etc are fundamental to all human thought and they show up over and over in all faiths of all sorts. What pantheism can do is count past the number 2. Again this is a strength.


I know what I've read - and what I've read suggests that pantheism does not acknowledge opposition and duality - things either _are_ or _are not_.




> Pantheism, like all human faith, relates time to what we can understand, i.e. the human life span. So even 100,000 years seems like an eternity. Even today, when we have the capacity to see the evidence of much longer time spans, the great extinctions of the Permian and the Ordovician, for example, we still can't handle it so we postulate that no, the world began 4004 years ago (and compound the error by measuring it in "begats"). So pantheism is no different. The sense that the seasons go on and on, the knowledge that the seasons were turning when their grandparents were here (as far back as most people can really imagine without a good historical knowledge) is translated into, the seasons will turn and turn even when my grandchildren have children of their own. (This is eternity, because it is about as far forward as we are capable of really imagining.) So the suggestion that the world's vegetative cycle is eternal in no way suggests what is today meant by "infinities." Rather is bespeaks both human mental limitations and human hope.


You've ignored what I posted: pantheism sees the universe as eternal and unchanging; that is impossible due to the impossibility of actual infinities.

I appreciate your reason responses, but pantheism cannot account for God properly; it denigrates God into a dependent, changing being who is non-transcendent, non-moral, non-intelligent and part of His own creation. That entity cannot be God.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Please don't ask me to accept the atrocities of genocide and child rape as part of human nature.


But, Red, it is a part of human nature. 




> Describing how people are and how they can respond to human behavior is different from what they _ought_ to do.


To differentiate between these is commonly human. What matters is where one puts the authority for the "oughts." I place it squarely on species survival. For example, if we want to survive then we need to live on a planet whose ecosystem can support our life form. We "ought" to manage our desires in such a way that we do not destroy that which is necessary for long-term species survival. Another example: If we want to live in a world where groups of people don't routinely slaughter other groups of people then we "ought" to teach ourselves and our children about our "animal" natures so that when rage/fear/greed/lust/etc hits we know how to manage to feelings. 

A pertinent aside: I taught in a part of Idaho for a few terms. The class did an assignment on teen pregnancy rates. What the data showed was that, by far, the highest rates of teen pregnancy occurred in schools that refused to teach sex education and instead preached celibacy. Ignorance of our "animal" nature does not make it go away. In fact it makes it more powerful.

People have terrible feelings as well as ones of grace. Trying to convince people that the desire to cause mayhem is not intrinsically theirs but rather is like a kind of possession by some mystical being, is tantamount to preaching celibacy in the young. One results in pregnancy. The other in violence.




> Priests ought not run a country - but they should be consulted in terms of morality and judgment.


I'll even go along with this if the panel includes witches, pantheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, animists, christians, jains, taoists, etc etc




> Christianity has done its damage - but pantheism lacks the necessary moral strength to do what needs to be done.


What pantheism lacks is the concept that it knows best. This is a good thing. Rather than answers (which Christianity tries to give) pantheism is structured to give pertinent questions. A thousand answers are far less valuable as a tool for growth than one good question.

I would rather enjoy a governing body that was more interested in the one good question than forcing me to live with (yet again) the consequences of their last 100 answers.





> it denigrates God into a dependent, changing being who is non-transcendent, non-moral, non-intelligent and part of His own creation. That entity cannot be God.


It only feels like denigration because you see changeable as less valuable than absolute. Life is about change. Death is absolute. I prefer life and change and think it has greater value with respect to humanity. In this system the non-transcendent must be god and the transcendent cannot be god.

----------


## atiguhya padma

People often quote the horrendous acts of god in the OT as the basis of an argument for claiming that god doesn't walk the talk. Quite right too. But, the worst part of it is, that if you believe in god, then you somehow have to reconcile your love for an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing creator with the knowledge that he didn't bother to help millions of people in the Holocaust, the Cultural Revolution, the Stalinist Terror, WWI + II, as well as the millions that have died from the influenza epidemic of the early 20th C and other natural disasters. It seems that god doesn't set a very good example (other than to collaborators, conspirators, despots, mass murderers etc).

Redzeppelin said:

<He who creates life and knows all has the prerogative to end life for His reasons (which, if He is as described, must be good reasons - though we will probably [lacking the complete picture that He is privileged to] not like the choice because it disagrees with our values). If we look at God as no more than some glorified human being, then we'll object to His decisions - but He is the Creator of all. I don't understand many of His choices - but I'd be hesitant to believe in a Divine Being of whom I understood completely.>

An intended good or moral action, is so wholly because of what is being intended and done, not because of who is doing it. I see no reason to believe that a creator has a moral right to do what he or she wants with his or her creation. Were a scientist to create a human life form without resort to 'natural processes', I do not believe they would have the right to terminate that life whenever they want. 

I don't see why omniscience and creativity give you a prerogative to murder, or act as an accomplice to murder. Your argument seems to rest on god being as he is described in that anthology of primitive religious writings known as the bible. So god's murders are justifiable based on what someone wrote nearly 2000 years ago and your own ignorance. Not exactly encouraging.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I don't see why omniscience and creativity give you a prerogative to murder, or act as an accomplice to murder.


Fundamentally, I think, god has the "prerogative to murder" because god is considered _a priori_ infallible and since all humans consider murder wrong (a failing), those who carry the nonanalytic belief in infallibility must somehow reconcile god's poor behavior with our social stance on taking a life outside the law. Therefore. when god murders the believers say it cannot have committed murder, so it was something else. Then they go looking for the "something else." Of course this leads to the mental shenanigans and gymnastics of _apologia_ but, hey, what a way to spend a life.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Fundamentally, I think, god has the "prerogative to murder" because god is considered _a priori_ infallible and since all humans consider murder wrong (a failing), those who carry the nonanalytic belief in infallibility must somehow reconcile god's poor behavior with our social stance on taking a life outside the law. Therefore. when god murders the believers say it cannot have committed murder, so it was something else. Then they go looking for the "something else." Of course this leads to the mental shenanigans and gymnastics of _apologia_ but, hey, what a way to spend a life.


Here, still in work, are my thoughts on the last part of your post:

*There are those who need to be mad,
who drank of sanity from the breast
of their mothers and it left them
pale, feeble and depressed.

Instead, they sought for the meat
of insanity, raw if necessary
but twice or thrice chewed over
by preference, and for secret books,
arcana, the more obscure
the better, the more 
precisely, authoritatively mad,
the more worthy to be trusted.

Agoraphobes in the face
of the unmarked field
of mental freedom
they longed for closets
and corridors, aisles
that grew narrower 
as they twisted and turned
back upon themselves,
codicils and corrections
of amendments and
revisions of revisions of revisions...*

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

Bravo! But you are attempting to debate with people who, I believe, cannot afford to lose. The salient questions to pose to those who cannot or will not imagine what it might be NOT to believe as they do, are

1) When and why did you choose to believe?

2) Could you personally survive without believing?

But you are unlikely to get an answer to 1) that is not circular, something like: _I believe because it is true._

----------


## MaryLupin

> Agoraphobes in the face
> of the unmarked field
> of mental freedom
> they longed for closets
> and corridors, aisles
> that grew narrower 
> as they twisted and turned
> back upon themselves,
> codicils and corrections
> ...


What a startlingly evocative stanza. As well as it marks some theists I know, I must admit the first faces that jumped to my mind were hard core academics, particularly hermeneuticists. Strong poem in the making.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Bravo! But you are attempting to debate with people who, I believe, cannot afford to lose. The salient questions to pose to those who cannot or will not imagine what it might be NOT to believe as they do, are
> 
> 1) When and why did you choose to believe?
> 
> 2) Could you personally survive without believing?
> 
> But you are unlikely to get an answer to 1) that is not circular, something like: _I believe because it is true._


Good questions of anybody. Could you start a thread like this (in general chat?) where these questions are asked of believers, agnostics and atheists all? (Don't want to contravene the forum rules and get locked down by Logos. -- Hey Logos, how you doing?)

Mostly, I find the content of belief systems rather mundane. What fascinates me is the mind coming to grips with reality and how it orders, contains and limits what it perceives. This is the process that gets a chance to come to the fore with question # 1. 

In question # 2 we face something else. Here I imagine a person under mental threat (i.e. his or her belief system and perceived personal safety is at risk by being a "lone believer" in a foreign camp.) So say, an atheist child in a fundamentalist grade school, or a fundamentalist child in an atheist school. What does the child do? As an adult, how do we cope with the same kind of situation? 

Good things to think about.

----------


## Logos

> -- Hey Logos, how you doing?)


heh...uhm...........oh...ok!...just warily peeking in here with eyes, fingers and toes crossed that people aren't being too nasty to each other!  :Goof:  




> Good questions of anybody. Could you start a thread like this (in general chat?) where these questions are asked of believers, agnostics and atheists all?


If The P.M. wants to starts a topic with those questions put forth in a manner that encourages everyone to participate (so maybe we can all learn a little and try to be more tolerant of each other around here) I guess I could make an exception to the recent rule change, because it would have to be in the Religious Texts forum, those Gen Chatters get antsy when Religion is brought up there  :Tongue:  . Maybe work the questions into a poll somehow?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> But, Red, it is a part of human nature.


Human nature in the hands of something more powerful and sinister. We choose our behaviors, but the depths to which we will go - no, I cannot accept that that is being "human."





> To differentiate between these is commonly human. What matters is where one puts the authority for the "oughts." I place it squarely on species survival. For example, if we want to survive then we need to live on a planet whose ecosystem can support our life form. We "ought" to manage our desires in such a way that we do not destroy that which is necessary for long-term species survival. Another example: If we want to live in a world where groups of people don't routinely slaughter other groups of people then we "ought" to teach ourselves and our children about our "animal" natures so that when rage/fear/greed/lust/etc hits we know how to manage to feelings.


Morality as social contract. Right - I'm familiar with that idea - it's SOP when discussing morality with those who don't accept Christianity. Social contract works - but it does not carry the sense of "oughtness" that objective morality provides via a transcendant source - i.e. "right" and "wrong" are merely group-validated conventions that could change depending upon social circumstances. What is "right" and "wrong" simply becomes a matter of what is legal - and not all that is legal is _right_. At some point, it could become beneficial for society to kill off those with mental retardation problems - would that make it _right_?




> A pertinent aside: I taught in a part of Idaho for a few terms. The class did an assignment on teen pregnancy rates. What the data showed was that, by far, the highest rates of teen pregnancy occurred in schools that refused to teach sex education and instead preached celibacy. Ignorance of our "animal" nature does not make it go away. In fact it makes it more powerful.


Do you suppose the study would have had the same results 60-75 years ago? Are you ignoring the influence of culture? I think so. "Animal nature" has not always been allowed the long leash we give it - I think kids today have learned (wrongly) that their animal nature is beyond their control and ought to be appeased. That's culture telling them that - not their own carnality.




> People have terrible feelings as well as ones of grace. Trying to convince people that the desire to cause mayhem is not intrinsically theirs but rather is like a kind of possession by some mystical being, is tantamount to preaching celibacy in the young. One results in pregnancy. The other in violence.


You're suggesting some sort of cause-effect relationship - based upon what? I would suggest that we've become more violent and more wreckless as secularism tells us that negative behaviors are not only created within us, but that they're "not our fault" - everything's a "disease" beyond my control - so I couldn't help what I did. Hardly. The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect. "Throwing off the shackles" of Christian morality has not brought about better behaved people.




> I'll even go along with this if the panel includes witches, pantheists, jews, muslims, buddhists, animists, christians, jains, taoists, etc etc


Would you require a Christian on this pretend panel in, say, India? Would you require this sort of "diversity" in Japan? Iran? A witch in Jerusalem? Why would you do that? Why would you suggest that all "faiths" are inherently equal?





> What pantheism lacks is the concept that it knows best. This is a good thing. Rather than answers (which Christianity tries to give) pantheism is structured to give pertinent questions. A thousand answers are far less valuable as a tool for growth than one good question.


Good philosophy doesn't always add up to practicality. Pantheism's "God" isn't worth worshipping or serving because he's incapable of guiding people - he has no morality and no personal interaction with his creatures. He just happens to be "what is" - but God must be beyond "what is" in order to be God.




> I would rather enjoy a governing body that was more interested in the one good question than forcing me to live with (yet again) the consequences of their last 100 answers.


Care to explain what this means? What is Christianity "forcing" you to do?





> It only feels like denigration because you see changeable as less valuable than absolute. Life is about change. Death is absolute. I prefer life and change and think it has greater value with respect to humanity. In this system the non-transcendent must be god and the transcendent cannot be god.


I see changeable as less valuable than absolute when I'm discussing God. I'm well aware of reality and how it works - but religions which make God into a creation make Him into something else besides God. Pantheism doesn't really want "God" - it wants some force to be in charge (because it knows that random chaos can't be in charge) but it doesn't want the troublesome morality and personal responsibility that comes with being a creature of God.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Human nature in the hands of something more powerful and sinister. We choose our behaviors, but the depths to which we will go - no, I cannot accept that that is being "human."


If you accept that we choose our behaviours, you really cannot cavil at whether or not we choose the extent of those behaviours.




> Morality as social contract. Right - I'm familiar with that idea - it's SOP when discussing morality with those who don't accept Christianity. Social contract works - but it does not carry the sense of "oughtness" that objective morality provides via a transcendant source


What do you say then of professing Christians, Jews or Moslems who kill? Or abuse others?




> I see changeable as less valuable than absolute when I'm discussing God.


Have you read Karen Armstrong's _A History of God_?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If you accept that we choose our behaviours, you really cannot cavil at whether or not we choose the extent of those behaviours.


My friend, I _can_ "cavil" because Christian theology makes it clear that human beings' ability to exercise their will against evil can be degraded; in other words - we have a will that allows us to resist evil - or to "contain" it to a certain degree (kind of like the idea that people in decades past - even bad ones - tended to try and "protect" children from exposure to crime and such); that ability can be serverly compromised by continued sinful behavior. Just like an addict - continued exposure to the drug weakens the person's ability to say "no." Sin is no different. As such, the more we engage in it or allow our will to be compromised, the more helpless we can become in the face of Satan's "suggestions" (which is how he works - he doesn't "make" us do anything - he suggests, and we, based upon the strength of our will, say "yes" or "no").





> What do you say then of professing Christians, Jews or Moslems who kill? Or abuse others?


1. Not all killing is forbidden or wrong.
2. Those who abuse have committed sin and ought to suffer the appropriate consequences. What did you think I was going to say? _Excuse_ them? You must be kidding.





> Have you read Karen Armstrong's _A History of God_?


No.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> My friend, I _can_ "cavil" because Christian theology makes it clear that human beings' ability to exercise their will against evil can be degraded; in other words - we have a will that allows us to resist evil - or to "contain" it to a certain degree (kind of like the idea that people in decades past - even bad ones - tended to try and "protect" children from exposure to crime and such); that ability can be serverly compromised by continued sinful behavior. Just like an addict - continued exposure to the drug weakens the person's ability to say "no." Sin is no different. As such, the more we engage in it or allow our will to be compromised, the more helpless we can become in the face of Satan's "suggestions" (which is how he works - he doesn't "make" us do anything - he suggests, and we, based upon the strength of our will, say "yes" or "no").


Well, there is Christian theology (of various sorts, not all of it in agreement), and there is plain human common sense. Obviously I cannot debate with you on the finer points of Christian thology - yours or whomever else's - but all I can say is that from a common sense point of view it seems that if we have the freedom to choose to do evil, there can be no restriction on the depth or kind of evil we can choose.





> 1. Not all killing is forbidden or wrong.
> 2. Those who abuse have committed sin and ought to suffer the appropriate consequences. What did you think I was going to say? _Excuse_ them? You must be kidding.


No I was trying to deal with your point that only if there is a transcendent God, those who were obedient to him would not commit evil.


No.[/QUOTE]

Well, WOULD you consider reading Karen Armnstrong- or the Raul Hilberg I suggested earlier?

----------


## MaryLupin

> Human nature in the hands of something more powerful and sinister. We choose our behaviors, but the depths to which we will go - no, I cannot accept that that is being "human."


As an imaginative game, over the next few years, you could try just 15 minutes a day, giving some mental room to the concept that what we do is a product of our evolved and lived experience and not a consequence of a pair of magical beings. Just as an exercise. I am not suggesting that you give up your faith, but rather see if you can get past the "I cannot accept" stance that makes of your house of argument a weak-footed thing.




> Morality as social contract. Right - I'm familiar with that idea - it's SOP when discussing morality with those who don't accept Christianity. Social contract works - but it does not carry the sense of "oughtness" that objective morality provides via a transcendant source - i.e. "right" and "wrong" are merely group-validated conventions that could change depending upon social circumstances. What is "right" and "wrong" simply becomes a matter of what is legal - and not all that is legal is _right_. At some point, it could become beneficial for society to kill off those with mental retardation problems - would that make it _right_?


"Oughtness" is carried by human emotions. It doesn't matter if the cultural group has some form of single-magical sky-being as its titular head, or a multiple in-ground form. Our "oughtness" comes from the same place as our deep penchant to do what our "big dogs" tell us to do. The Milgram experiments are perhaps the best known example. We are coded to follow direction and want a leader. We are social primates and act (unbelievably in some cases) much like other social primates. (Spend a year or so reading and viewing primate studies and you'll see what I mean.) "Oughtness" is a function that is also coded into us. "Oughtness" rules all have to do with social group viability. I mean if you look at the 10 commandments, or Rabbi Hillel's golden rule all of these have to do with how to get along with others. 

If "oughtness" were not an inherent human function, and a sense of "rightness" could only exist if there was an outside divine-force impelling it, then it should vanish in societies that do not have a transcendent being, or at least they should live in horrendous chaos and of course it doesn't and they don't. (Cultural anthropology has a whole bunch of studies showing how our "savage" friends are not at all "savage," in fact are rule-following, art-creating humans just like us.) "Oughtness" (a sense of morality) is an emergent function of our genetic drive to keep going as a species. After all, in all social species that use learning to transmit necessary survival information it is not enough to simply pop a baby out, one must also provide a relatively stable social environment long enough to pass on the "rules" by which the child can grow up, find sustaining work in the group, procure and keep a mate and produce and rear children on his/her own. To do this we require constant prodding, and "ought tos" do that. 

Finally, they do that not because they were implanted by some magical sky-dude but because our oldest behavioral cattle-prod resides in those parts of the brain that generate feeling. The fact that we took those feelings, which by some miraculous circumstance (what we now know as genes) appeared pretty much the same in all human beings, and created a story to explain this wonder is quintessentially human. 

So of course we would know that killing off all our neighbors that are assessed as "mentally retarded" would be wrong. But not because there is a god telling us that it is wrong, but because it is a profoundly unsocial, unneighborly act and this is precisely what our existence and emergence as social creatures has evolved us to fear (and deny through hell and high water when caught at it). 

Note re eugenics (the body of theory that suggests killing off or forcibly sterilizing our mentally retarded neighbors [amongst other populations] is a good idea): It been well supported in the United States over the years. Dennis Durst made a bit of a study of it and has posted an article called Evangelical Engagements With Eugenics, 1900-1940 should you care to read it.




> Do you suppose the study would have had the same results 60-75 years ago? Are you ignoring the influence of culture? I think so. "Animal nature" has not always been allowed the long leash we give it - I think kids today have learned (wrongly) that their animal nature is beyond their control and ought to be appeased. That's culture telling them that - not their own carnality.


This is a "golden age" argument. Teen pregnancy did not get created in the 1960s along side Vatican II. What a study 60-75 years ago might have shown would have been girls and boys "marrying" at the age of 16; girls routinely bearing slightly pre-term babies and then producing them one after the other without much thought and without much choice. I mean there is a reason my grandmother was one of 12 babies born. This hypothetical study, had it also looked at "disappearances" might have discovered that some girls just "vanished" from the society which birthed them. Had the researcher looked closer it might have found a whole series of "disowned" daughters (the one who got pregnant but not married)...and even closer might have found a correlation between the numbers of prostitutes in the streets of the surrounding towns/cities and the number of the "vanished." And then there are the abortion doctors...these are not creations of the post '60s either. The one difference today is that many of them actually have medical training, which in my opinion is a right and neighborly thing to provide for our female neighbors.

So it is not "animal nature" that was leashed. Sex has always been a potent force and will always remain so. What has changed is who is allowed to acknowledge its power. 60-75 years ago (and still today in many households) "boys will be boys" is still the rule with respect to permission to acknowledge sexual desire. The rules for a "good girl" are still potent, but at least the punishments are less severe, although there are still quite a goodly number of the "vanished" on our streets.





> You're suggesting some sort of cause-effect relationship - based upon what? I would suggest that we've become more violent and more wreckless as secularism tells us that negative behaviors are not only created within us, but that they're "not our fault" - everything's a "disease" beyond my control - so I couldn't help what I did. Hardly. The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect. "Throwing off the shackles" of Christian morality has not brought about better behaved people.


Well yes. If the only method a group uses to prevent pregnancy is celibacy it does in fact cause a rise in pregnancy. There are a number of sociological studies available in the literature should you care to research the point. Free information and technologies provided to women, in case after case, reduces pregnancy rates. Interestingly, there are some studies that show the best way to reduce birth rates (especially in cultures, or parts of cultures, where women do not have equal access to the economy) is to provide women a way to earn their own living. The freedom of choice this provides (along with birth control) works wonders for the power to say "no."

But as to your other point...the increase in violence...in comparison to what? The war in Korea during the "golden age of American righteousness"? WWI and WWII? The Armenian genocide of 1915-17? The Paraguayan War of 1864-70? The 78 European wars of the 17th century? The 118 European wars of the 16th century? The 50 European wars of the 15th century? The wars, economic devastation and plagues of the 13th century?...All the way back to the first cities, the first permanent military and the first permanent religious specialists supported by the political establishment.

We fight, commit atrocities and assorted horrors. That is not different now. There was no golden age where we didn't do this kind of thing. What differs now is our access to information and the power of our weapons.




> Would you require a Christian on this pretend panel in, say, India? Would you require this sort of "diversity" in Japan? Iran? A witch in Jerusalem? Why would you do that? Why would you suggest that all "faiths" are inherently equal?


Well yes. If we are going to have a religious NATO then it had better represent the various belief systems of its subjects. I would suggest that all faiths are inherently equal because your belief in your god is no more powerful than Osama's belief in his, or a Buddhists belief in the power of a buddha, or a witch's belief in the goddess, or...etc.etc. If we must allow tolerance then we (all) (including the Jerry Falwell types) must allow tolerance. If we disallow one then this is not tolerance but religious-based fascism.




> Good philosophy doesn't always add up to practicality. Pantheism's "God" isn't worth worshipping or serving because he's incapable of guiding people - he has no morality and no personal interaction with his creatures. He just happens to be "what is" - but God must be beyond "what is" in order to be God.


Depends on how you define "good" and "philosophy." It is clear that your definition of good is dependent upon it being grounded in a transcendent, unchanging force. This is, of course, not my definition. Mine has to do with promoting social and species long-term success. 

With respect to the meaning of "philosophy," it can mean several things as the page of definitions linked here shows. It can, in fact, mean "a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs." It can also mean "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct" but in this case basing such an investigation on something inherently unknowable and therefore an act of faith makes the whole house that is built on an unknowable void a little tottery.




> Care to explain what this means? What is Christianity "forcing" you to do?


Just a couple of incidents: 

1. live in a world where a young woman died of septicemia because she was denied medical help because "if god had wanted her to live he would have saved her."

2. having to re-catalogue a school library (so the school could become accredited to teach our little children) because the nice Christian woman who worked and taught there had thrown away anything newer than _Dick and Jane_, had kept one picture book on evolution and cataloged it with "myths," and had put the bible (her favorite version) in with the other "science" books. But that was not the real problem...it was that nobody thought it was funny.

That's what the real problem is...people take this kind of idiocy seriously.




> I see changeable as less valuable than absolute when I'm discussing God. I'm well aware of reality and how it works - but religions which make God into a creation make Him into something else besides God. Pantheism doesn't really want "God" - it wants some force to be in charge (because it knows that random chaos can't be in charge) but it doesn't want the troublesome morality and personal responsibility that comes with being a creature of God.


"troublesome morality?" "personal responsibility?" 

Please. Are you really saying that pantheists do not act morally and are devoid of personal responsibility? 

Any pantheists out there that can give a definitive reply to this charge?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> As an imaginative game, over the next few years, you could try just 15 minutes a day, giving some mental room to the concept that what we do is a product of our evolved and lived experience and not a consequence of a pair of magical beings. Just as an exercise. I am not suggesting that you give up your faith, but rather see if you can get past the "I cannot accept" stance that makes of your house of argument a weak-footed thing.


Let's establish something right up front: your reference to God and Satan as "magical" beings shows me two things:

1. You don't understand much about God; God has nothing to do with "magic."

2. I find your usage condescending - as condescending as you might take my comment about your tarot thread as "silly card tricks."

Spare me your "exercises." This is the arrogance of the non-believer who assumes that because someone has a firm opinion that he must not think much about it, for if he did he would certainly change his mind. _Please_. I wouldn't mind half of the misconceptions non-believers spout off about Christians if they would simply drop the patronizing attitude that my position is due to being close-minded, and that if I would do your little exercises that I would be a more _enlightened_ person. Have you noticed that I don't give _you_ any advice in terms of how you think, how you see the world? Why is it that non-believers think it's OK to condescend to Christians? I don't recall "preaching" at you about how you should confess your sins, give your life to Jesus and join me on the road to heaven and how this would change _your_ life. Why don't you lay off your own secular proselytizing while you're at it?




> "Oughtness" is carried by human emotions. It doesn't matter if the cultural group has some form of single-magical sky-being as its titular head, or a multiple in-ground form. Our "oughtness" comes from the same place as our deep penchant to do what our "big dogs" tell us to do. The Milgram experiments are perhaps the best known example. We are coded to follow direction and want a leader. We are social primates and act (unbelievably in some cases) much like other social primates. (Spend a year or so reading and viewing primate studies and you'll see what I mean.) "Oughtness" is a function that is also coded into us. "Oughtness" rules all have to do with social group viability. I mean if you look at the 10 commandments, or Rabbi Hillel's golden rule all of these have to do with how to get along with others.


You got one thing right: morality is encoded in us by _God_. It's inherently human because God programed it into us. That's where guilt comes from - because social convention cannot really instill guilt as a feeling.

I'm not responding to all your lengthy paragraphs because all that would amount to is me saying the same thing: I believe that the Guy who created the compter (our brain) also loaded it with software (morality). I understand that you believe it is something else - _of course you do_ - you _have_ to do so if you don't acknowledge the existence of God. Why should you and I go round and round on this issue? You seem to believe that there are psycho/biological reasons for morality to exist: OK, but I disagree.




> This is a "golden age" argument. Teen pregnancy did not get created in the 1960s along side Vatican II.


Please don't patronize me. It makes me less interested in responding to anything you say.





> What a study 60-75 years ago might have shown would have been girls and boys "marrying" at the age of 16; girls routinely bearing slightly pre-term babies and then producing them one after the other without much thought and without much choice. I mean there is a reason my grandmother was one of 12 babies born. This hypothetical study, had it also looked at "disappearances" might have discovered that some girls just "vanished" from the society which birthed them. Had the researcher looked closer it might have found a whole series of "disowned" daughters (the one who got pregnant but not married)...and even closer might have found a correlation between the numbers of prostitutes in the streets of the surrounding towns/cities and the number of the "vanished." And then there are the abortion doctors...these are not creations of the post '60s either. The one difference today is that many of them actually have medical training, which in my opinion is a right and neighborly thing to provide for our female neighbors.
> 
> So it is not "animal nature" that was leashed. Sex has always been a potent force and will always remain so. What has changed is who is allowed to acknowledge its power. 60-75 years ago (and still today in many households) "boys will be boys" is still the rule with respect to permission to acknowledge sexual desire. The rules for a "good girl" are still potent, but at least the punishments are less severe, although there are still quite a goodly number of the "vanished" on our streets.


The validity of your points does not diminish the reality that morality has relaxed considerably in the area of sexuality - mainly since the 60s. You cannot argue away the fact that sex has ceased to be something generally reserved for marriage into a recreational sport. That kind of thinking reduces the need to control our animal selves because society (which once frowned on sex as sport) now gives its tacit approval. I'm hard pressed to see how you can argue around that reality. Abortions, teen-pregnancies, STDs, broken families et al are up since the early part of this century. Kids don't see the need to control themselves - society, the media and (unfortunately) their parents have shown them that they don't need to restrain themselves.






> Well yes. If the only method a group uses to prevent pregnancy is celibacy it does in fact cause a rise in pregnancy. There are a number of sociological studies available in the literature should you care to research the point. Free information and technologies provided to women, in case after case, reduces pregnancy rates. Interestingly, there are some studies that show the best way to reduce birth rates (especially in cultures, or parts of cultures, where women do not have equal access to the economy) is to provide women a way to earn their own living. The freedom of choice this provides (along with birth control) works wonders for the power to say "no."


Fine for adults - not for children. Telling children to have "safe sex" is telling them it's OK to have sex. It is tacit approval. Period.





> But as to your other point...the increase in violence...in comparison to what? The war in Korea during the "golden age of American righteousness"? WWI and WWII? The Armenian genocide of 1915-17? The Paraguayan War of 1864-70? The 78 European wars of the 17th century? The 118 European wars of the 16th century? The 50 European wars of the 15th century? The wars, economic devastation and plagues of the 13th century?...All the way back to the first cities, the first permanent military and the first permanent religious specialists supported by the political establishment.


_Strawman_. On a large-scale country-to-coutry war level of course you have a point. I'm speaking of the day-to-day "violence" that occurs between us - the robberies, the muggings, the rapes, the road rages, the casual betrayal of each other, the atmosphere of disrespect at all levels of society (from the third grader mouthing off at his teacher to the political candidates flat-out insulting each other on network TV), the snatching of children off the streets, the back-biting ugliness that we see in our media - I'm not talking about tanks and machine guns - I'm talking about violence on the streets, in our families and on our TVs.





> We fight, commit atrocities and assorted horrors. That is not different now. There was no golden age where we didn't do this kind of thing. What differs now is our access to information and the power of our weapons.


I never suggested a "golden age" - I suggested a clear difference in the atitudes towards sex, morality, duty and respect that is evident everywhere in culture. No student of history or culture could miss the change.





> Well yes. If we are going to have a religious NATO then it had better represent the various belief systems of its subjects. I would suggest that all faiths are inherently equal because your belief in your god is no more powerful than Osama's belief in his, or a Buddhists belief in the power of a buddha, or a witch's belief in the goddess, or...etc.etc. If we must allow tolerance then we (all) (including the Jerry Falwell types) must allow tolerance. If we disallow one then this is not tolerance but religious-based fascism.


My point is that a "religious NATO" is absurd; India would laugh off such an idea as having a Christian on some consulting board in its country due to the high numbers of Hindus there. They would say "Why should we have on our council one whose beliefs directly contradict ours?" I was speaking of local matters - not National level. 

Secondly, all faiths are not equal. Since faiths are generally exculsive (they all claim to know the way) they cannot be equal because all of them cannot be right - that is a contradiction of logic of the first degree. Either one is right, or all are wrong. Tolerance doesn't mean "equal representation." It means that people who believe differently than I have a right to believe so unmolested by me.






> Just a couple of incidents: 
> 
> 1. live in a world where a young woman died of septicemia because she was denied medical help because "if god had wanted her to live he would have saved her."


You also live in a world where numerous other terrible things happen that Christians had no say or hand in - so? That was this girl's choice - an unwise one in my opinion. But nothing here has been "forced" upon you more than any other bad thing that the news shows you (Christian enacted or not.) She's as free to make this choice as the distraught drug addict who takes his own life. Nothing has been "forced" upon you.






> 2. having to re-catalogue a school library (so the school could become accredited to teach our little children) because the nice Christian woman who worked and taught there had thrown away anything newer than _Dick and Jane_, had kept one picture book on evolution and cataloged it with "myths," and had put the bible (her favorite version) in with the other "science" books. But that was not the real problem...it was that nobody thought it was funny.


Is this the best you can do in terms of being "forced" to live with the "consequences of Christianity's last 100 answers"? As far as I can see, you have little to complain about. 





> That's what the real problem is...people take this kind of idiocy seriously.


Aha - now we're name-calling. I don't recall calling Naturalism or atheism "idiocy." Nice. What you call "idiocy" is often a very deeply meaningful spiritual experience to many people - but I guess only those beliefs which you see as valid get respect - not very _tolerant_ of you, Mary.





> "troublesome morality?" "personal responsibility?" 
> 
> Please. Are you really saying that pantheists do not act morally and are devoid of personal responsibility? 
> 
> Any pantheists out there that can give a definitive reply to this charge?


Nope - I'm not saying that at all. I'm suggesting that views of God which strip Him of a moral/intellectual will tend to reduce the moral force of God's existence and to - as such - require less out of the individual in terms of expectation of behavior. If God is impersonal and has no moral will, then I am free to approach life as I wish (a bad idea, considering the state of human nature). Please read my posts carefully before sounding some alarm and calling in the troops.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Spare me your "exercises." This is the arrogance of the non-believer who assumes that because someone has a firm opinion that he must not think much about it, for if he did he would certainly change his mind.


This is the difference between us. I have been willing to spend years on this exercise, except mine involves allowing myself to accept the reality of such a divine being as is written about in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and a host of other sacred texts and follow through with learning the terminology, the methodologies of interpretation and the resultant belief systems. My opinions come from such "exercises" in acceptance.




> Have you noticed that I don't give _you_ any advice in terms of how you think, how you see the world? Why is it that non-believers think it's OK to condescend to Christians? I don't recall "preaching" at you about how you should confess your sins, give your life to Jesus and join me on the road to heaven and how this would change _your_ life. Why don't you lay off your own secular proselytizing while you're at it?


No advice, except to "lay off" my "secular proselytizing?"




> You got one thing right: morality is encoded in us by _God_. It's inherently human because God programed it into us. That's where guilt comes from - because social convention cannot really instill guilt as a feeling.


I didn't say that. I said morality is inherent in us because of our biology.




> The validity of your points does not diminish the reality that morality has relaxed considerably in the area of sexuality - mainly since the 60s.


Compared to what? Reading Euripides alone should be enough to tell you that there is plenty of culturally sanctioned licentious behavior throughout human history. Concepts of proper sexual behavior fluctuate through history as do concepts of proper feminine and masculine dress and occupations.




> You cannot argue away the fact that sex has ceased to be something generally reserved for marriage into a recreational sport.


Sex has never been something reserved for marriage. There are rules about who should sleep with whom but they are almost never followed throughout any particular person's life, and certainly aren't followed by society (current or past) at large. Not even in the most strictly devout households and cultures. Evidence of this abounds in biography and history. What changes is who gets punished when caught.




> Abortions, teen-pregnancies, STDs, broken families et al are up since the early part of this century.


This is at least in part true. However, the implication is that all of these things have the same root cause. Broken families, for example, have less to do with sexual than economic freedom. The divorce rate started to climb when women started to become an economic force on their own. Two things of note that have declined are the numbers of children abandoned in orphanages and the number of girls and women who die of botched abortions. 




> Fine for adults - not for children. Telling children to have "safe sex" is telling them it's OK to have sex. It is tacit approval. Period.


And telling them not to doesn't work. And you are assuming they need or want your (not you personally) permission. I suspect, having once been a teen, that the decision to have or not have sex had far more to do with things other than what adults felt I should or should not do. In fact, I doubt it plays much of a role in most teens' minds at the moment of choice - as it were. Now that would be an interesting poll.




> _Strawman_. On a large-scale country-to-coutry war level of course you have a point. I'm speaking of the day-to-day "violence" that occurs between us - the robberies, the muggings, the rapes, the road rages, the casual betrayal of each other, the atmosphere of disrespect at all levels of society (from the third grader mouthing off at his teacher to the political candidates flat-out insulting each other on network TV), the snatching of children off the streets, the back-biting ugliness that we see in our media - I'm not talking about tanks and machine guns - I'm talking about violence on the streets, in our families and on our TVs.


You said in your earlier post: "The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect."

I responded with evidence based on an interpretation of "our society" as human society. Your interpretation of "our society" is "on the streets, in our families and on our TVs." Ok. So again, compared to what. Let me give you just two examples: Rape is not a new crime nor has it likely increased but actually probably decreased (as a statistical percentage of the populations) since there is so much more recourse for women in law now. Rape just used to be something one put up with in the home and it still is in many homes. In the case of murder and assault, a woman is most likely to be killed or beaten by her spouse or significant other. Again this is an old thing, that while still going strong at least has legal recourse today. If anything, I would say that our homes are safer because the violence is talked about on our TVs.

And by the way that was not a strawman type of argument. You made a categorical statement (that violence is increasing) and I gave evidence that this is not true. What happened is that what you mean by, and what I mean by, "our society" differed. Consequently, I adapted and have now given you evidence that your claim that violence is increasing in this new form of "our society" is also probably not true.

A strawman argument is defined as "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted."
You, not I, set up the terms of the argument by saying "the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies..." All I did is show that your assumption "the increasing violence and lawlessness" was incorrect.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> This is the difference between us. I have been willing to spend years on this exercise, except mine involves allowing myself to accept the reality of such a divine being as is written about in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, and a host of other sacred texts and follow through with learning the terminology, the methodologies of interpretation and the resultant belief systems. My opinions come from such "exercises" in acceptance.


1. The difference between us is that I don't assume you're in need of some "enlightenment exercise" simply because I think your vision of reality is incorrect, too narrow, etc. I don't offer my non-believing opponents such, but a number of them have been quite happy to give me advice in terms of being more "open minded" like they are (although "open minded" doesn't seem to be "open" enough to accept the reality of God). Again - that is arrogance of the first order to assume such.

2. The Bible, the Koran and "other sacred texts" contradict each other in terms of who God is; you may have amassed some book knowledge or theoretical understanding of God, but those accounts collectively cancel each other out.




> I didn't say that. I said morality is inherent in us because of our biology.


Right - the part I was agreeing with you about was the word "inherent" - sorry for not being clear. Biology cannot make us feel guilty.





> Compared to what? Reading Euripides alone should be enough to tell you that there is plenty of culturally sanctioned licentious behavior throughout human history. Concepts of proper sexual behavior fluctuate through history as do concepts of proper feminine and masculine dress and occupations.


Civilizations have "arcs" which they travel through in their trajectory; stick with America's civilization and examine its "arc." I'm aware that other civilizations throughout history have indicated problems like ours - but are you so sure that what Euripides is complaining about is equal to ours?




> Sex has never been something reserved for marriage.


According to whom?




> There are rules about who should sleep with whom but they are almost never followed throughout any particular person's life, and certainly aren't followed by society (current or past) at large. Not even in the most strictly devout households and cultures. Evidence of this abounds in biography and history. What changes is who gets punished when caught.


That's largely why our relationships are in such a mess. "Liberating" sex from marriage has not given us happier, more fulfilling relationships.





> This is at least in part true. However, the implication is that all of these things have the same root cause. Broken families, for example, have less to do with sexual than economic freedom. The divorce rate started to climb when women started to become an economic force on their own. Two things of note that have declined are the numbers of children abandoned in orphanages and the number of girls and women who die of botched abortions.


Not all broken families are due to the economic advantages women now enjoy; plenty of them are due to a warped idea about "love" and the sexual baggage we carry into our marriages; having sex before marriage contaminates our hearts - God did not design us to have sex with multiple people - that's why in Genesis it says that a man and woman "become one" when they have sex - and that's not merely metaphoric IMO - I believe that spiritually, the man and woman bind together; that's why divorce or breaking off a relationship with a person you've slept with is so incredibly painful - why divorced couples stay angry and hurt for years after the separation.




> And telling them not to doesn't work.


Because our culture has told them (since the 60s and as you just did above) that sex isn't just reserved for marriage. If kids were taught that by their culture and their media, I think you might find it much easier for them to control their "animal selves."




> And you are assuming they need or want your (not you personally) permission. I suspect, having once been a teen, that the decision to have or not have sex had far more to do with things other than what adults felt I should or should not do. In fact, I doubt it plays much of a role in most teens' minds at the moment of choice - as it were. Now that would be an interesting poll.


You are correct - but just because a teen wants something doesn't mean s/he gets it. You speak as if teens are some sort of independent law unto themselves; they're not - but because we refuse to hold them accountable, they - in a way - have actually become their own law. Teens don't have a _right_ to sex - nobody has a _right_ to sex.





> You said in your earlier post: "The problem with your argument is that the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies this suggestion that Christianity's vision of human behavior is incorrect."
> 
> I responded with evidence based on an interpretation of "our society" as human society. Your interpretation of "our society" is "on the streets, in our families and on our TVs." Ok. So again, compared to what. Let me give you just two examples: Rape is not a new crime nor has it likely increased but actually probably decreased (as a statistical percentage of the populations) since there is so much more recourse for women in law now. Rape just used to be something one put up with in the home and it still is in many homes. In the case of murder and assault, a woman is most likely to be killed or beaten by her spouse or significant other. Again this is an old thing, that while still going strong at least has legal recourse today. If anything, I would say that our homes are safer because the violence is talked about on our TVs.
> 
> And by the way that was not a strawman type of argument. You made a categorical statement (that violence is increasing) and I gave evidence that this is not true. What happened is that what you mean by, and what I mean by, "our society" differed. Consequently, I adapted and have now given you evidence that your claim that violence is increasing in this new form of "our society" is also probably not true.
> 
> A strawman argument is defined as "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted."
> You, not I, set up the terms of the argument by saying "the increasing violence and lawlessness of our society belies..." All I did is show that your assumption "the increasing violence and lawlessness" was incorrect.


I retract my _strawman_ comment; I did not use accurate terminology and tried to ding you. My apologies.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Let's establish something right up front: your reference to God and Satan as "magical" beings shows me two things:
> 
> 1. You don't understand much about God; God has nothing to do with "magic."
> 
> 2. I find your usage condescending - as condescending as you might take my comment about your tarot thread as "silly card tricks."


Magic can be defined as 

c.1384, "*art of influencing events and producing marvels*," from O.Fr. magique, from L. magice "sorcery, magic," from Gk. magike (presumably with tekhne "art"), fem. of magikos "magical," from magos "one of the members of the learned and priestly class," from O.Pers. magush, possibly from PIE *magh- "to be able, to have power" (see machine). Displaced O.E. wiccecræft (see witch); also drycræft, from dry "magician," from Ir. drui "priest, magician" (see druid). Transferred sense of "legerdemain, optical illusion, etc." is from 1811. Magic carpet first attested 1909. Magic Marker (1956) is a reg. trademark (U.S.) by Speedry Products, Inc., Richmond Hill, N.Y. Magic lantern "optical instrument whereby a magnified image is thrown upon a wall or screen" is 1696, from Mod.L. laterna magica.

The production of marvels is exactly what god (and Jesus) did and as such is exactly magical. I understand that you find this offensive...comparing the loaves and fishes to other productions of marvel. But there it is. By definition god is magical.

And I am not at all offended by your attitude toward tarot.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Biology cannot make us feel guilty.


Sure it can and in exactly the same way it makes us feel lust and adoration.




> According to whom?


According to the statistics and reports on illegitimacy, adultery and "miscegenation" throughout the ages.




> Civilizations have "arcs" which they travel through in their trajectory; stick with America's civilization...


with respect to culturally sanctioned licentious behavior in the USA then...I will cite President Jefferson's relationship with his (owned human being) Sally Hemings while married to Martha Wayles Jefferson. Also there is some indication that Sally and Martha were half-sisters. If you want more recent examples then a perusal of recent presidents' lives will be a good start, followed by a perusal of recent evangelical preachers and their behavior with respect to women not their wives. In fact pick any period in American history and look at the behavior of men in power, you will find the same.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Magic can be defined as 
> 
> c.1384, "*art of influencing events and producing marvels*," from O.Fr. magique, from L. magice "sorcery, magic," from Gk. magike (presumably with tekhne "art"), fem. of magikos "magical," from magos "one of the members of the learned and priestly class," from O.Pers. magush, possibly from PIE *magh- "to be able, to have power" (see machine). Displaced O.E. wiccecræft (see witch); also drycræft, from dry "magician," from Ir. drui "priest, magician" (see druid). Transferred sense of "legerdemain, optical illusion, etc." is from 1811. Magic carpet first attested 1909. Magic Marker (1956) is a reg. trademark (U.S.) by Speedry Products, Inc., Richmond Hill, N.Y. Magic lantern "optical instrument whereby a magnified image is thrown upon a wall or screen" is 1696, from Mod.L. laterna magica.
> 
> The production of marvels is exactly what god (and Jesus) did and as such is exactly magical. I understand that you find this offensive...comparing the loaves and fishes to other productions of marvel. But there it is. By definition god is magical.
> 
> And I am not at all offended by your attitude toward tarot.



1. Magic is about _illusion_ - about making something appear to be true that is not. Magicians cannot really do what they appear to do; God commands reality and therefore what He does is not magic. The magician only _appears_ to change something from one thing to another; God actually _can_ change one thing to another. That is an important difference.

2. The "attitude towards tarot" was a _hypothetical remark_; I would never post something like that in such terms because I think it disrespectful to insult something that people find meaningful.




> Sure it can and in exactly the same way it makes us feel lust and adoration.


I disagree, but I'm not really interested in going down this road - I've already had this discussion with others; that we have chemical reactions that accompany certain feelings does not necessarily mean to me that they _cause_ the feeling. They may cause the feeling, but how do we know? Just because two things happen simultaneously does not necessarily mean they share a cause-effect relationship.




> According to the statistics and reports on illegitimacy, adultery and "miscegenation" throughout the ages.


Those statistics suggest that we sexually misbehave - they do not authoritatively tell us that "Sex has never been something reserved for marriage." In fact, the reality that the behaviors you've listed are generally frowned upon by society tells me that sex indeed is supposed to be reserved for marriage.





> with respect to culturally sanctioned licentious behavior in the USA then...I will cite President Jefferson's relationship with his (owned human being) Sally Hemings while married to Martha Wayles Jefferson. Also there is some indication that Sally and Martha were half-sisters. If you want more recent examples then a perusal of recent presidents' lives will be a good start, followed by a perusal of recent evangelical preachers and their behavior with respect to women not their wives. In fact pick any period in American history and look at the behavior of men in power, you will find the same.


Individual examples are not the same as a cultural trend. We may have always sexually misbehaved, but the cultural attitude towards such misbehavior has not stayed constant - that has altered, and in our case, "relaxed" to a degree to where people - instead of being contrite about their misbehaviors, are defiant and entitled about them. Such attitudes speak to the change in morality - especially sexual.

----------


## MaryLupin

> 1. Magic is about _illusion_ - about making something appear to be true that is not. Magicians cannot really do what they appear to do; God commands reality and therefore what He does is not magic. The magician only _appears_ to change something from one thing to another; God actually _can_ change one thing to another. That is an important difference.


Magic can be defined as "creating and illusion." But it also carries the meaning, the "art of influencing events and producing marvels." The first comes from a belief that magic is not real and the first (the older meaning, by the way) comes from the belief that magic is indeed real. In this sense, god does magic. The wonder of words is that they carry multiple meaning and it is a disservice to them to ignore aspects of their meaning because it does not agree with how you have always used it.

----------


## MaryLupin

> They may cause the feeling, but how do we know? Just because two things happen simultaneously does not necessarily mean they share a cause-effect relationship.


We can know through experimentation...cognitive science has made strong inroads into understanding the relationship between feeling and cerebral event.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Those statistics suggest that we sexually misbehave - they do not authoritatively tell us that "Sex has never been something reserved for marriage." In fact, the reality that the behaviors you've listed are generally frowned upon by society tells me that sex indeed is supposed to be reserved for marriage.


There is no necessary link between the fact that sex is a regulated behavior in all human societies and the concept of marriage. Marriage does give the participants the "right" to expect sexual activity, but sexual activity is sanctioned in many more places than the marriage bed. The regulations that are applicable to any given person differ according to age, gender and status. The rules pertaining to women and sex are different than the rules pertaining to men and sex. This is true in all human societies. Some societies accept the need for sexual activity between men before marriage occurs or during long military campaigns (for example.) The rules differed for their wives, however. Some societies expect(ed) men (even married men) to use prostitutes to siphon off some of their "manly" urges so as not to frighten their wives. If you read Victorian literature, for example, you will find much moralizing about the proper placement of sexual activity. However, you will also find a great deal of literature dedicated to its "improper" placement. Both are equally Victorian attitudes and both must be taken into account when describing what Victorians actually believed...because there is usually a big difference between what is said and what is actually believed and/or practiced. The only way to know is to look at the whole gamut of what was done.

The same is true, by the way, with incest. There is a universal human prohibition against incest and it is also universally practiced with dedicated vigor. So what do we humans actually believe: do we judge by what we say or what we do?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> There is no necessary link between the fact that sex is a regulated behavior in all human societies and the concept of marriage. Marriage does give the participants the "right" to expect sexual activity, but sexual activity is sanctioned in many more places than the marriage bed. The regulations that are applicable to any given person differ according to age, gender and status. The rules pertaining to women and sex are different than the rules pertaining to men and sex. This is true in all human societies. Some societies accept the need for sexual activity between men before marriage occurs or during long military campaigns (for example.) The rules differed for their wives, however. Some societies expect(ed) men (even married men) to use prostitutes to siphon off some of their "manly" urges so as not to frighten their wives. If you read Victorian literature, for example, you will find much moralizing about the proper placement of sexual activity. However, you will also find a great deal of literature dedicated to its "improper" placement. Both are equally Victorian attitudes and both must be taken into account when describing what Victorians actually believed...because there is usually a big difference between what is said and what is actually believed and/or practiced. The only way to know is to look at the whole gamut of what was done.
> 
> The same is true, by the way, with incest. There is a universal human prohibition against incest and it is also universally practiced with dedicated vigor. So what do we humans actually believe: do we judge by what we say or what we do?


Your answers to my comments are always breath-takingly filled with all kinds of knowledgable commentary, but I often feel like you're responses are kind of "footnotes" of historical information rather than a clear-cut answer to what I've said. This could very well be my perception and does not require a rebuttal - it may just be me.

What you are speaking of are tacit "conventions" that cultures _tolerate_ moreso than encourage IMO. What society _tolerates_ and _permits_ does not necessarily equal what society accepts as _proper_ and _right_. Various levels of acceptance to sexual configurations outside marriage are a description of how things _were/are_ - but such descriptions are not what things _should_ be; statements of how things are cannot be equated with the way they're supposed to be. Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish; the bonding that occurs during sex (emotional and spiritual) makes sex an extremely powerful/meaningful experience. Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other; sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from. 

I'm not sure how long I want to pursue this argument - from a Christian standpoint, marriage is an institution established by God - not the legal aspect, but the _spiritual_ aspect: men and women who have sex "become one" and this joining at a spiritual level is not something that ought to be taken lightly - you cannot "become one" with 20 other people; furthermore, you cannot then sunder that bond without it causing traumatizing things within your heart and soul. Despite your arguments-in-waiting about cultural this or social that, about "rules" and "taboos" and such, understand that (yet again) you and I are not going to agree on this. Our foundational principles are at odds, and as such, much our conclusions will follow thusly. If sex is a spiritual thing as God has indicated, then I'm right. If it's just something humans do with no spiritual/emotional ramifications, then you're right.

But let's not confuse what society or people do with what it/they _ought_ to do. Two very different things.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Your answers to my comments are always breath-takingly filled with all kinds of knowledgable commentary, but I often feel like you're responses are kind of "footnotes" of historical information rather than a clear-cut answer to what I've said. This could very well be my perception and does not require a rebuttal - it may just be me.


Red

So I am going to step back for a moment and look at the basic argument you have made. I am going to use the marriage example just because it is most recent.

Preachers (of which group I count you a member) often use a basic argument. They say
1)	God told us to do this.
2)	We havent done that.
3)	This is the consequence.

The first step of the argument relies on textual evidence (i.e. there is a passage [or passages] which is interpreted by the preacher as an injunction against the addressed behavior.) Since the evidence comes from the text, any argument against or for the specific interpretation must come from the text. A person could feasibly say, that word in this version of that statement is a mistranslation, for example. Since the evidence cited is textual one could not logically say, well I dont believe in it as a valid argument against a question of interpretation.

The second step of the argument relies on worldly evidence. By saying we havent done that the preacher is making an empirical claim about human behavior. As such world evidence can and must be used to make any dispute against this kind of claim. 

The third step also relies on worldly evidence. It makes a claim that our disobedience is related to a specific worldly event in a causal manner.

In step one the rules of textual analysis applybiblical hermeneutics, for example. In step two and three the basic rules of evidence apply. In neither case is it can the applicable rules be dropped for convenience. This would be inconsistent with the purpose of logical argument and discussion.

To say that marriage is the only acceptable venue for sexual relations because god gave us this order in the bible is a textual question (step 1 of the larger argument). You can cite chapter and verse is support of this statement. No one can say well in the Upanishads it doesnt say anything like that so you are wrong. This would be nonsensical. Equally no one can say, well the I dont like it so therefore you are wrong. This is using worldly evidence when only textual evidence applies.

Equally, to say that we have not obeyed god in this matter (step 2) and we are suffering as a consequence (step 3) requires its own body of evidence. This requires worldly evidence. What I have done in past posts is give you worldly evidence to argue against steps 2 and 3 or your various arguments. I have not (as yet) asked you to cite the textual evidence to support your step 1. 

Integrity of argument is about maintaining consistency between the terms of the argument and the evidence used to support or deny the claim. You made a claim about the state of the world. This means that the proper evidence to refute or support the claim is worldly and not textual. 




> What you are speaking of are tacit "conventions" that cultures tolerate moreso than encourage IMO. What society tolerates and permits does not necessarily equal what society accepts as proper and right.


Terms such as "proper" and "right" are claims made against a specific moral/belief system. In your case against the version of the bible that you support. As such these are evidenced through step 1 of your argument and can not be denied nor supported by evidence from the world, unless you open the claim of "propriety" to attack by the same evidence. For example, someone says, "The bible is correct because there is clear evidence in the world that supports its statements." If one does that then the corollary is then also on the table, "The bible is incorrect if the evidence shows that the world does not support its statements." 




> Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish; the bonding that occurs during sex (emotional and spiritual) makes sex an extremely powerful/meaningful experience. Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other; sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from.


Here are the basic steps from the passage above. Step 1 has already be laid out - that sex ought to be reserved for marriage. Step 2 begins with "Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish." This is a worldly claim and as such can be supported or denied by worldly evidence. As part of step 2 you make the additional worldly claim, "Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other." This also makes a claim based on worldly evidence. (It also makes a bunch of subsidiary assumed claims - for example, that an enhanced bond is a good thing. This would also be open to worldly analysis.) It can be shown as accurate or false, for example, by examining married couples and assessing their bonds with respect to their faithfulness and other factors that might contribute to the state of their marriage. You make step three when you give consequences for not doing what you claim (but don't give evidence for) in step 2. Step 3 is "sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from." Again, this is taking an argument form a text (step 1) and saying here is my worldly support to show that what this text says is empirically true about human nature and behavior. When you do that you leave yourself open to worldly rebuttal.

So if you don't want to argue at the worldly level then we have to confine the argument to textual sources. But then you can make no claim about the practicality or usefulness of the bible as a way of life. This would be a worldly claim.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Red
> 
> So I am going to step back for a moment and look at the basic argument you have made. I am going to use the marriage example just because it is most recent.
> 
> Preachers (of which group I count you a member) often use a basic argument. They say
> 1)	God told us to do this.
> 2)	We havent done that.
> 3)	This is the consequence.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry Mary - I have tremendous respect for your intellect - but you exhaust me with this plodding rundown of argumentative qualifications. I'm a simple man, so I'm going to argue simply: the Bible gives Christians guidance in how to negotiate this life. It tells us that sin leads to unhappiness, bitterness, despair, loss, etc. I believe that when we violate God's restrictions, we suffer. Dostoyevsky's brilliant _Crime and Punishment_ is in part his argument that "Thou shalt not murder" has real life consequences: guilt, anxiety, isolation, etc. You may call that social conditioning, but that was the whole point of the "extraordinary man theory" (borrowed from Hegel and Nietzsche) - that even if you have a "good" and "justifiable" reason for killing that benefits society, the human heart suffers (ditto the theme of _Macbeth_)).

God made it clear that men and women "become one" when they have sex. For a minute, pretend that that is true - that the couple becomes spiritually bonded in a way that is not sundered merely by leaving the person's life. This tells me that "bonding" with multiple people creates spiritual/emotional baggage that interferes with future relationships - even atheists I assume would agree that the more relationships one is in, the more "baggage" one carries into the next relationship. When I look at the state of relationships today, I am making an inference based on what I believe to be truth: a monogamous marriage (while no guarantee of happiness) is probably the path that avoids the most "baggage" - that multiple sex partners - even serial monogamy - contributes to the failure of relationships; most people agree that entering another relationship before "getting over" the prior partner is generally a recipe for disaster - well: what if you were connected in a way that you couldn't just "get over" with time? 

You're responses are made from the platform that assumes the Bible to be "just a book" written by men - and so anything attributed to God you simply brush off. As such, you will present to me evidence that humanity has consistently violated God's ideal for marriage from the beginning - as if that's evidence that God's law is wrong; as far as I'm concerned, all you're doing is building evidence in my favor: configurations that go outside monogamous marriage generally do not result in long-standing satisfaction, happiness, contentment. If it did - why are relationships in such disarray - since the 60's pretty much wrote marriage off?




> Here are the basic steps from the passage above. Step 1 has already be laid out - that sex ought to be reserved for marriage. Step 2 begins with "Most societies are generally condemnatory of men and women having sex indiscriminately with whomever they wish." This is a worldly claim and as such can be supported or denied by worldly evidence. As part of step 2 you make the additional worldly claim, "Confining it to a marriage partner allows the couple to enhance their bond with each other." This also makes a claim based on worldly evidence. (It also makes a bunch of subsidiary assumed claims - for example, that an enhanced bond is a good thing. This would also be open to worldly analysis.) It can be shown as accurate or false, for example, by examining married couples and assessing their bonds with respect to their faithfulness and other factors that might contribute to the state of their marriage. You make step three when you give consequences for not doing what you claim (but don't give evidence for) in step 2. Step 3 is "sleeping with a different partner whenever you want fragments the human heart and damages our spiritual life because we become inappropriately bonded with people we then separate from." Again, this is taking an argument form a text (step 1) and saying here is my worldly support to show that what this text says is empirically true about human nature and behavior. When you do that you leave yourself open to worldly rebuttal.
> 
> So if you don't want to argue at the worldly level then we have to confine the argument to textual sources. But then you can make no claim about the practicality or usefulness of the bible as a way of life. This would be a worldly claim.


I'm sorry - I cannot follow much of what you've said here; I understand about inconsistencies in argumentation and such, but I have no idea what you're suggesting here. I'm applying the Bible's claim to what I see happening in the world. Because the Bible is authoritative to me, and becaue I believe God restricts things because the consequences are undesireable, I assume that evidence of behavior contrary to the Bible will reveal a conclusion consistent with God's warnings about the consequences of sin. 

I'll do you a favor: if I'm not arguing in a way that you think is appropriate or consistent, you are free to tell me so, disengage and I will respect your choice - but don't dictate to me how I have to do it in order for you to take the argument seriously - I think you're splitting some hairs here rather than dealing with my argument - which is what seems to happen here.

God reserved sex for marriage; that society ignores that doesn't mean God's wrong: the results of sexual liberality are before us in all their glory - argue them out of existence if you can.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I'm sorry Mary - I have tremendous respect for your intellect - but you exhaust me with this plodding rundown of argumentative qualifications. I'm a simple man


How very disingenuous of you. All I did was expose the structure of the argument you set out.

Apart from basic argumentative strategy, there is something else I have noticed about preacherly rhetoric. If you want to win a crowd, capitalize on 
1) the congregations natural desire to believe in (or at least reluctance to challenge) an authority figure, 
2) their relative lack of political and historical sophistication and 
3) the ease through which declamations cloud the capacity to think. 

The problem with the strategy is that occasionally up pops someone who 
1) questions the veracity of the statements made and 
2) knows more about the history of humankind and the world in general than the preacher (not at all difficult in some contemporary American cases). 

The solutions to this uncomfortable situation for the preacher are commonly two. The first is to scream Devil! and stampede the knowledgeable offender out of the room (I saw this one once on a university campus). The second is to resort to emotional tactics of the I am a simple man sort and simply act as if the knowledgeable offender is speaking (intellectual) nonsense (i.e. get rid of them by a kind of emotional shunningIve also seen this one in action.). The strategy often works too, especially with people who cannot or will not mark the difference between is and ought.




> You're responses are made from the platform that assumes the Bible to be "just a book" written by men - and so anything attributed to God you simply brush off.


No. I havent even asked you to quote scripture to support your claim that the bible says 
1) sex must remain inside marriage, that 
2) men and women are happier inside marriage, that 
3) there is any connection between marriage, sex and happiness at all. 
I have not asked for any textual evidence that the bible talks about this at all. I am merely providing evidence that refutes your empirical claims about the state of the world. I have said nothing about your subjective experience of the bible as a truthful, divine document.

Even if we accept for the moment that 1) god is real and that 2) your version of the bible represent its actual desires and commandments, it still doesnt negate the difference in necessary evidence between saying the bible says and this is what happens in the world. With the bible says one proves it by pointing out scripture. With this is what happens one proves it by pointing out empirical evidenceeven if the bible and what it says is true and actually represents the word of god. If the bible is true as you say it is, you do it a great disservice by resorting to inaccurate history to prove its points. Surely if it is true it can stand up to an accurate history of the world.




> I'm applying the Bible's claim to what I see happening in the world.


Yes you are, but at the same time refusing to accept that this means worldly evidence can therefore be used to refute the claims you make. This is intellectual hypocrisy.




> I'll do you a favor: if I'm not arguing in a way that you think is appropriate or consistent, you are free to tell me so, disengage and I will respect your choice - but don't dictate to me how I have to do it in order for you to take the argument seriously - I think you're splitting some hairs here rather than dealing with my argument - which is what seems to happen here.


I sorry you cant follow the logic of your own basic 3-step argument, but I dont have to withdraw from your inability; you already have by resorting to I am a simple man.

----------


## Sandra Mc

Mary,
Are u an atheist? Reading ur posts that is what I feel u r. But I should say that I support Red more than u. But I do admire u a lot and I mean it. Seriously (if u r atheist) u must be having enormous power to believe whatever scientists say. I find it very hard to believe it myself!! I feel that somewhere deep inside of u there is a belief that someone created this world. For if u believe the big bang theory and stuff seriously I must say u have A LOT OF FAITH!!
Suppose I take a watch and break it, put it in a bag and shake the bag for a million yrs. ( God knows whether I'll live that long!! But Still think abt. it!!) What is the possiblity of me getting the watch back as before? I don't think its possible! I guess even u would agree. Well anyway I know I have diverted u from ur initial topic on Marriage etc. But I think u should think abt what u have said. Dont u think having a pure and a clean partner is more acceptable?! I haven't used any Bible quotes nothing I have just put in my views.
If u did not like what I have said then I ask u to forgive me. Anyway U are a very smart person!!  :Smile: 
God Bless You!!

----------


## Orionsbelt

Wow this has certainly gotten interesting and a bit deeper than the usual stuff. great job. Personal story...... I knew a couple who were married according to the " rules of ought". Once connected so, they discovered at a practical level that staying with one another was not going to work. So they separated, and the "rule keepers" pushed them back together. That occurred 9 times. Each time they had a child. You see at some level they loved each other but could not live with each other. When the final explosion came and they kicked out the keepers of ought, they divorced for good. Eventually, Married other people and lived happily ever. Having a good relationship with on another as well. The first of these children, who witnessed the strife of the forced union, have emotional problems to this day. Jobs, relationships, education has failed. The younger children raised in the happier homes of later developments are living successfully. In my opinion and in the opinion of everyone who witnessed this tragic play, They ought to have let go long before they did.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> How very disingenuous of you. All I did was expose the structure of the argument you set out.


Nice. What if I was being sincere? How do you know I wasn't? Answer: you don't. You ASSUME you know what my comments were motivated by. 




> Apart from basic argumentative strategy, there is something else I have noticed about preacherly rhetoric. If you want to win a crowd, capitalize on 
> 1) the congregations natural desire to believe in (or at least reluctance to challenge) an authority figure, 
> 2) their relative lack of political and historical sophistication and 
> 3) the ease through which declamations cloud the capacity to think. 
> 
> The problem with the strategy is that occasionally up pops someone who 
> 1) questions the veracity of the statements made and 
> 2) knows more about the history of humankind and the world in general than the preacher (not at all difficult in some contemporary American cases).


Done flattering yourself? None of this is germane to the discussion we're having - but it does appear to provide evidence of yet another tangent where you get to display your considerable knowledge. Bravo - but it would help our discussion to keep it somewhat focused on the issues at hand.




> The solutions to this uncomfortable situation for the preacher are commonly two. The first is to scream Devil! and stampede the knowledgeable offender out of the room (I saw this one once on a university campus). The second is to resort to emotional tactics of the I am a simple man sort and simply act as if the knowledgeable offender is speaking (intellectual) nonsense (i.e. get rid of them by a kind of emotional shunningIve also seen this one in action.). The strategy often works too, especially with people who cannot or will not mark the difference between is and ought.


Amazing. I essentially have admitted that I don't have the kind of mind that can follow the complexities of your discussion about argumentation and you decide to paint it as the tactic of a coward. I didn't say you were speaking nonsense - I said I couldn't follow it - and I did not indicate that that failure to comprehend was your fault. Again: you assume I'm being disingenuous, but if you're wrong, that makes your comments inappropriate and hostile.





> I have not asked for any textual evidence that the bible talks about this at all. I am merely providing evidence that refutes your empirical claims about the state of the world. I have said nothing about your subjective experience of the bible as a truthful, divine document.


I'm sorry - I'm not certain I've seen anything "refuted" just yet.




> Even if we accept for the moment that 1) god is real and that 2) your version of the bible represent its actual desires and commandments, it still doesnt negate the difference in necessary evidence between saying the bible says and this is what happens in the world. With the bible says one proves it by pointing out scripture. With this is what happens one proves it by pointing out empirical evidenceeven if the bible and what it says is true and actually represents the word of god. If the bible is true as you say it is, you do it a great disservice by resorting to inaccurate history to prove its points. Surely if it is true it can stand up to an accurate history of the world.


What "inaccurate history" have I presented?




> Yes you are, but at the same time refusing to accept that this means worldly evidence can therefore be used to refute the claims you make. This is intellectual hypocrisy.


You have not provided evidence to the contrary of the inferrence I'm drawing. Based upon what God says about sin, and the assumption that His decisions and commands are based upon reasonable realities, then I find it reasonable to assume that violating God's commands should show a real-world result. Which part of that is unreasonable? If I read a book by the foremost expert in marine biology who says if we do "x" the oceans will suffer and we go ahead and do "x" and the ocean suffers, I have reason to believe that the foremost marine biologist was correct in his caution.




> I sorry you cant follow the logic of your own basic 3-step argument, but I dont have to withdraw from your inability; you already have by resorting to I am a simple man.


Please don't condescend to me - I lose my interest in discussing things with people who cannot manage basic civility. I can follow my own argument - it was the complexites of your discussion of it that started to lose me; you seemed to be more hung up on telling me the invalidity of my argument than in dealing with its points. I'm not certain I can configure my comments to suit your ideas about what an argument should look like, so I essentially told you that you are free to disengage if you do not see my argument as being framed in a logical, reasonable way. 

I can do without the subtle hostility and condescension. I've said I respect your intelligence and in return you've essentially insulted me in a number of subtle ways here.

----------


## XY&Z

One should not have thoughts on something that one doesn't believe that exists.  :Tongue:

----------


## NikolaiI

> To that, I say "bollocks." Just because something's arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't practical. At any rate, the boundaries Sun is not defined by visibility in any way - it's defined by physical presence. The energy it gives off is no more closely associated to the Sun itself than is the energy I'm using to type this. You may as well consider a squirrel or a cockroach identical extensions of the Sun, because the energy necessary to create them came from the Sun.
> 
> If you want to make your point, make it - but frankly, I think the analogy made above is ludicrous. Simply because he says something is a "reasonable definition" does not make it so.


No, he was saying they were not reasonable definitions, because you can't say where the light ends, or heat, and we are inside the light. That was his point, but and I'm not saying he said we should change our definition of the sun. But I think those are reasonable definitions, at least as reasonable as the other ones, because they were chosen for arbitrary reasons, that is, which senses we like to use and view the world by.

And you say physical presence, but isn't light photons, isn't that physical? What _is_ the sun? If a photon leaves what the sun is, then it's not the sun, but the sun's light? Why do we say the sun's light is not the sun? I'd say it is. I mean, of course you can't calculate that, because then we are inside the sun, and the sun is inside all the stars whose light reaches it. But what is wrong with this definition? It seems to me to be closer to reality, although it's still words superimposed on physical reality.

----------


## Noisms

> 1) Atheism is not a belief system. It is non-belief or an absence of belief in theism, hence a-theism.


Strictly speaking, a-theism does not mean "absence of belief in theism"; rather, it means "without-God-ism", which tends to suggest it _is_ a belief system.

All atheists must, at some point, make a leap of faith. This is because, in order to explain their own existence without resorting to a god (or mystical force of some sort) they must put faith in a theory that has no evidence to support it and that defies logic - the idea that something (everything, in fact) sprang from nothing.

[Hi, by the way. This is my first post here. How exciting.]

----------


## MaryLupin

> One should not have thoughts on something that one doesn't believe that exists.


Funny guy...it's called imagination!

----------


## MaryLupin

> All atheists...must put faith in a theory that has no evidence to support it and that defies logic - the idea that something (everything, in fact) sprang from nothing.


Re: no evidence...how much physics, evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology have you read that you can say there is "no evidence to support it?" In other words, what evidence are you citing to show there is no evidence? 

Re: defies logic...much that defies "logic" is nevertheless true. For example, do you believe the earth rotates around the sun? Or do you believe that the earth is the center of the universe?

I was reading a site earlier today that had these two sentences: 

"Heliocentrism is the view that the sun is at the center of the universe. It was proposed by some ancient Greeks,[1] and became the dominant view in the 1700s and 1800s. It was abandoned in the 20th century."

Can you spot the problem(s) with their presentation of fact? If you can do that can you take it further and think about what it means about the way this person thinks, and what s/he assumes? See if you can guess before you go look at the site.

A less tendentious recounting of information can be found at: www.scar.utoronto.ca/




> Hi, by the way. This is my first post here. How exciting.


Welcome and have fun.

----------


## Noisms

> Re: no evidence...how much physics, evolutionary theory and evolutionary biology have you read that you can say there is "no evidence to support it?" In other words, what evidence are you citing to show there is no evidence?


I'm not talking about evolution - I'm talking about more fundamental issues than that. The point is that for atheists to account for the very existence of reality, they have to resort to saying "something came from nothing". In other words, once upon a time there was absolutely nothing, and from that, everything came - of its own accord. 

The onus is on the atheist to provide evidence that something can come from nothing. Unfortunately, it defies logic, and defies physics. Something can not come from nothing. Most thinking atheists are well aware of the problem, and they come up with intellectual contortions to escape it (for example, the universe is continually contracting to nothing and then expanding outwards; or there are infinite universes; or universes pop in and out of existence like bubbles inside a bigger universe; or, if they're lazy the universe has always been here) but the best they can come up with is a postulation.

Of course, the same problem exists for theists, who usually explain the problem away by saying "god has always existed, and he created the universe" - which is equally inadequate.




> Re: defies logic...much that defies "logic" is nevertheless true. For example, do you believe the earth rotates around the sun?


I think you're confused about what logic means. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun does not "defy logic". It follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics. Unfortunately, the idea that all of creation could have sprang from nothingness (or 'a singularity') does not.

----------


## Orionsbelt

Is it a leap of faith (for and atheist) or he limit of understanding? If I have concluded that there is no god (rejecting one idea for creation) and something cannot be created from "nothing" .. a singularity.. have I simply arrived at a point where my understanding fails or do I have a dilemma as you have describe. The existence of another problem does not make any previous postulate valid or invalid. I only makes for a bad answer to the retort what then?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I'm not talking about evolution - I'm talking about more fundamental issues than that. The point is that for atheists to account for the very existence of reality, they have to resort to saying "something came from nothing". In other words, once upon a time there was absolutely nothing, and from that, everything came - of its own accord. 
> 
> The onus is on the atheist to provide evidence that something can come from nothing. Unfortunately, it defies logic, and defies physics. Something can not come from nothing. Most thinking atheists are well aware of the problem, and they come up with intellectual contortions to escape it (for example, the universe is continually contracting to nothing and then expanding outwards; or there are infinite universes; or universes pop in and out of existence like bubbles inside a bigger universe; or, if they're lazy the universe has always been here) but the best they can come up with is a postulation.
> 
> Of course, the same problem exists for theists, who usually explain the problem away by saying "god has always existed, and he created the universe" - which is equally inadequate.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're confused about what logic means. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun does not "defy logic". It follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics. Unfortunately, the idea that all of creation could have sprang from nothingness (or 'a singularity') does not.


The one disagreement I have with you may be over your use of the term "atheists" insofar as that implies a disbelief in God, and might further require one to disprove the arguments for God's existence. (Which, as you would know if you have ever attempted to discuss the thing with a fervently committed believer, is impossible.)

If on the other hand we spoke of agnostics, they don't have to prove anything since they assert nothing but that we don't have any final, irrefutable answers. Keats wrote in a letter to a contemporary:

[QUOTE]I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason. [QUOTE]
But the "irritable reaching after fact & reason" appears to be hard-wired into many & perhaps all of us, a condition that is liable to produce 'answers' at whatever cost, the cost at times of reason or common sense. There is a saying about Russians, that they are the most patient people until hope enters the room. Once children become aware of Christmas (in its secular practice, i.e., presents), it can never come soon enough. Similarly, I suggest, with that glimmer of An Answer to Everything, i.e. religion.

----------


## Noisms

> If on the other hand we spoke of agnostics, they don't have to prove anything since they assert nothing but that we don't have any final, irrefutable answers.


Exactly, which is why agnosticism is the most intellectually honest belief (or lack of it). Both atheists and theists are forced to make leaps of faith by virtue of their conception of how we came to exist (and because neither of their positions is possible to prove or disprove), whereas agnostics can quite happily say "It's impossible to know".




> (Which, as you would know if you have ever attempted to discuss the thing with a fervently committed believer, is impossible.)


It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.

----------


## Noisms

> Is it a leap of faith (for and atheist) or he limit of understanding? If I have concluded that there is no god (rejecting one idea for creation) and something cannot be created from "nothing" .. a singularity.. have I simply arrived at a point where my understanding fails or do I have a dilemma as you have describe. The existence of another problem does not make any previous postulate valid or invalid. I only makes for a bad answer to the retort what then?


You still have the dilemma, because your position is still an unproven and unprovable one - just like a theist's is. You're still making a statement of faith, even if that statement boils down to "I don't believe there is a God, and nor do I believe that something can come from nothing, but I must just have reached a point where my understanding fails", because it has as much worth as saying "I believe God created the world" or "I believe something can come from nothing" or even "I believe in a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster". None of these beliefs are provable or disprovable.

----------


## MaryLupin

> I think you're confused about what logic means. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun does not "defy logic". It follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics. Unfortunately, the idea that all of creation could have sprang from nothingness (or 'a singularity') does not.


My point was that the fact that the earth revolves around the sun did in fact "defy logic" to the vast majority of humanity during the battle between geo- and heliocentrism. In fact, it still defies the logic of the few that consider heliocentrism an "atheist plot" (no, I'm not kidding.) My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding. Finally, what the people of Copernicus' and Galileo's time thought about the "illogic" of the notion that the earth flies through the skies is accessible online and through scientific historic reading. Now we know that it "follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics," but then we didn't. It only took us what? 200 years for the majority of us to get to the place where we think heliocentrism is logical? So I expect that in another 200 or so abiogenesis will also seem "obvious."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding.


A good point; at the risk of being annoying, I will add that this idea works also in terms of God: many atheists dismiss God because they don't see "evidence" of Him, and they see the creation of the world _ex nihilo_ by God as an event that "defies logic." The "illogical" nature of God, Christianity, or religious belief in gerneral may also be a matter of the "state of our understanding" - the difference being that - in terms of science our understanding is an empirical/observational matter of the material world; in terms of God, it is spiritual matter of the heart.

----------


## Noisms

> My point is that because the concept of something from nothing defies logic says nothing about the concept but a whole lot about about the state of our understanding. Finally, what the people of Copernicus' and Galileo's time thought about the "illogic" of the notion that the earth flies through the skies is accessible online and through scientific historic reading. Now we know that it "follows perfectly logically from what we know about the nature of physics," but then we didn't. It only took us what? 200 years for the majority of us to get to the place where we think heliocentrism is logical? So I expect that in another 200 or so abiogenesis will also seem "obvious."


Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"

With respect, it's akin to saying "I expect that in another 200 years or so the fact that two plus two equals five will also seem 'obvious'".

It certainly isn't any different to a theist saying "I expect in 200 years that everybody will believe in god, because it will have been proved" or, indeed, an agnostic saying "I expect in 200 years that people still won't be sure". All you're doing is moving the same argument 200 years into the future, and the same problems remain.

Besides, in 200 years time when abiogenesis will supposedly seem obvious, who's to say that in 400 years time it won't? Who's to say that in 800 years, we won't have proved that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn?

----------


## JCamilo

> Exactly, which is why agnosticism is the most intellectually honest belief (or lack of it). Both atheists and theists are forced to make leaps of faith by virtue of their conception of how we came to exist (and because neither of their positions is possible to prove or disprove), whereas agnostics can quite happily say "It's impossible to know".


I feel tempted to argue that an Atheist I do not have to prove anything and I will be more than happy to believe in God if it is proved he exists. Also, I fall to understand the how we came to exist (I suppose you mean universe creation or life) which are unknown stuff and under study, and this is what I believe (I prefer to say I do not know) is similar to the position of the theist "I know, it is like this :Frown: insert here the particular belief)...

This make me remember of Chesterton (this actually the Negative Capacity of Keats). Chesterton, although christian held all beliefs as possible and pointed that atheists are losing some "magic" because they did not experimented it. 
However a follower of Particular faith actually does not operate with such openess - they exclude all other possibilities as well. 





> It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.


Dangerous generalization in my opinion but a aspect of Faith is the lack of objectivism because Faith is subjective and arguments that have the tendencies to be subjective are usually more "fanatics" but I have meet religious people who are perfectly reasonable and also atheists that are short-sighed due their fanatical trust in the science as well.

----------


## Noisms

> I feel tempted to argue that an Atheist I do not have to prove anything and I will be more than happy to believe in God if it is proved he exists. Also, I fall to understand the how we came to exist (I suppose you mean universe creation or life) which are unknown stuff and under study, and this is what I believe (I prefer to say I do not know) is similar to the position of the theist "I know, it is like thisinsert here the particular belief)...


What I mean by that is, Atheists are faced with the problem that they can never satisfactorily answer how and why things came to exist the way they do. Even if it is proved that a singularity sprang from nothing, the question remains: why? And how? Likewise if the universe is just a bubble that popped into existence inside a bigger universe. How? Why? What put the bigger universe there? Was it just 'always there'?

Likewise Theists have to confront the question: Who or what created god? Or was he just 'always there'? 

If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"
> 
> With respect, it's akin to saying "I expect that in another 200 years or so the fact that two plus two equals five will also seem 'obvious'".
> 
> It certainly isn't any different to a theist saying "I expect in 200 years that everybody will believe in god, because it will have been proved" or, indeed, an agnostic saying "I expect in 200 years that people still won't be sure". All you're doing is moving the same argument 200 years into the future, and the same problems remain.
> 
> Besides, in 200 years time when abiogenesis will supposedly seem obvious, who's to say that in 400 years time it won't? Who's to say that in 800 years, we won't have proved that the universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn?


Aren't you being a touch literal-minded here? When the poster said that she "expects" abiogenesis to have been proven within the next 200 or so years, I don't know that she would be prepared to wager her descendents fortune on it.

But even within the community of believers, notwithstanding how much has been shed since religion began, I would bet that the concept of a divinity which has been around for many more millennia than e.g. Christianity, without any more proof of its validity, will still be clung to tenaciously by the billions who believe it now, no matter what science has turned up. 

And some among those billions will still be saying, _Oh sure you've proven that within your naturalistic framework, but..._ as if the material earth were not beneath their feet, the material sun did not pour down its material light, and the seasons did not go on turning.

----------


## Noisms

> Aren't you being a touch literal-minded here?


Not really. I'm pointing out that you can't form a sensible argument around the idea that, just because something was proved to be wrong in the past (heliocentrism), other things will necessarily be proven wrong in the future (the fact that something can't come from nothing). It just doesn't follow; the two things are completely unrelated.

----------


## JCamilo

> What I mean by that is, Atheists are faced with the problem that they can never satisfactorily answer how and why things came to exist the way they do. Even if it is proved that a singularity sprang from nothing, the question remains: why? And how? Likewise if the universe is just a bubble that popped into existence inside a bigger universe. How? Why? What put the bigger universe there? Was it just 'always there'?


Wait, what if I do not need such answers? I know, some people get really upset around internet debating because someone would go with the tangency : "Evolution is not proved because life demands a creator and the Big Bang is not accepted" or anything, but that is not really like what makes an atheist. I for once just accept that eventually things are going to be discovered and new misteries too and I am aware than even if some deity would prove me to be real, it can means - the possibilities are big - he had nothing to do with the gods we know today. 
What we can not do is a turn over to XVII century. That Science have not answered everything is fine, but it does not mean we have to erase everything else. People bring back teological, philosophical and even scientific arguments that were buried long ago and still present the same source of evidence which wasn't satisfactory 200 years ago - they are not really asking for a exchange of ideas. 





> If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.


Wait, Atheism is born from Greek Philosophy, the constant development of the skeptcism. The Atheism of moderm age was an evolution cause by enlightment confront with tradition that generated romanticism which ignored even more the traditions (classicism, monarchies, the church) etc. 
At given point it just seemed to be natural to be atheist since all natural laws operate without interference, it started to be hard to keep a believe in a god. 
I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just confortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible". 
Let's remember that forms of theism include biblical literalism and others just pure deism and they are far different intelectual wise from each other.

----------


## Orionsbelt

> I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just comfortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible".


I'm not sure that this captures the idea. I think it is more I don't know what is possible than anything is possible. Since.... I find myself in this space often enough. Although I'm ready to identify myself as an official member of the "not know it crowd" I have a tendency to feel very sad to believe that science and the study of nature will answer everything. Then truly you will have entered the matrix ... at which point I will go take a genesis pill and return to my cube.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Postulating what we will or will not be able to prove in the future based on what we did or didn't know in the past is a bizarre arguing tactic. "Three hundred years ago, people didn't know it was possible to build planes, but we do now, so in three hundred years we'll be able to travel faster than light!"


Noisms, that is not what I said. I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true. What I said was because abiogenesis seems illogical to you has about as much impact on the truth potential of the theory as did the comparable doubt of the truth potential of heliocentrism had on it. In other words, just because you cannot see the logic of this new paradigm, does not mean it isn't logical. It just means you cannot see the logic in it. The usage of another example of the same mistake in history (thinking our understanding or lack there of has some impact on what is actually true) was meant to show you that this is a common human failing. It (and declaring a theory "illogical" without actually understanding it) also demonstrates that we humans rarely learn from our mistakes either personal or global.

----------


## Noisms

> Noisms, that is not what I said. I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true. What I said was because abiogenesis seems illogical to you has about as much impact on the truth potential of the theory as did the comparable doubt of the truth potential of heliocentrism had on it. In other words, just because you cannot see the logic of this new paradigm, does not mean it isn't logical. It just means you cannot see the logic in it. The usage of another example of the same mistake in history (thinking our understanding or lack there of has some impact on what is actually true) was meant to show you that this is a common human failing. It (and declaring a theory "illogical" without actually understanding it) also demonstrates that we humans rarely learn from our mistakes either personal or global.


Fine, but again, you're just removing the same problem to a slightly different point of debate. The Atheist says "Just because you can't see the logic in the paradigm, doesn't make it illogical"; the Theist says "Just because you can't feel God, doesn't mean he isn't there". Great, but again, nothing has been proved, and nothing has been argued.

Perhaps the word 'illogical' is confusing the issue: essentially, abiogenesis has as much chance of being proved true as any other given theory on how the universe came into being - it was created by God, it has always been there, it came from a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster - and that's what I meant by illogical; it _is not logically possible_ to prove or disprove any of those theories - which means that whichever one you choose to believe in, you're doing so by faith (or gut feeling, or emotion).

(And by the way, it's a bit disingenuous of you to say "I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true" - in fact, you quite clearly stated that "it only took 200 years for heliocentrism to have been proved right, so I expect in 200 years abiogenesis will seem logical".)

----------


## Noisms

> Wait, what if I do not need such answers? I know, some people get really upset around internet debating because someone would go with the tangency : "Evolution is not proved because life demands a creator and the Big Bang is not accepted" or anything, but that is not really like what makes an atheist. I for once just accept that eventually things are going to be discovered and new misteries too and I am aware than even if some deity would prove me to be real, it can means - the possibilities are big - he had nothing to do with the gods we know today.


Does that not make you an agnostic, then, rather than an atheist? The point of atheism is that there is no god: a position of faith, given that the postulation cannot be proved. Your argument sounds like the classical "we can't possibly know" stance of an agnostic.




> Wait, Atheism is born from Greek Philosophy, the constant development of the skeptcism. The Atheism of moderm age was an evolution cause by enlightment confront with tradition that generated romanticism which ignored even more the traditions (classicism, monarchies, the church) etc.


I know how Atheism was born - I was talking about _why people choose to believe it_, which is a different thing altogether. I would argue that they do so because of emotion and feeling rather than the rational reasons they often give.




> At given point it just seemed to be natural to be atheist since all natural laws operate without interference, it started to be hard to keep a believe in a god.


But don't you think, at some point, the question has to be answered as to how all those natural laws came about? Was it just by accident? In which case, what started the accident? Another accident? Ever unto infinity? It's fine if you want to believe that, as long as you understand it's a chosen belief with as much rational validity as "God created the natural laws".




> I do not see how agnosticism have any difference from Theism and Atheism either. It is just confortable to not confront anything and be adept of a sophistry that "everything is possible". 
> Let's remember that forms of theism include biblical literalism and others just pure deism and they are far different intelectual wise from each other.


You're probably right - Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all equally comforting in their own ways, which is why everybody believes in _something_. But I think Agnosticism is the most - in fact, the only - rational belief, because the others rely on unprovable assertions. (That isn't to say Theists or Atheists are wrong. Either might well turn out to be correct.)

----------


## JCamilo

> Does that not make you an agnostic, then, rather than an atheist? The point of atheism is that there is no god: a position of faith, given that the postulation cannot be proved. Your argument sounds like the classical "we can't possibly know" stance of an agnostic.


Not really - An Agnostic ackowledge the possibility of everything despite the lack of evidences. An atheist not. I don't think there is a God because there is no prove because I think we can know. 
I must notice that we are talking about the difference and all three positions starts with "we do not know" - A Theism however do not mind because he can not understand the wisdow of god, a atheist because there is no evidence do accept that possibility, a agnostic because there is no evidence think that is possible. 
Faith is the trust without need of proof, so the position of atheistic can not be a position of faith. 




> I know how Atheism was born - I was talking about _why people choose to believe it_, which is a different thing altogether. I would argue that they do so because of emotion and feeling rather than the rational reasons they often give.


I would disagree because we would have to analyse every case. I think even theists can have rational (or logical) reasons to be theists. 
Myself, I lost any faith with the reading of the Bible and noticing the stories there are rather similar with the mythological stories everyone taught was "false" - so I guessed it was just a matter of popular support and not logic that separated those religions (the trust on it).
It is said that Darwin became atheist because the loss of his most loved daughter plus the discoveries of his studies that showed no need of designer for the living organism. It is hard to discuss if the intelectual work had the impulse of his loss or helped him to sustain his feelings. As I said, each case is a case. 





> But don't you think, at some point, the question has to be answered as to how all those natural laws came about? Was it just by accident? In which case, what started the accident? Another accident? Ever unto infinity? It's fine if you want to believe that, as long as you understand it's a chosen belief with as much rational validity as "God created the natural laws".


Until it is proven? Yes, the objections of this creator are purelly philosophical or conjectural. (Being the creator as first cause only) 
And yes, one day those answers need to be found I have no idea when. 




> You're probably right - Theism, Atheism and Agnosticism are all equally comforting in their own ways, which is why everybody believes in _something_. But I think Agnosticism is the most - in fact, the only - rational belief, because the others rely on unprovable assertions. (That isn't to say Theists or Atheists are wrong. Either might well turn out to be correct.)


[/quote]

Agnosticism rely in doubt indeed. But Atheist rely in need of proof. Theism in faith. I would say neither rely really in unprovable assertions. Faith does not even require those assertions thus I always found strange when someone claim religious faith but start to list "evidences" that are meant to "answer" a philosophical system that are not the religious. I think I would be happy with the proverbial monk shrugh of shoulders... With this one I can not argument.

----------


## XY&Z

> Funny guy...it's called imagination!



MaryLupin, thank you for noticing and commenting my post. :Smile:  
Anyway, I don't think that imagination has something to do with believing in God. Faith is blind belief (one might say).  :Wink:  
I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.

I am really sorry, I will not interrupt this fine discussion with my silly comments.
Please, carry on.  :Smile:

----------


## JCamilo

> I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
> There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.


I suppose she meant imagination to create them in first place. Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there is not more fantastic creation of humankind that a God that was infinite. 
Anyways, just remember that one point Faeries are divine beings - what we call faeries are originated from Deities and so are some dragons. 
I would like to point that there is things that even those of faith can not have enough faith to believe, that is why i like Chesterton and how his "there is no rule os architeture to build castles in the clouds" would apply to art, where imagination is so important.

----------


## blp

> It's equally impossible with atheists, who are as unrelenting and fervent in their beliefs as "believers" are - just in the opposite aspect.


What makes you think that? I would posit that most atheists are remarkably flexible in their beliefs in that they will virtually always allow themselves to be swayed by evidence. If evidence could be provided for the existence of god, don't you think lots of atheists would change their minds? Yet lots of evidence can be provided against god's existence and it hardly ever seems to change believers' minds  Darwin being a notable exception.

----------


## blp

> If you ask me, both positions are inadequate, in purely intellectual terms. They aren't in terms of feeling - Theism and Atheism both provide comfort and stem from emotional responses, I would argue - but that makes them both faiths or beliefs, not intellectually-arrived-at understandings.


This is a huge and, I think, totally erroneous assumption, or set of assumptions. 

Religion is commonly thought to provide comfort, but it frequently provides discomfort in the form of say, genital mutilation, the threat of everlasting damnation, the justification for war and ignorance, sexual repression. 

Even so, the idea that both it and its absence provide comfort is pretty hard to swallow. How is the idea of a purposeless universe, in and of itself, supposed to provide comfort? Not that there's anything necessarily bad about it, unless you count the total absence of a guarantee of justice. I just don't see the comfort component in it. 

As for the idea that atheism isn't intellectually arrived at, I wonder how you intellectually arrived at that conclusion. You could read the entire history of western intellectual thought as a gradual stripping away of the possibility of religious belief.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What makes you think that? I would posit that most atheists are remarkably flexible in their beliefs in that they will virtually always allow themselves to be swayed by evidence. If evidence could be provided for the existence of god, don't you think lots of atheists would change their minds? Yet lots of evidence can be provided against god's existence and it hardly ever seems to change believers' minds  Darwin being a notable exception.


1. Atheists are "flexible" right up until the topic of "God" enters the room.
2. I'm willing to bet that even if evidence could be produced, atheists would still (by and large) come up with an alternate explanation (mass hysteria, somebody-drugged-my-Dr. Pepper, hallucination). All of this talk of "evidence" is silly - religion was never meant to stand next to science and be evaluated by its criteria. Religion is a spiritual belief system; philosophy cannot be scientifically investigated either, but atheists seem to be OK with philosophy - even though it can't be subjected to the scientific method either.
3. Evidence against God's existence - like what?




> Religion is commonly thought to provide comfort, but it frequently provides discomfort in the form of say, genital mutilation, the threat of everlasting damnation, the justification for war and ignorance, sexual repression.


Only if you radically simplify, generalize and essentially misinterpret most of what it's saying.




> Even so, the idea that both it and its absence provide comfort is pretty hard to swallow. How is the idea of a purposeless universe, in and of itself, supposed to provide comfort? Not that there's anything necessarily bad about it, unless you count the total absence of a guarantee of justice. I just don't see the comfort component in it.


Religion is less about comfort than about a _destination_ and an eternal existence; sometimes believing offers great comfort - other times it places great burdens on us that we frankly would like to not have to carry. But "comfort" isn't its primary reason for existing - that's what non-believers think it's for.




> As for the idea that atheism isn't intellectually arrived at, I wonder how you intellectually arrived at that conclusion. You could read the entire history of western intellectual thought as a gradual stripping away of the possibility of religious belief.


The challenges science has put forward are formidable - and if one makes the mistake of deciding that human science carries more weight than the word of God, then yes, to an extent you're correct.

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> 1. Atheists are "flexible" right up until the topic of "God" enters the room.
> 2. I'm willing to bet that even if evidence could be produced, atheists would still (by and large) come up with an alternate explanation (mass hysteria, somebody-drugged-my-Dr. Pepper, hallucination). All of this talk of "evidence" is silly - religion was never meant to stand next to science and be evaluated by its criteria. Religion is a spiritual belief system; philosophy cannot be scientifically investigated either, but atheists seem to be OK with philosophy - even though it can't be subjected to the scientific method either.
> 3. Evidence against God's existence - like what?


I suggest you read on the topic before you continue with this thread. Most atheists are not this way. Atheists are quite comfortable with discussion of God, and in my experience most of them have arrived at atheism by means of informed discussion. Also, philosophy is often scientifically investigated and has resulted in many new branches of study.




> Only if you radically simplify, generalize and essentially misinterpret most of what it's saying.


The detriments mentioned are actual observed effects of religion. Sociological studies, as well as holy texts themselves, are very often directly cited by atheists to show that these are facts. I don't see how a list of religious aftermath can be "misinterpreted."




> Religion is less about comfort than about a _destination_


The destination is the comfort.




> if one makes the mistake of deciding that human science carries more weight than the word of God, then yes, to an extent you're correct.


Atheism is a very powerful and convincing idea partly by force of logical analysis. Religion seems to discourage this of its own structure and dogma, as you've evidenced here. The nature of logic is such that it can be applied to _anything_, with religion being no exception. Logic is a pure function of language, namely words and numbers, and it doesn't follow that the "word of God" is exempt of this rigor.

----------


## NikolaiI

Wow. That was an amazing post, Dr. Ralph. I agree 100&#37; with everything you said. I would also point out how Red's #2 point seems to ignore the post he's quoting...I mean, it just sounds strange, "don't you think...?" ... "I bet not!" I mean he could have just said no.

The thing about Christianity and the Bible, you have to remember, is that it was a book written by people. The idea of God is hard to swallow because we're forced to take it on faith. It's just people telling me about it, the number of people doesn't matter. It's only because of this that atheism has ever made any headway. How hard do you think it would be to be an atheist in the past? It used to be punishable by death, and by very long degrees it's slowly become acceptable, although it's not acceptable to many people, and any acceptance is a very recent occurrence. 

The idea of God does not exist outside the idea of God.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I suggest you read on the topic before you continue with this thread. Most atheists are not this way. Atheists are quite comfortable with discussion of God, and in my experience most of them have arrived at atheism by means of informed discussion. Also, philosophy is often scientifically investigated and has resulted in many new branches of study.


Excuse my generalizing. I speak in terms not of discussing God, but as in taking Him seriously as a possible entity. Not all philosophy can be subjected to scientific inquiry to check its validity - though we're quite happy to apply such processes to religion.





> The detriments mentioned are actual observed effects of religion. Sociological studies, as well as holy texts themselves, are very often directly cited by atheists to show that these are facts. I don't see how a list of religious aftermath can be "misinterpreted."


No - not "effects" of religion - that's inaccurate use of language; religion doesn't cause these things to happen or exist. Much of blp's post paragraph that you're commenting on consists of a series of _begged questions_. The assumption is being made from the beginning that religion "threatens" damnation (it doesn't - God informs us of the consequences of abandoning Him); it assumes that all war is supported by religion - not true; it assumes that religion fosters ignorance - when in reality that is part of what is currently the issue at hand, and we are told by scriptures to investigate and be knowledgable - we are not to willingly be "ignorant" if we have access to knowledge. Same for the "sexual repression" - not all religions push this, and many simply argue for sexual _discipline_. There's a difference.





> The destination is the comfort.


To an extent, yes: but, believers aren't allowed to simply sit back and dream of the promised land; a read through the new testament would correct that error of thinking.




> Atheism is a very powerful and convincing idea partly by force of logical analysis. Religion seems to discourage this of its own structure and dogma, as you've evidenced here. The nature of logic is such that it can be applied to _anything_, with religion being no exception. Logic is a pure function of language, namely words and numbers, and it doesn't follow that the "word of God" is exempt of this rigor.


But the God who drives many religions is a figure that exists beyond human logic - so much of what we believe appears illogical because it's based on a being that human logic says - due to lack of evidence (which must, perforce be true, because any being worthy of the title "God" must transcend the reality which He can create) cannot be bounded by the limited and narrow thinking of the human mind; the creation cannot comprehend the totality of that which created it. Sorry.

----------


## NikolaiI

Well I guess there's no use asking this to be about atheism, so I'll ask a question about Christianity. Red, what is the morality, ontology (or first principles) and logic used by Christianity?- or, if you prefer, what are your logic, morality and ontology?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Well I guess there's no use asking this to be about atheism, so I'll ask a question about Christianity. Red, what is the morality, ontology (or first principles) and logic used by Christianity?- or, if you prefer, what are your logic, morality and ontology?


Good questions - all requiring well-thought out answers, of which I have no time tonight to write. I must get off - but I will try to answer your questions later. Thanks for asking.

----------


## NikolaiI

I'd prefer simple answers to long ones, if that is possible.

Good night, and I look forward to your responses on this thread and the other.

----------


## MaryLupin

> essentially, abiogenesis has as much chance of being proved true as any other given theory on how the universe came into being - it was created by God, it has always been there, it came from a Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster - and that's what I meant by illogical; it _is not logically possible_ to prove or disprove any of those theories - which means that whichever one you choose to believe in, you're doing so by faith (or gut feeling, or emotion).


Are you sure you understand what abiogenesis is about? It does not say something comes from nothing. All it says is that life is an emergent property of non-life. The idea is that the chemical and physical properties of matter reacted in such a way as to produce self-sustaining organisms. Abiogeneis (a bio genesis) just means no-life-origin. It says nothing about the big-bang or the beginnings of the universe. This has every possibility of becoming a theory of the same standing as (say) evolution. There are actual tests that can be run, actual physical evidence. So this puts abiogenesis in a completely different category than god and the spaghetti monster, since there is no physical evidence, nor tests that can be run to test for the existence of god or living pasta.




> (And by the way, it's a bit disingenuous of you to say "I did not say that because heliocentrism turned out to be truer than geocentrism as a model of the solar system that abiogenesis will turn out to be true" - in fact, you quite clearly stated that "it only took 200 years for heliocentrism to have been proved right, so I expect in 200 years abiogenesis will seem logical".)


The reuse of disingenuous was a nice touch Noisms. Here is the problem with it though...I am using abiogenesis as it was meant. It is a fairly simple theory that explains that life is an emergent property of non-life and its theorists are currently looking for the means by which chemical and physical properties can merge to evolve self-sustaining organisms. So, no it wasn't a fake kind of simpleness on my part. Rather it was a statement of likelihood. We are moving further and further into a society that assumes that matter (and not "spirit") is the basis of the real world (and have been since Copernicus and Galileo did their thing). As such we will attempt to explain life in ways consistent with that intellectual movement. In a world where matter (or space/time) is the basis of reality, then the only place life could have emerged from is non-life. There really is no other feasible option with a materialist orientation. Just looking at Earth history, the difference between the earliest Precambrian seas and the neoproterozoic shows that there was a time when there was no evidence of life and then there was evidence of simple life. Somewhere in there life must have emerged from what came before. 

The intellectual tools that we have now are just beginning to give us glimpses into the chemical and structural properties that might have made this change possible. Just as simple astronomical tools gave way to greater and more powerful tools and methods of analysis and radically changed human perception of our place in the universe, so the developments of chemistry, evolution, psychology, cognitive science, physics etc will lead to greater understanding of what life (and conscious life) stems from. As we make these intellectual leaps it will change (again) our sense of ourself just as profoundly as what Copernicus and Galileo began with the simple (oooh, I love that word) statement that we were not at the center of the universe. It is almost as simple as the statement that life came from non-life.





> I'm not talking about evolution - I'm talking about more fundamental issues than that. The point is that for atheists to account for the very existence of reality, they have to resort to saying "something came from nothing". In other words, once upon a time there was absolutely nothing, and from that, everything came - of its own accord.


What are you talking about here... this "something came from nothing?" What theorist(s) are you quoting? What specific theory are we discussing. Not abiogenesis here because that theory doesn't say "something from nothing" and of course you would know that the theories that I mentioned are the our current fundamental tools by which we can begin to address the theory of the origin of life. Is this a reference to the "big bang?" And if it is there a number of versions of that theory, many of which do not say "something from nothing."

----------


## NikolaiI

Wow, wonderful post, Mary (just to beat PrinceMyshkin to the punch on that one, since I know he'd say the same).

I didn't understand his something from nothing argument either. And what is wrong with something from nothing anyway? I don't really have a problem with it. That's how I see the big bang. Sure, it's a mystery whether our universe is the only one, and if there is anything outside our universe - where _is_ our universe? Etc., but it doesn't keep me up at night.

----------


## Noisms

> Are you sure you understand what abiogenesis is about? It does not say something comes from nothing. All it says is that life is an emergent property of non-life. The idea is that the chemical and physical properties of matter reacted in such a way as to produce self-sustaining organisms. Abiogeneis (a bio genesis) just means no-life-origin. It says nothing about the big-bang or the beginnings of the universe. This has every possibility of becoming a theory of the same standing as (say) evolution. There are actual tests that can be run, actual physical evidence. So this puts abiogenesis in a completely different category than god and the spaghetti monster, since there is no physical evidence, nor tests that can be run to test for the existence of god or living pasta.
> 
> The reuse of disingenuous was a nice touch Noisms. Here is the problem with it though...I am using abiogenesis as it was meant. It is a fairly simple theory that explains that life is an emergent property of non-life and its theorists are currently looking for the means by which chemical and physical properties can merge to evolve self-sustaining organisms. So, no it wasn't a fake kind of simpleness on my part. Rather it was a statement of likelihood. We are moving further and further into a society that assumes that matter (and not "spirit") is the basis of the real world (and have been since Copernicus and Galileo did their thing). As such we will attempt to explain life in ways consistent with that intellectual movement. In a world where matter (or space/time) is the basis of reality, then the only place life could have emerged from is non-life. There really is no other feasible option with a materialist orientation. Just looking at Earth history, the difference between the earliest Precambrian seas and the neoproterozoic shows that there was a time when there was no evidence of life and then there was evidence of simple life. Somewhere in there life must have emerged from what came before.


Rewind and read my previous two posts again. At no point was I arguing that abiogenesis is wrong, or will be disproved. (All I said was that it has as much chance of being proved as literally any other given theory, since it isn't logically possible or sensible to say "this will or will not be proved true/logical in two hundred years".)

To reiterate, my argument re: abiogenesis that if you as an atheist (I presume) are allowed to bandy about predictions about what will or will not be proved in the future, then there is nothing to stop a theist doing the same thing - some of them predict the second coming will have happened within 200 years, for example. They might indeed predict that it will be proved that God is behind natural selection. The thing is, it isn't an argument, and it certainly isn't well reasoned. It's just "I reckon this will happen". More to the point, it isn't even to do with the original point I was making, which wasn't about abiogenesis (from the beginning you don't seem to have been arguing with me, but with an image of an evolution refusenik) but about the beginning of all things.




> What are you talking about here... this "something came from nothing?" What theorist(s) are you quoting? What specific theory are we discussing. Not abiogenesis here because that theory doesn't say "something from nothing" and of course you would know that the theories that I mentioned are the our current fundamental tools by which we can begin to address the theory of the origin of life. Is this a reference to the "big bang?" And if it is there a number of versions of that theory, many of which do not say "something from nothing."


I've already mentioned quite a lot of them (are you really only now figuring out that I was talking about theories of how the universe began, not life, even though I've made it clear in numerous other posts?). 

The commonest explanation for the exitence of the universe is the "big bang". The big bang accurately predicts certain things and can be considered scientific orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it only explains what happened _after_ the bang. 

Various theories try to explain what caused the bang and what was there before. One of the most popular, and most coherent, is Guth's theory of the Inflationary Universe; the idea that a false vaccuum came along and started to expand, doing so faster than it decayed, and this resulted in the creation of "bubble universes" via "big bangs" in the wake of the expansion - and our universe is one of those. 

The problem, again, is that it doesn't explain where the false vaccuum came from. The inflationary universe theory might very well be true, but it isn't really possible to prove - and even if it is, it still doesn't do anything to explain how the whole thing started. In other words, the problem removes from "What caused the big bang?" to "What caused the false vaccuum?"

Which brings me back to my original point, which was that for the Atheist to have a satisfying explanation as to why we are, he or she has to resort to saying "I have faith in such and such a theory" (or just "I have faith that someday a theory will come along to explain everything"). Which is exactly what the Theist does by a different name.

----------


## Noisms

> And what is wrong with something from nothing anyway? I don't really have a problem with it.


So in other words, your conception of the universe isn't based on reason, but on putting your faith in something that can't be proved.

Same as a Theist. I rest my case.

----------


## JCamilo

You still do the same mistake - NikolaiI is asking you what is the problem with that assumption not that he holds it as to be true. 
Anyways, I would like to disagree, big bang or abiogenis can not be in the same plate as the spaguetti monster because they are harder to be accepted than the our tastefull friends, since scientific hypothesis demand proving and spaguettis just the trust of the glutton.

----------


## Noisms

> You still do the same mistake - NikolaiI is asking you what is the problem with that assumption not that he holds it as to be true.


I'd hate to put words into his mouth, but he has to hold _something_ to be true if he's an atheist. Otherwise, he's an agnostic: if somebody's position is "I don't know what's true and I don't care" then that is agnosticism, my friend. (Apathetic agnosticism, shall we call it? but agnosticism all the same.)

Let's be absolutely clear about this. Atheist belief, at its very lowest level, must *at least say*, even if it says nothing else, "I don't know or care how the universe came to exist, but I do know that god didn't create it, because he doesn't exist." In other words, even at its most reductive form, Atheism is a statement of faith (or belief, or irrational supposition, or whatever you want to call it), because if nothing else it is a statement that there is no god - an assertion that can't be proved.




> Anyways, I would like to disagree, big bang or abiogenis can not be in the same plate as the spaguetti monster because they are harder to be accepted than the our tastefull friends, since scientific hypothesis demand proving and spaguettis just the trust of the glutton.


Exactly right: scientific hypothesis does demand proving, and that's precisely my point. Seeing as it is impossible to prove the _cause_ of the big bang [note: I'm not talking about the big bang itself] or, if you like, the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, _ad infinitum_, it has as much scientific, rational worth as believing that the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster started the big bang.

All this talk of abiogenesis confused the issue, because we were arguing that in relation to something else - i. e. it was being held up as an example of something that can't be proved now but "is expected to be proved" in the future, when that is patently daft; we don't know what will be proved in the future, nor what will be disproved, so what value does it have as a debating tactic?

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> Excuse my generalizing. I speak in terms not of discussing God, but as in taking Him seriously as a possible entity. Not all philosophy can be subjected to scientific inquiry to check its validity - though we're quite happy to apply such processes to religion.


Religious claims are strikingly bolder than their philosophical counterparts. Philosophy is very often subjected to scientific inquiry, and the majority doesn't need to be verified this way. In fact, I can't think of a single philosopher who relies on science to validate his work. If you can think of one then feel free to let us know.




> No - not "effects" of religion - that's inaccurate use of language; religion doesn't cause these things to happen or exist. Much of blp's post paragraph that you're commenting on consists of a series of _begged questions_. The assumption is being made from the beginning that religion "threatens" damnation (it doesn't - God informs us of the consequences of abandoning Him); it assumes that all war is supported by religion - not true; it assumes that religion fosters ignorance - when in reality that is part of what is currently the issue at hand, and we are told by scriptures to investigate and be knowledgable - we are not to willingly be "ignorant" if we have access to knowledge. Same for the "sexual repression" - not all religions push this, and many simply argue for sexual _discipline_. There's a difference.


Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion. Christianity does not have a monopoly on religion...

I see that Christianity is a large enough part of your life so that you don't feel it necessary to consider others in what blp originally wrote. Might I also mention the Crusades, Jihad, depriving homosexuals of marriage, lack of scientific study before the scientific revolution, the Inquisition, Indulgences, 9/11, etc. These were all extrapolated from religious text and has resulted quite poorly for even believers, if I remember properly




> But the God who drives many religions is a figure that exists beyond human logic


There is nothing "beyond" human logic. Logic is a tool used to examine words and numbers, and if you intend on using these, you're fair game. I repeat: Logic is used to examine words, not God.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> There is nothing "beyond" human logic. Logic is a tool used to examine words and numbers, and if you intend on using these, you're fair game. I repeat: Logic is used to examine words, not God.


I'm not sure how you intend this but those who hallucinate that they are e.g. Napoleon or Joan of Arc are a) nevertheless human and b) beyond human (or at least the norm of) logic.

That is _they_ are beyond that but their hallucinations are not. The consensus of humanity is that both Napoleon and Joan died a considerable number of years ago. A possibly smaller consensus would agree that there has been no manifestation of God's existence outside of or since the very old, questionable books that assert it.

----------


## NikolaiI

Why do you say that I at least have to hold something to be true? Seems a bit strange. Of course I believe in things.

Anyway, a few reasons for atheism. No sign of God, no sign of immortal soul, and every sign that humans are impermanent. Why would I believe that there is eternal life? Someone would say I am closed to the idea, and then it just gets stupid. 

The universe has been here long before there was any mention of God. 

On some other Earth-like planet, intelligent life evolves and eventually creates religion. Does God visit them and reveal another form of Christianity?

Some reasons for atheism.

----------


## Noisms

> Why do you say that I at least have to hold something to be true? Seems a bit strange. Of course I believe in things.


Exactly. Read the discussion again. The point all along was that atheism and theism are united in the fact that they are both, at the most brute, basic level, forms of belief.

[


> Anyway, a few reasons for atheism. No sign of God, no sign of immortal soul, and every sign that humans are impermanent. Why would I believe that there is eternal life? Someone would say I am closed to the idea, and then it just gets stupid. 
> 
> The universe has been here long before there was any mention of God. 
> 
> On some other Earth-like planet, intelligent life evolves and eventually creates religion. Does God visit them and reveal another form of Christianity?
> 
> Some reasons for atheism.


With respect, a lot of those things aren't really reasons for atheism. That the universe was here before mention of God, and that intelligent life might exist elsewhere, have no bearing on the matter - at worst, all they are are reasons not to believe in a strict interpretation of Christianity, which is only the tiniest sliver of theistic belief.

Your first paragraph here perhaps is a reason for atheism, but again - and this is my point all along - it's really just a statement of faith (negative faith, if you will).

----------


## MaryLupin

> MaryLupin, thank you for noticing and commenting my post. 
> Anyway, I don't think that imagination has something to do with believing in God. Faith is blind belief (one might say).  
> I imagine dragons, fairies and different worlds that ours, but that is something that my brain is capable of understanding it (because I want to, because I created it and no one is forcing there existence, no one is claiming that they will save my soul if I do something wrong).
> There is no reason necessary for imagination, but that doesn't mean that I will worship any of it, on any day of the week.


I have always thought of imagination as the hominid "what if" tool. It is (I think) what enabled primate alliance creation and social practices to become human culture. We have an extended capacity to story possible outcomes and meanings of events. "What if we all run straight at the giraffe? Will he fall down? What if we circle the giraffe? Will we be able to kill him before he kicks us to death? What if we stampede him over some edge so that he falls and breaks his legs? OH! That will work." Imagination works for us. But of course once achieved a new talent has the habit of taking over other areas of behavior. So our social primate need to adore/fear the troop head dude and dudette got a dose of imagination as well. "What if the big guy is really a BIG GUY?" and hence religion was born.

What I find most fascinating about the operation of imagination is that the human body/mind cannot really tell the difference between an imaginary lemon and a real lemon. The mouth salivates just the same. The consequences are that despite the fact that the original "BIG GUY" was just a storied-up "big guy" our bodies couldn't really tell the difference and we reacted with juiced up versions of adoration and fear.




> I am really sorry, I will not interrupt this fine discussion with my silly comments.
> Please, carry on.


Interrupt away! I adore "silly comments" even if they aren't silly at all.

----------


## MaryLupin

> The destination is the comfort...Logic is a pure function of language, namely words and numbers, and it doesn't follow that the "word of God" is exempt of this rigor.


Nice comments. I particularly liked "The destination is the comfort." That was a very nice turn on the words used in the post to which you were reacting.

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> I'm not sure how you intend this but those who hallucinate that they are e.g. Napoleon or Joan of Arc are a) nevertheless human and b) beyond human (or at least the norm of) logic.


Main Entry: log&#183;ic
Pronunciation: 'l&#228;-jik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Anglo-French, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : *a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning* (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves

There is no "beyond" logic or reason. So long as statements are made of intelligible words or numbers, logic may be applied. Again, it's false to say that an entity, in this case God, can be outside the scope of logic. So long as a statement conveys an agreed upon idea, it is eligible for such analysis.

An even simpler way to think of it is that if you can form sentences about God, those sentences bear a semblance of logic, and to claim that God is beyond such investigation reduces further statements about God to nonsense. _If God is beyond logic, then nothing can be known about him, and your sentence is meaningless to everyone, including yourself._

----------


## Noisms

> Nice comments. I particularly liked "The destination is the comfort." That was a very nice turn on the words used in the post to which you were reacting.


For theists the destination isn't the comfort, I don't think, so much as the idea that what you're doing here on this earth has a purpose.

For atheists, the comfort comes from knowing that everything boils down to science, logic and reason.

Both provide coherent worldviews for the believer, in other words. Same motivation, different way of dealing with it.

----------


## Noisms

> There is no "beyond" logic or reason. So long as statements are made of intelligible words or numbers, logic may be applied. Again, it's false to say that an entity, in this case God, can be outside the scope of logic. So long as a statement conveys an agreed upon idea, it is eligible for such analysis.
> 
> An even simpler way to think of it is that if you can form sentences about God, those sentences bear a semblance of logic, and to claim that God is beyond such investigation reduces further statements about God to nonsense. _If God is beyond logic, then nothing can be known about him, and your sentence is meaningless to everyone, including yourself._


That's rather the point, I think. Statements that would appear nonsense are believed, because the point of religion is faith, and not reason. A simple enough concept. Why would faith exist, if the existence of god was proveable by recourse to logic?

As I've argued earlier, though, it doesn't do for atheists to arrogate for themselves the monopoly on logic and reason. For atheism itself is inherently illogical in that it takes as an axiom something (god doesn't exist) that it isn't logically possible to prove or disprove.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Mary,
> Are u an atheist? Reading ur posts that is what I feel u r. But I should say that I support Red more than u. But I do admire u a lot and I mean it. Seriously (if u r atheist) u must be having enormous power to believe whatever scientists say. I find it very hard to believe it myself!! I feel that somewhere deep inside of u there is a belief that someone created this world. For if u believe the big bang theory and stuff seriously I must say u have A LOT OF FAITH!!
> Suppose I take a watch and break it, put it in a bag and shake the bag for a million yrs. ( God knows whether I'll live that long!! But Still think abt. it!!) What is the possiblity of me getting the watch back as before? I don't think its possible! I guess even u would agree. Well anyway I know I have diverted u from ur initial topic on Marriage etc. But I think u should think abt what u have said. Dont u think having a pure and a clean partner is more acceptable?! I haven't used any Bible quotes nothing I have just put in my views.
> If u did not like what I have said then I ask u to forgive me. Anyway U are a very smart person!! 
> God Bless You!!


Well Sandra, thank you for the compliments. I am glad Red has your support and that you find comfort in what he believes and says. But to attempt to answer your questions...

I am an atheist in the sense that I "know" that the gods and goddesses that we humans have worshiped over the years of our ascent into "sapient" status are acts of wonder and marvel at what we began to perceive once consciousness/awareness emerged from the general field of social and environmental awareness in which all primates operate. If there is a non-corporeal aware entity inside the body of the universe I have no idea. Nor in fact care, primarily because if there is such a "creature" it is not really a "creature" in the sense that it is beyond human comprehension just as we would be beyond its ability to conceive of embodied entities. So in that sense I am an atheist.

The question of faith in science versus faith in god...faith in science comes from a familiarity with its methods, logic and empirical basis. That is, I have "faith" that the empirical methodology and logic can "reveal" certain truths. It is not that I have faith in Einstein, or A.H. Guth, or Stephen Hawking, or S.J. Gould, it is that I have "faith" in the methodology common to them all. This reliance on physical evidence, on proven predictability is what makes "faith" in science different that "faith" in god. Faith in god is something that must come without evidence. In fact, as the story of Job shows, faith must be maintained even when all evidence points to either no god at all or a kind of god not at all what was promised. If a scientist abandoned logic and his/her reliance on physical evidence and proven predictability then 1) s/he is no longer practicing science and 2) I would no longer have "faith" in his/her conclusions. In exactly the opposite way, all negative evidence does for many of the faithful in a religion, is make them shore up their personal "faith." It rarely seems to make them question the "rightness" of their belief. So even though English users use the same term "faith" to discuss a "faith" in science and a "faith" in god, they are really two quite different sets of behaviors.

Re: the broken watch...except in the case of chemistry and physics the fundamental elements of our universe have "behaviors" that make them act in certain ways and not in others. So oxygen will take heed when hydrogen or iron is about and pretty much ignore the existence of helium. So if you put a bunch of the members of the periodic table in a bag and shake it about for a million years then things will begin to happen. But not because I told it to or because some divine character spoke but because it is in the physical nature of iron and oxygen to react in certain ways under certain conditions.

Re: marriage and "pure and clean"...I would like to know what you mean by pure and clean. My take on it is that what is often meant is "without history" as was said of Princess Diana prior to her marriage to Charles. I can say no. I prefer people who have some real experience behind them. I prefer people who have lived a life of passion and commitment, who have lived life rather than saved themselves for something else. I tend to like people who have tested themselves against pain and joy, against adversity and plenty. It is only then that they (and I) can really know who they are.

There is nothing to forgive, Sandra. I appreciate our differences, your candid support of Red, and I appreciate the fact that you told me what you believe and asked for what I think.

----------


## Noisms

> So our social primate need to adore/fear the troop head dude and dudette got a dose of imagination as well. "What if the big guy is really a BIG GUY?" and hence religion was born.


I don't think that really accounts for it, given that religion's earliest stages of development weren't about "a big guy" - it was mostly to do with totem spirits and ancestor worship, in other words group-unifying mechanisms. Religion has all kinds of psycho-social benefits for humans, but I don't think that fulfilling the need to fear a big bad something-or-other is one of them.

----------


## MaryLupin

> ..it has as much chance of being proved as literally any other given theory...to bandy about predictions about what will or will not be proved in the future, then there is nothing to stop a theist doing the same thing...The big bang accurately predicts certain things and can be considered scientific orthodoxy..."What caused the big bang?" to "What caused the false vaccuum?"...Which brings me back to my original point, which was that for the Atheist to have a satisfying explanation as to why we are, he or she has to resort to saying "I have faith in such and such a theory"


Please read my response to Sandra in post 118 on the difference between varieties of "faith." There is an equivalent difference between the various meanings of "prediction." 

Since "faith" in science is based on empirical evidence and logic, it would seem to suggest that a specific theory's proven success at prediction in the past might suggest that some future prediction (yet to be evaluated) would carry more evidentiary weight than a prediction of a miracle (say the second coming) that has been made many times in the past and failed each time.

Or are you suggesting that empirical evidence and logic are also acts of "faith?" And if so, which kind?

A "satisfying explanation?" What do you mean by this? Do you mean this as an emotional statement (like finding comfort in one's religion) or are you using it as an indicator of logical coherence?

----------


## MaryLupin

> I don't think that really accounts for it, given that religion's earliest stages of development weren't about "a big guy" - it was mostly to do with totem spirits and ancestor worship, in other words group-unifying mechanisms. Religion has all kinds of psycho-social benefits for humans, but I don't think that fulfilling the need to fear a big bad something-or-other is one of them.


No the fear thing is probably an evolutionary benefit and a pretty devastating psycho-social drawback.

By the way, the ancestor that was worshiped is the "big guy." "Ancestors" can be pretty expensive responsibilities (both emotionally and financially).

Group-unifying mechanisms are based in human emotions. That is, it is pretty hard to compel human groups to action through logic and really amazingly easy to compel them to action through roused feeling. The most compelling emotions tend to be lust, love, terror and guilt. 

I agree that religion has been a primary tool for group cohesion. How it actually functions in society is by manipulating the emotions of individual humans and our basic social primate nature. One of those "basics" is our need to obey authority (the consequences of refusal can be grave for both individual and group if in a moment of crisis someone stops running away and says "Hey wait a minute, is that jackal really meaning to eat me?" So we have an inbuilt need to obey, to fear disobedience, and an absolute terror of being abandoned and ostracized. Of course that has its downside. The Milgram experiments show us the downside in a secular sense just as religious wars show us the same thing is a non-secular sense.

----------


## Noisms

> Please read my response to Sandra in post 118 on the difference between varieties of "faith." There is an equivalent difference between the various meanings of "prediction." 
> 
> Since "faith" in science is based on empirical evidence and logic, it would seem to suggest that a specific theory's proven success at prediction in the past might suggest that some future prediction (yet to be evaluated) would carry more evidentiary weight than a prediction of a miracle (say the second coming) that has been made many times in the past and failed each time.


That isn't a good argument. There's quite a lot to "unpack" here, so bear with me.

A specific theory's proven success at prediction in the past might indicate future predictions will be accurate. That is true, but the theories of abiogenesis and inflationary universes (and Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters and creative gods) have none of them succeeded at predicting anything in the past. That means we can't reliably say anything about the likelihood of them being able to predict something in the future. Evolutionary theory and Big Bang theory _have_ predicted things in the past and can therefore reliably be expected to predict things in the future, but those theories are only tangentially related at best to abiogenesis or inflationary universes. 

You simply can't argue (and this is what I think you're getting at) that, because Evolutionary theory makes accurate predictions and works as a model for how life developed that abiogenesis will also work; the two things are only connected in the sense that one is imagined to have occurred before the other. Evolution through natural selection has _never_ predicted anything about the origin of life - only the origin of _species_, which is an utterly different question. Likewise the Big Bang has only ever claimed to predict what happened after inflation began, not why it occurred.

If you're arguing that science in general has been able to predict things in the past, and thus will be able to predict things in the future, then I'd agree with you, but it doesn't follow that abiogenesis or inflationary theory will be proved right - for the simple reason that science is equally likely to prove a theory _wrong_ in the future as it is to prove it right.

And even that discussion is to miss the point I've been making all along: *even if* in two hundred years time abiogenesis and inflationary universe theory have been proved right (they can't be, but let's pretend they are), it _still doesn't matter a jot_ to the question of whether atheism or theism are correct. All it has done is to have removed the question a step further back. (Where did the false vaccuum come from? etc. etc.)




> Or are you suggesting that empirical evidence and logic are also acts of "faith?" And if so, which kind?
> 
> A "satisfying explanation?" What do you mean by this? Do you mean this as an emotional statement (like finding comfort in one's religion) or are you using it as an indicator of logical coherence?


Empirical evidence and logic aren't acts of faith, no. But when their limit ends is where faith comes in - and when it comes to these sorts of questions (can inert matter spontaneously create life, can false vaccuums spring into existence and create universes) we've reached that point. 

By satisfying explanation I mean logical coherence. For all the reasons outlined ad nauseum above, atheism isn't logically coherent because its central axiom (god doesn't exist) cannot be logically proved or disproved.

----------


## NikolaiI

God not existing isn't an axiom of atheism, unless you subscribe to the idea that atheists are unthinking idiots. We wouldn't say God doesn't exist, yadda yadda yadda, therefore God doesn't exist. The reason we don't think he exists is because there's no reason to think he does, which includes other people telling us he does.

And what I was saying about intelligent life, you kind of missed my point. I wasn't saying the existence of intelligent life would sway the matter, I was saying what do you think life elsewhere in the universe would create religion to be like? Look at our planet from another planet's point of view. A God, created in our image, watching over us and answering our prayers and performing miracles, etc., etc. In that sense it seems clear we made it up.

Now, may I ask why you are telling me that since I don't believe in religion, therefore I have made a leap of faith, and am no longer using my logical senses? You're saying that no matter what anyone thinks, reason has left the room, and they're all equally leaps of faith. This doesn't make sense. It's like what Red said that all argument is ultimately circular reasoning - all you're doing is arbitrarily taking away my ability to have an objective sense, randomly saying that what I believe is at odds with reason.

----------


## Noisms

> No the fear thing is probably an evolutionary benefit and a pretty devastating psycho-social drawback.


You really believe that? Given what religion has accomplished in terms of binding societies together to achieve certain goals? But in any case, the psycho-social benefits of religion go deeper than that; you've read Claude Levi-Strauss' thoughts on the matter?




> By the way, the ancestor that was worshiped is the "big guy." "Ancestors" can be pretty expensive responsibilities (both emotionally and financially).


But being expensive is not being a big guy in the sense that you were implying (big and scary and wanting to beat everybody over the head). Totemism and ancestor worship serves the function of categorizing and organizing the material world in a society in which there is no 'science' as we understand it. It's hardly just about frightening people into being easily swayed.




> Group-unifying mechanisms are based in human emotions. That is, it is pretty hard to compel human groups to action through logic and really amazingly easy to compel them to action through roused feeling. The most compelling emotions tend to be lust, love, terror and guilt. 
> 
> I agree that religion has been a primary tool for group cohesion. How it actually functions in society is by manipulating the emotions of individual humans and our basic social primate nature. One of those "basics" is our need to obey authority (the consequences of refusal can be grave for both individual and group if in a moment of crisis someone stops running away and says "Hey wait a minute, is that jackal really meaning to eat me?" So we have an inbuilt need to obey, to fear disobedience, and an absolute terror of being abandoned and ostracized. Of course that has its downside. The Milgram experiments show us the downside in a secular sense just as religious wars show us the same thing is a non-secular sense.


But heirarchies exist in all animal groups - and animals don't have religion. I'm not sure that religion therefore has the function that you're ascribing to it - browbeating everyone into obedience. I think that's genetically hardwired (as is indicated by the fact that atheist societies are equally as susceptible as religious ones to being compelled by the need for obedience).

----------


## MaryLupin

> For atheists, the comfort comes from knowing that everything boils down to science, logic and reason.


What about atheists who are also poets? 

Mr. Dr. Ralph, In an earlier post you said 




> "There is no "beyond" logic or reason. So long as statements are made of intelligible words or numbers, logic may be applied. Again, it's false to say that an entity, in this case God, can be outside the scope of logic. So long as a statement conveys an agreed upon idea, it is eligible for such analysis."


I agree that once a statement is made then it places itself in the empirical world and as such is prey to its rules. The problem comes when assessing how humans make meaning and the different ways in which they use language. That is, much or our meaning appears to be formed pre-linguistically and sometimes language is used to try and express that meaning. One common way in which this happens is in art. We make meaningful connections between different aspects of the world. Although one may know they are in no way empirically connected they are nevertheless meaningful and therefore speak to the experience of being human. The art of poetry is (at least in part) the attempt to share with other through the medium of words the act of making meaningful connections.

An example: at my familial home I am considered to have a badger as a sister. In no way do these people not know that a badger and a human did not pop from the same womb. They know that the connection between the Badger and Mary (designated as sister) is not literal in that sense. But it is literal in the sense that badger and mary are considered to have co-responsibilities to each other. This is a meaningful connection of the same sort as "brother sun, sister moon."




> Both provide coherent worldviews for the believer, in other words. Same motivation, different way of dealing with it.


All that I am trying to say here is that many atheists still revel in the metaphorical and awe-full play that has until recently been the purview of the religious. One can play with "spirits" without believing in their empirical existence. So as a sort of atheist, I don't take "comfort" in the coherent world view of science, because there isn't one. There are so many theories, so many points of view, that they simply cannot all be right. (This is the problem of being evidence bound. I find it hard to believe in something once I discover it is self-contradictory.) Rather I take comfort in my human ability to play even if I know my evolution has given me tinted glasses.

----------


## Noisms

> God not existing isn't an axiom of atheism, unless you subscribe to the idea that atheists are unthinking idiots. We wouldn't say God doesn't exist, yadda yadda yadda, therefore God doesn't exist. The reason we don't think he exists is because there's no reason to think he does, which includes other people telling us he does.


This is a bit like saying "God existing is not an axiom of theism - the reason we think God exists is because there's a reason to think he does!" Utter gibberish, in other words. It doesn't mean anything at all: "the free movement of capital is not an axiom of the Washington Consensus! The reason we believe in the free movement of capital is because there's a reason to!"




> And what I was saying about intelligent life, you kind of missed my point. I wasn't saying the existence of intelligent life would sway the matter, I was saying what do you think life elsewhere in the universe would create religion to be like? Look at our planet from another planet's point of view. A God, created in our image, watching over us and answering our prayers and performing miracles, etc., etc. In that sense it seems clear we made it up.


That has nothing to do with the argument. All you're saying is that, if we were to find alien societies with different gods, it would disprove the traditional Christian view of what God is. So what? Disproving Sunday-school religion by no means the same thing as proving there isn't a God. Theism is a bigger theory than "there is a God created in our image, watching over us and answering our prayers" etc.; just ask a Hindu, or Shintoist.




> Now, may I ask why you are telling me that since I don't believe in religion, therefore I have made a leap of faith, and am no longer using my logical senses? You're saying that no matter what anyone thinks, reason has left the room, and they're all equally leaps of faith.


No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that when it comes to the question "does God exist?" the only _rational_ answer is "I don't know", given that it can't be proved either way. Neither atheists nor theists give that answer, ergo, they are not rationally-based beliefs.

It really isn't that big a deal. I'm certainly not criticising atheists or theists - anybody with the balls to take a leap of faith should be applauded (within reason). I just find the crude distinction between irrational, emotional religious people and rational, scientifically-minded atheists to be completely false. Both systems are as irrational as the other.

----------


## Noisms

> All that I am trying to say here is that many atheists still revel in the metaphorical and awe-full play that has until recently been the purview of the religious. One can play with "spirits" without believing in their empirical existence. So as a sort of atheist, I don't take "comfort" in the coherent world view of science, because there isn't one. There are so many theories, so many points of view, that they simply cannot all be right. (This is the problem of being evidence bound. I find it hard to believe in something once I discover it is self-contradictory.) Rather I take comfort in my human ability to play even if I know my evolution has given me tinted glasses.


What I meant wasn't exactly that science provides a coherent worldview - only that it provides a coherent system of making sense of the world i.e. through scientific enquiry, postulating theories and proving them true or false. Likewise, religion is a coherent system of making sense of the world - God has arranged things a certain way, and that's the way it is. There is comfort in both. (And, I might add, discomfort too.)

----------


## NikolaiI

Nonono. Let's say you've lived all your life and never encountered anyone religious. Then one comes along and tells you their religion. You don't believe, and this is irrational? Why on earth would you think this? There are a lot of religions, and not believing them is irrational?

No, don't tell me what you're saying, because you said it again, atheism and theism are equally irrational. You're not going anywhere, seriously. So if you're not prepared to give a centimeter, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Again, leap of faith it is not. Why would you think that no matter what anyone thinks reason has left the room? You take away reason for all sides - all sides have taken a leap of faith, and there is no reason anywhere. What a load.

----------


## Noisms

> Nonono. Let's say you've lived all your life and never encountered anyone religious. Then one comes along and tells you their religion. You don't believe, and this is irrational? Why on earth would you think this? There are a lot of religions, and not believing them is irrational?


You're really missing the point, still. Not believing in a given religion isn't irrational, no. But saying you can be *sure* it is false is. And that's the axiom of atheism: that religion (theistic religion, anyway) is false.




> Again, leap of faith it is not. Why would you think that no matter what anyone thinks reason has left the room? You take away reason for all sides - all sides have taken a leap of faith, and there is no reason anywhere. What a load.


No, not all sides. Did you even read what I wrote? Agnosticism isn't irrational. That's the whole point. You seem weirdly wedded to the idea that saying "the original postulation of a given theory is not rationally provable" is equivalent to saying "everything is irrational!" - which I've never ever said, nor even hinted at.




> No, don't tell me what you're saying, because you said it again, atheism and theism are equally irrational. You're not going anywhere, seriously. So if you're not prepared to give a centimeter, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.


Yeah, for the love of God, let's agree to do that.

----------


## MaryLupin

> You really believe that? Given what religion has accomplished in terms of binding societies together to achieve certain goals? But in any case, the psycho-social benefits of religion go deeper than that; you've read Claude Levi-Strauss' thoughts on the matter?


Religions work best as cohesive social mechanisms in low-impact tribal societies. They give a sense of mutual purpose and coherence that allows bands and tribes to negotiate the sometime rigors of their environments, not to mention giving them common grounds when far flung bands come back together to negotiate marriages, trades and other necessities of life. However, the very coherence of of the world-view can act as a problem when exposed to the different (but equally coherent) world-view of another human group. Hence the meeting between Native groups and Anglo groups in the Americas was hardly binding, nor has it been between Christian and Muslim tribes in (say) Ethiopia. (And as I am sure you are aware, there are many, many examples of conflict due to religiosity.) In the world that has come to be, especially since the European wars of colonialization, it would seem that religion causes more breakage than linkage.

And yes. I have read Claude. As a structural anthropologist he really did see that religion bound us, of that I have no doubt. And while I agree with him that Westerners are essentially of the same stuff as Tribesmen, I cannot agree with the basic stance of structuralism as it was propounded during his time.

Are you a structuralist then? 




> But being expensive is not being a big guy in the sense that you were implying (big and scary and wanting to beat everybody over the head). Totemism and ancestor worship serves the function of categorizing and organizing the material world in a society in which there is no 'science' as we understand it. It's hardly just about frightening people into being easily swayed.


I was thinking of a "big guy" in the sense that a dog is an alpha. Fear is a very large component of maintaining alpha status (whether in dog kind or human kind). The threat of deadly force is often more effective than its actual use. (Cite: the threat of hell.) One propitiates ones' ancestors because, in part, if you don't you are risking plague, drought, death of your children or some other such horror. Not making the very expensive rites causes enormous guilt and fear. Your comment on "totemism and ancestor worship" serving as a "categorizing and organizing" force is deeply structural. Look at it from the point of view of a conflict theorist for a moment and you will see that they are also ways to restrict and control the flow of resources. Then look at a specific practice of "ancestor worship" from the point of view of an ethnomethodologist and you will see something else entirely. And the fun thing is, that there are elements of truth in all of them, despite their apparent contradictory nature.




> But heirarchies exist in all animal groups - and animals don't have religion. I'm not sure that religion therefore has the function that you're ascribing to it - browbeating everyone into obedience. I think that's genetically hardwired (as is indicated by the fact that atheist societies are equally as susceptible as religious ones to being compelled by the need for obedience).


Well, I'll accept for the moment that non-human animals don't have religion, but animals do...the human animal does. This is not just a piece of semantic play. It highlights an important assumption you make, and an important assumption I make. You assume (based on an analysis of "and animals don't have religion") that humans aren't animals. This despite the fact that you know biologically we are. The assumption is based on a belief that we are somehow fundamentally different from the rest of "creation." I assume (based on my education--both in schools and out of it--what, by the way, is your assumption based on?) that humans are one kind of animal with specific trait- and skill-sets. So when I look at human religion as it has appeared in the anthropological literature and as it appears in my familial home, I compare that to my studies in non-human animal behavior and see far more similarities than differences.

About the browbeating thing...I think that obedience is hard-wired and that it is a primary function. I also think that the need to understand the events of the world is a primary animal function. For example, a cat sees a mouse-like object twitching at the end of a string and a stick in its human's hand. It attacks. The cat knows that it is not a real mouse. If it couldn't make that distinction then it would be one lousy hunter. Yet it attacks. For a while. This is play and it is also understanding...what in humans we would call making meaning. What exactly the cat understands? It's subjective experience? Well I don't know. Nagel talks about this gap between species in his wonderful essay "What is it like to be a bat?" What we can know about is the empirical evidence of behavioral development and displays in and between species. What comparative animal behavioral studies show is that what humans do is based on the same kinds of behaviors. What makes the difference is the structure and function of our brain. Our brain's development (its ability to connect many more elements of a scene at one time than a cat can achieve) allows for the extra ooomph that we call awareness or meaning construction and religiosity.

So, based on my reading and experience, I think that the impulse to religiosity in human beings is an emergent property of a set of pre-hominid primate behaviors (not limited to the ones I have brought forward here) and as such is a secondary property. That is, it piggy-backed on the more basic need to obey and to comprehend the world in terms we can understand and therefore might be restricted to human beings but is nevertheless an animal behavior.

Finally, religion does not have a "purpose" as such. It has a behavioral and evolutionary origin and it has a set of associated behaviors. To ascribe purpose is to assume that it has an inherent meaning outside of its existence. Evolution has no purpose. A behavior or physical trait is something that can work for or against an organism in its desire to stay alive, or it can be neutral in that quest. So it is not that religious behavior has any purpose to fulfill. It cannot in evolutionary terms. Rather religious behavior needs to be examined to see if it supports, works against or is indifferent to species' survival. This word "purpose" is one reason why I have a problem with structuralism. As a theory it tends to see things as having purpose, that is inherent meaning, without ever questioning the source of that "meaning" or its construction...I mean I get "raw" and "cooked" but "black" and "white?" Why not "brown" and "yellow?"

----------


## JCamilo

> I'd hate to put words into his mouth, but he has to hold _something_ to be true if he's an atheist.


Yes, He does. But not atheist also claims something to be truth without proof. I am confused, I thought you equated theism and atheism (and that was the point here) because both had faith in something, meaning belief without need of proof and that was clearly not the case. 





> Otherwise, he's an agnostic: if somebody's position is "I don't know what's true and I don't care" then that is agnosticism, my friend. (Apathetic agnosticism, shall we call it? but agnosticism all the same.)


You are confuding agnosticism and atheism - Both have the skepticism as base of their philosophy and way of thinking. An agnostic is howener one that admits a possibility under (for example god existence) the notion of "we know not yet" and a atheist do not consider this possibility and when he does, unlike the agnostic, he believes it can be tested.
The above phrase of him - "I do not know what is true" can be from a Theist (He does not care, god Did it anyways), an agnostic (I do not care, many options exist so I can not give a proper opinion), or atheist (I do not care, anyways I will not test it to see if it is true). 




> Let's be absolutely clear about this. Atheist belief, at its very lowest level, must *at least say*, even if it says nothing else, "I don't know or care how the universe came to exist, but I do know that god didn't create it, because he doesn't exist."


"Or just, I do not care. I just know what did not created" - his phrase was hardly enough to justify any label because a agnostic would at some level also add "It can be god or big bang". 




> In other words, even at its most reductive form, Atheism is a statement of faith (or belief, or irrational supposition, or whatever you want to call it), because if nothing else it is a statement that there is no god - an assertion that can't be proved.


Again, that is a huge mistake. Faith is Belief without need of proof. 
An Atheist do not believe in god because he does not HAVE A PROOF, which he "demands". The Exactly opposite of faith. 





> Exactly right: scientific hypothesis does demand proving, and that's precisely my point. Seeing as it is impossible to prove the _cause_ of the big bang [note: I'm not talking about the big bang itself] or, if you like, the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, or the cause of that cause, _ad infinitum_, it has as much scientific, rational worth as believing that the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster started the big bang.



Eh ? It does not make the same. Theist when can not proof still tell that is the whole truth. Atheist still demand the proof for it. That is why many scientists keep testing the big bang theory.
There is no scientific merit there, it demands testing and allowing the theory to be tested. with does not happen with the spaghetti monster. 




> All this talk of abiogenesis confused the issue, because we were arguing that in relation to something else - i. e. it was being held up as an example of something that can't be proved now but "is expected to be proved" in the future, when that is patently daft; we don't know what will be proved in the future, nor what will be disproved, so what value does it have as a debating tactic?


I think what is confuding is you equating faith with allowing a hipothesis to be tested.

----------


## MaryLupin

not pertaining to anything or anyone in particular.

Stephen Jay Gould said

"Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny  and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do)." 

I find it an interesting axiom.

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> For theists the destination isn't the comfort, I don't think, so much as the idea that what you're doing here on this earth has a purpose.


That is comfort as well. The appeal of theism is that all problems are answered and the solutions appeal to the ego, i.e., I am here for a purpose, I am going to heaven when I die, God loves me. It seems to make sense at first but investigating theism while impartial will reveal that it is pretty weak.




> For atheists, the comfort comes from knowing that everything boils down to science, logic and reason.


It is the coldest and least comforting thought I have imagined.

----------


## Noisms

> Religions work best as cohesive social mechanisms in low-impact tribal societies. They give a sense of mutual purpose and coherence that allows bands and tribes to negotiate the sometime rigors of their environments, not to mention giving them common grounds when far flung bands come back together to negotiate marriages, trades and other necessities of life. However, the very coherence of of the world-view can act as a problem when exposed to the different (but equally coherent) world-view of another human group. Hence the meeting between Native groups and Anglo groups in the Americas was hardly binding, nor has it been between Christian and Muslim tribes in (say) Ethiopia. (And as I am sure you are aware, there are many, many examples of conflict due to religiosity.) In the world that has come to be, especially since the European wars of colonialization, it would seem that religion causes more breakage than linkage.


I agree. I just don't think the social bonding in band and tribal societies you describe comes from the fear (or alpha-male-substitute) that you describe. It comes from the shared identity that religion brings. 




> And yes. I have read Claude. As a structural anthropologist he really did see that religion bound us, of that I have no doubt. And while I agree with him that Westerners are essentially of the same stuff as Tribesmen, I cannot agree with the basic stance of structuralism as it was propounded during his time.
> 
> Are you a structuralist then?


I don't like to think I'm an anything-ist. Isms - whether theism, atheism, structuralism, marxism, anarcho-capitalism, nihilism - are the enemies of rational thought, I think, because they see everything through the prism of their axioms - most of which are tenuous assumptions, or which haven't been properly thought through.

That said, I can see the value in structuralism. The most interesting idea of Levi-Strauss', I think, is that totemism or so-called 'primitive' religion is basically an analog of science - both are ways of arranging, categorising and conceptualising reality, and fulfil a vital, human need: the need for the world to make sense. Both are equally valid, because both achieve what they are supposed to.




> Well, I'll accept for the moment that non-human animals don't have religion, but animals do...the human animal does. This is not just a piece of semantic play. It highlights an important assumption you make, and an important assumption I make. You assume (based on an analysis of "and animals don't have religion") that humans aren't animals. This despite the fact that you know biologically we are. The assumption is based on a belief that we are somehow fundamentally different from the rest of "creation." I assume (based on my education--both in schools and out of it--what, by the way, is your assumption based on?) that humans are one kind of animal with specific trait- and skill-sets. So when I look at human religion as it has appeared in the anthropological literature and as it appears in my familial home, I compare that to my studies in non-human animal behavior and see far more similarities than differences.


I'm don't know what gave you that idea. Who said I assume humans aren't animals? When I said that "animals don't have religion", of course I was talking about non-human animals; the phrase just sounds like an ugly one considering the meaning is obvious from context (or so I thought - especially since I was making clear that humans _are the same as_ group animals in that we need heirarchies and are genetically hardwired to respond to them!). As I noted before, you seem to have somehow made the assumption that I'm a creationist, or a theist, who believes in a strict divide between humans and animals and who refutes evolution, and you're arguing with me on that basis. I'm not really sure why.




> Finally, religion does not have a "purpose" as such. It has a behavioral and evolutionary origin and it has a set of associated behaviors. To ascribe purpose is to assume that it has an inherent meaning outside of its existence.


Of course it has a purpose; a purpose in the sense that it fulfils a function. Why, when the word "purpose" is mentioned, do you assume that I'm ascribing an 'inherent meaning outside its existence'? In the same way that taking a dump fulfils a purpose, or eating a sandwich fulfils a purpose, or scratching an itch fulfils a purpose, so can religion - without having 'an inherent meaning outside its existence'.




> Evolution has no purpose. A behavior or physical trait is something that can work for or against an organism in its desire to stay alive, or it can be neutral in that quest. So it is not that religious behavior has any purpose to fulfill. It cannot in evolutionary terms.


That's a very narrow view of things. Religion is a product of humans - it's part of our genetic makeup's 'extended phenotype'. Same as music, story-telling, or artwork. Rather like a beaver's dam, or a spider's web, or a bird's nest, then, it seems to me that religion (and music, and story-telling, and artwork) is the product of a set of behaviours _and hence genes_, that have been subject to natural selection. 

Taking the example of a spider's web, you wouldn't take exception to the statement that the web is a product of certain genes which a spider has and which programme it to make webs. Likewise, I think that religion is a product of certain genes which we have and which programme us to have a propensity for creating religion, and that those genes - like all genes - have become that way due to natural selection. Our propensity (our need, in fact) for religion is therefore an evolved one. It, like all of the other parts of our species' genes' extended phenotype, has been subjected to the rigors of natural selection and found to serve a purpose - bonding our groups together, and indirectly therefore serving the only real purpose of all: helping us survive. 

Another example: we've evolved a taste for sugar. Our liking for sugar comes from genes which survived in us because they fulfil a purpose - making us like sugar, which is important, and in the broader context, helping keep us alive. In the same way, our propensity or 'liking' for religion has evolved. [For the record, note that I'm not arguing there is a gene for religion. I'm arguing that certain genes give us a propensity for developing and believing in religion.]




> Rather religious behavior needs to be examined to see if it supports, works against or is indifferent to species' survival.


I would say that, given the fact that a propensity to create/have religion is part of the extended phenotype of our genetic makeup, religion has in the past, by definition, supported our survival. (Just as the liking for sugar, or the instinct to take a dump when you need to, has.) 




> This word "purpose" is one reason why I have a problem with structuralism. As a theory it tends to see things as having purpose, that is inherent meaning, without ever questioning the source of that "meaning" or its construction...I mean I get "raw" and "cooked" but "black" and "white?" Why not "brown" and "yellow?"


That seems like the exact opposite of structuralism. The point of structuralism as it was originally conceived was that the meaning of a thing is defined by that thing's relation to other things: a cat is known as a cat because it isn't a dog or a horse or a turtle or a tree or a star or a stone...'cat' in itself _doesn't_ have an inherent meaning.

----------


## NikolaiI

> You're really missing the point, still. Not believing in a given religion isn't irrational, no. But saying you can be *sure* it is false is. And that's the axiom of atheism: that religion (theistic religion, anyway) is false.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not all sides. Did you even read what I wrote? Agnosticism isn't irrational. That's the whole point. You seem weirdly wedded to the idea that saying "the original postulation of a given theory is not rationally provable" is equivalent to saying "everything is irrational!" - which I've never ever said, nor even hinted at.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, for the love of God, let's agree to do that.


Yes I read what you wrote, please don't be condescending.

----------


## Noisms

> That is comfort as well. The appeal of theism is that all problems are answered and the solutions appeal to the ego, i.e., I am here for a purpose, I am going to heaven when I die, God loves me. It seems to make sense at first but investigating theism while impartial will reveal that it is pretty weak.


I don't think you do theism credit. The appeal of theism is certainly _not_ that all problems are answered and that the solution is "God loves me, I am going to heaven when I die" etc. etc. Well, perhaps it is, but only at the most abstract level. In practical terms, theism creates vastly more problems for the believer than atheism does! For one thing, it usually involves great personal sacrifice, extremely strict behaviour restrictions, standards that are impossible to realise, and a stark awareness of one's own weaknesses and foibles. Moreover, Christianity in particular but all religions generally _de-emphasise_ the ego: evangelical Christianity, for example, holds as one of its main tenets the belief that everybody is born sinful and completely undeserving of God's love.

You say that investigating theism while impartial will reveal that it's pretty weak. I'm inclined to agree, but in terms of logic I hold atheism to be equally weak. On the other hand, I hold both to be equally _strong_ in terms of faith. I've met extremely devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and I've met extremely devout Atheists, and I'm consistently impressed by the strength of their convictions and how they put them into practice.




> It is the coldest and least comforting thought I have imagined.


I don't doubt that for the believer sometimes theism is equally cold and comfortless! I'm reminded of St. Francis of Assissi, hedonist and ladies man, torn between demands of the flesh and the spirit, desparately pleading with God to "please make me good...but not yet!"

What I mean by "comfort" is that both theism and atheism explain the world, and at a basic level sets out how it exists and how the grand scheme of things hangs together. In other words, there is very little existential angst involved. Agnostics have to deal with the wondering.  :Wink:

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> In practical terms, theism creates vastly more problems for the believer than atheism does!


This I don't doubt, though these problems are very superfluous. Why accept them when the edifice on which they stand is so weak and delicate? it worries me that you say this with such enthusiasm; since when is it lofty and magnanimous to have more problems? The masses seem to think that facing adversity builds character and appreciation for life, which is a pity because I think the opposite. There is indeed something to be said for those who are unattached to things that are more or less trifling.




> For one thing, it usually involves great personal sacrifice, extremely strict behaviour restrictions, standards that are impossible to realise, and a stark awareness of one's own weaknesses and foibles.


But for crassly examined and often force-fed reasons. Granted, self-examination and restricting behavior is beneficial, but not if the reasons for them are flimsy and delicate.




> Moreover, Christianity in particular but all religions generally _de-emphasise_ the ego: evangelical Christianity, for example, holds as one of its main tenets the belief that everybody is born sinful and completely undeserving of God's love.


Main Entry: ego
Pronunciation: 'E-(")gO also 'e-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural egos
Etymology: New Latin, from Latin, I -- more at I
*1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world*
2 a : EGOTISM 2 b : SELF-ESTEEM 1
3 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality -- compare ID, SUPEREGO
- ego&#183;less adjective

The ego is quite meaningless, and Christianity, along with _almost_ every other religion on earth asserts that it exists when it certainly does not. Unfortunately, rhetoric and language have been taken as the basis of thought. After close examination, most words we use do not make intrinsic sense.

What is the self? My body, mind and soul? My body is comprised of the food I once ate, and everything on this planet was once star matter that exploded millions of years ago. My mind is formed by my brain, also a silly arrangement of atoms. And the soul, my least favorite idea. How can anyone know they have a soul if they have not used their senses to discover it, but instead took it on faith? The idea of the soul is ignorance at its healthiest.





> I don't doubt that for the believer sometimes theism is equally cold and comfortless! I'm reminded of St. Francis of Assissi, hedonist and ladies man, torn between demands of the flesh and the spirit, desparately pleading with God to "please make me good...but not yet!"


It appears the discomfort lies in his delusion that there is a personal God that is listening to him. St. Francis hasn't used reason to understand why demands of the flesh are deplorable, he instead takes it as fact because he read it somewhere in the bible. He doesn't deserve much sympathy.

----------


## Noisms

> This I don't doubt, though these problems are very superfluous. Why accept them when the edifice on which they stand is so weak and delicate?


Because of faith. I happen to believe faith is a fantastically important and intriguing emotion. (Not blind faith, mind.) Faith that there is no god is something that I also include in that.




> It worries me that you say this with such enthusiasm; since when is it lofty and magnanimous to have more problems? The masses seem to think that facing adversity builds character and appreciation for life, which is a pity because I think the opposite. There is indeed something to be said for those who are unattached to things that are more or less trifling.


Hang on. If you're going to be picky and pedantic and bring up dictionary definitions of words like 'ego', you'd better get a dictionary and find out what 'magnanimous' means! I never said it's 'magnanimous' to have more problems - to say so would be to, well, mutilate the English language. 

I think you meant to say 'worthwhile' or somesuch. Well, no, I don't necessarily think it is worthwhile to have problems. But that wasn't what we were debating. You asserted that atheism brings up lots of problems, and isn't very comforting. I was asserting that in fact theism does the same thing. I was being neutral about whether or not that was worthwhile.




> But for crassly examined and often force-fed reasons. Granted, self-examination and restricting behavior is beneficial, but not if the reasons for them are flimsy and delicate.


Why not? And I'm not just being facetious. Why do you think it is beneficial to self-examine and restrict behaviour, but not if the reasons are flimsy and delicate? (I don't happen to think the reasons are flimsy and delicate, but that's by the by.)




> *1 : the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world*
> 2 a : EGOTISM 2 b : SELF-ESTEEM 1
> 3 : the one of the three divisions of the psyche in psychoanalytic theory that serves as the organized conscious mediator between the person and reality especially by functioning both in the perception of and adaptation to reality -- compare ID, SUPEREGO
> - ego&#183;less adjective
> 
> The ego is quite meaningless, and Christianity, along with _almost_ every other religion on earth asserts that it exists when it certainly does not.


I'm not altogether sure whether you understand what you're saying here. And I don't mean to be patronising. It's just that, well, the ego in the sense that you've highlighted here (the self as opposed to other selves) certainly _does_ exist - unless you're arguing that there is no such thing as the self. (Which you might be. Are you?) Either that or you're saying that Christianity and almost every other religion on the earth subscribes to Freudian psychoanalysis and the idea of the id, ego and superego. (On balance, I think that's what you're getting at.) But if you are saying that, you're surely wrong in saying that the "ego is quite meaningless". You can't prove that there is no such thing as the ego. There are competing theories which have superceded Freud, and he's been proved wrong about lots of things. But the ideas of the id, ego and superego are conceptual - you can't say that they don't exist or are meaningless, because there isn't a way to scientifically prove the matter either way. It would be like saying "it can be proved that existentialism is meaningless!" I find the idea of the id, ego and superego quite compelling as explanations for the way humans behave, but I wouldn't say that it's definitely true or definitely false. 




> It appears the discomfort lies in his delusion that there is a personal God that is listening to him. St. Francis hasn't used reason to understand why demands of the flesh are deplorable, he instead takes it as fact because he read it somewhere in the bible. He doesn't deserve much sympathy.


Given that there is no proof either way as to whether a personal God exists or not, I'd be careful about bandying around words like "delusion". 

I'd also be careful about asserting that St. Francis hadn't used his reason and just taken the Bible as fact, because that doesn't sound to me like the action of an intelligent believer. (Say what you like about St. Francis: he wasn't stupid.) Plenty of religious people quite closely examine and analyse the texts of their religion, and don't take them to be fact. I doubt very much that St. Francis' thought process was "God doesn't want me to sleep around, so I won't even though I want to." Much more likely "God doesn't want me to sleep around because x, y and z, and I can see the reason and wisdom in that, so I'll try not to even though I want to."

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> Hang on. If you're going to be picky and pedantic and bring up dictionary definitions of words like 'ego', you'd better get a dictionary and find out what 'magnanimous' means! I never said it's 'magnanimous' to have more problems - to say so would be to, well, mutilate the English language. I think you meant to say 'worthwhile' or somesuch.


Recap: You wrote _Theism creates vastly more problems for a believer than atheism does!_ I followed with _Since when is it lofty and magnanimous to have more problems?_. 




> Well, no, I don't necessarily think it is worthwhile to have problems.


This would have sufficed as a response. The manner in which I used magnanimous implies the sort of "holier than thou" tone and occasional down-talking that seethes from descriptions of not getting their way. In fact, griping about the difficulty of keeping faith is more closely related to championing a plight they choose to bear. Sorry to confuse.......




> Why do you think it is beneficial to self-examine and restrict behaviour, but not if the reasons are flimsy and delicate? (I don't happen to think the reasons are flimsy and delicate, but that's by the by.)


Because if the reason for examination and restricting behavior is to please God and know him better, then that is not real examination and any change in behavior may be false because of accepting God as the cornerstone of one's thought.

In other words, there can be no self-examination if it is being done for a particular reason. That reason necessarily affects the manner in which you examine, and therefore leads to results that are necessarily tied to something that wasn't examined, in this case, the possibility of God. That is why I mentioned the importance of impartial reasoning.




> It's just that, well, the ego in the sense that you've highlighted here (the self as opposed to other selves) certainly _does_ exist - unless you're arguing that there is no such thing as the self. (Which you might be. Are you?)


Yes.




> Either that or you're saying that Christianity and almost every other religion on the earth subscribes to Freudian psychoanalysis and the idea of the id, ego and superego.


No.




> Given that there is no proof either way as to whether a personal God exists or not, I'd be careful about bandying around words like "delusion".


A cavil. Besides, recall which claim has the burden of proof.




> Plenty of religious people quite closely examine and analyse the texts of their religion, and don't take them to be fact.


Reading a text and rejecting some of it as false doesn't sound very religious to me. This is the way I read, and I don't consider myself religiously involved with any of my books. However, I don't think you're telling the whole story.

I've noticed this type of examination, i.e. Bible study, casuistry, and the sort to be incredibly partial to what they conclude. That is, they have already made a conviction not derived from reason and aim to defend it with material from their appropriate holy text. Blindly accepting the idea that God exists but examining other ideas such as same sex marriage, Jonah, etc. with a keen eye is not a sound method of interpreting books. Verily, the edifice on which the authority and divinity the book leans is whether or not God actually exists.

Granted, the non-existence of God would not logically invalidate things in the bible, take this simple example:

All birds are black
Crows are birds
Therefore, crows are black.

Despite the falsity of the premise, the conclusion turned out to be correct. Hence, God's non-existence would not instantly falsify the statements written in the bible. I happen to agree with much of the ethical conclusions drawn from the Bible, despite disagreeing that there is a personal God.




> I doubt very much that St. Francis' thought process was "God doesn't want me to sleep around, so I won't even though I want to." Much more likely "God doesn't want me to sleep around because x, y and z, and I can see the reason and wisdom in that, so I'll try not to even though I want to."


This is a better method of thinking, but not great. There is still an appeal to God in the second sentence, which is often used as a rationalization and obscures the conclusion. Didn't God want Abraham to Kill Isaac, even though he would later tell people to not kill with the fifth commandment?

A better line of reasoning St. Francis could have taken was "I will not sleep around because of x, y, and z, and for those reasons only." Choosing to do or not do something _for its own sake_ is the only way to ensure there is no outside influence on your reasoning.

----------


## Noisms

> Recap: You wrote _Theism creates vastly more problems for a believer than atheism does!_ I followed with _Since when is it lofty and magnanimous to have more problems?_....
> 
> This would have sufficed as a response. The manner in which I used magnanimous implies the sort of "holier than thou" tone and occasional down-talking that seethes from descriptions of not getting their way. In fact, griping about the difficulty of keeping faith is more closely related to championing a plight they choose to bear. Sorry to confuse.......


'Magnanimous' means 'generous'. It doesn't imply a "holier than thou" tone. Do you mean 'sanctimonious'? If so, I think what you're doing is arguing against an attitude - not the reality. I agree with you entirely that having lots of problems shouldn't entitle a religious person to be sanctimonious, and I don't like sanctimonious religion people either. But it doesn't follow that all religious people are like that. A great deal of them are, but a great deal of them aren't. 




> Because if the reason for examination and restricting behavior is to please God and know him better, then that is not real examination and any change in behavior may be false because of accepting God as the cornerstone of one's thought.
> 
> In other words, there can be no self-examination if it is being done for a particular reason. That reason necessarily affects the manner in which you examine, and therefore leads to results that are necessarily tied to something that wasn't examined, in this case, the possibility of God. That is why I mentioned the importance of impartial reasoning.


But nobody can ever be impartial, can they? Whether you're self-examining because of your desire to "be a better Christian/Jew/Muslim" or whether you're just self-examining because you want to be a better person, you're still doing it for a particular reason. Therefore, there isn't really a difference - a theist self-examines in light of god, and an atheist does it in light of themselves and the society around them. 




> Yes.


Care to elaborate?




> A cavil. Besides, recall which claim has the burden of proof.


Both claims have burden of proof, actually. If somebody is saying "I'm not persuaded that there is a God" then they don't bear burden of proof. But if somebody is saying "there definitely isn't a God" then that is an unproven assertion, akin to saying "there definitely is a God". 




> Reading a text and rejecting some of it as false doesn't sound very religious to me.


Then you haven't met very many sophisticated religious people. 




> Verily, the edifice on which the authority and divinity the book leans is whether or not God actually exists.


It only leans on that edifice if you believe what it says about itself! If you believe that the book is just a collection of literature written by other believers, then it doesn't lean on anything - it's like any book written by a religious person. Just because you believe that there is a God does not mean that you have to believe a holy text was inspired by or written by God.

Let's be clear about what I'm saying: I'm not arguing that belief in God is rational. In fact, arguably the whole point of belief in God is that it's irrational. But believing in God is where, for the theist, irrationality ends. It doesn't follow that just because you believe in God, your analysis of what other people have had to say about God (the psalmists, St. Paul, Mohammed, Moses) is inadequate or flawed. The one does not have anything to do with the other.

For example, if I read a book by CS Lewis, I can examine his arguments and accept or reject them, and I can subject the text to rigorous critical analysis. What's to stop me doing that with a book written by St. Paul, like the Letter to the Romans? Or the book of Deuteronomy, written by Moses? I can still view it through a new historicist or Foucaldian or deconstructionist lens. That would be no more rational or irrational than what English literature students do with Shakespeare.

To turn the argument around, Atheism is based on an equally irrational belief - that there _absolutely_ is not a God. But that doesn't prevent Atheists from rationally analysing the arguments of other Atheists and rejecting or accepting or deconstructing them. Does it?





> This is a better method of thinking, but not great. There is still an appeal to God in the second sentence, which is often used as a rationalization and obscures the conclusion.


The appeal to God doesn't I]necessarily[/I] serve as a rationalisation and obscure the conclusion. It often does, but again, that's just an argument against a certain attitude which some believers hold.




> Didn't God want Abraham to Kill Isaac, even though he would later tell people to not kill with the fifth commandment?


Sorry, and no offence, but that's like something the smart alec kid says to put off the Sunday school teacher! It hardly brings Christianity or Judaism crumbling down. Who says that episode happened? What if it's just an ancient Jewish proverb, a bit like a Brother's Grimm story? The veracity of the story has nothing to do with whether God exists or not.




> A better line of reasoning St. Francis could have taken was "I will not sleep around because of x, y, and z, and for those reasons only." Choosing to do or not do something _for its own sake_ is the only way to ensure there is no outside influence on your reasoning.


You're arguing as if having "no outside influence on your reasoning" is a good thing, but again, it's just one of your many irrational assumptions. Can you explain why exactly we should be trying to ensure there's no outside influence on our reasoning? It's important, because as it stands you argument is just a baseless assertion that can be answered with the equally baseless assertion that "God should always be an outside influence on our reasoning". And having two baseless assertions butt heads just leads to blind alleys.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

I am going to propose under Philosophical Literature (if it will be acceptable there) a new direction for this discussion: "What are the postive/negative effects of theism vs those that follow from atheism/agnosticism?"

----------


## Noisms

> I am going to propose under Philosophical Literature (if it will be acceptable there) a new direction for this discussion: "What are the postive/negative effects of theism vs those that follow from atheism/agnosticism?"


How about just "What are the differences between theist, agnostic and atheist belief?"

----------


## Derringer

> Reading a text and rejecting some of it as false doesn't sound very religious to me. This is the way I read, and I don't consider myself religiously involved with any of my books. However, I don't think you're telling the whole story.


hmm.. but would not an athiest assess everything in his life, gain a narrative in their head, derive meaning, and then determe morality -- choosing what fits per personal gain. What is this called, I can't remember --- sympotatic reading? Arghh... Louis Althusser read Marx this way. Either way, most theists would claim that the Bible is consistent in morality; any person who disagrees tends to create their own view of Christianity --> this is answered as to why there is many different denominations

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> Can you explain why exactly we should be trying to ensure there's no outside influence on our reasoning?


I think this sums up your post terrifically. I'm going to withdraw from the thread, it's been fun guys.

----------


## MaryLupin

a youtube video that discusses atheism, logic and belief. There is also a textual reproduction of the interview.

And lastly, Douglas Adams on the value of religion.

----------


## monellia

Any religious attitude other than agnosticism just indicates a big, mad ego in the adherent. Human beings have neither the knowledge nor the ability to determine what exists and what doesn't. To put your faith in a specific set of beliefs is just arrogant. Evidence is irrelevant in the proof/disproof of a God in that the possibility of illusion remains. Is existence what we really know it to be? Thus, is the evidence (or lack thereof) of god an illusion? The ambiguity of such judgment is infinite, therefore it is impossible to disprove the existence of God.

----------


## Noisms

> Any religious attitude other than agnosticism just indicates a big, mad ego in the adherent. Human beings have neither the knowledge nor the ability to determine what exists and what doesn't. To put your faith in a specific set of beliefs is just arrogant. Evidence is irrelevant in the proof/disproof of a God in that the possibility of illusion remains. Is existence what we really know it to be? Thus, is the evidence (or lack thereof) of god an illusion? The ambiguity of such judgment is infinite, therefore it is impossible to disprove the existence of God.


That's my point, really. I wouldn't use the word arrogance, though: blind faith, perhaps. Arrogance comes into it most often when Atheists portray their own beliefs as somehow inherently more rational than Theists', or when Theists portray their own beliefs as more moral or lofty than Atheists'.

----------


## Noisms

> a youtube video that discusses atheism, logic and belief. There is also a textual reproduction of the interview.
> 
> And lastly, Douglas Adams on the value of religion.


The interview with Douglas Adams really confirms what I was saying all along. Atheism is not just "I'm not prepared to believe in a God" (which is actually agnosticism); it's "I'm convinced there is not a God" - which is a subtle but very important difference. 

"I'm not prepared to believe in a God" is a perfectly sensible and rational position, given that the existence of God can't be proved. But "I'm convinced there isn't a God" is utterly irrational, because it is based on something that can't be proved. (Douglas Adams tries to escape this by saying that being convinced there isn't a God is different from believing there isn't a God. That's just a smokescreen, and I think he's playing with semantics to duck the problem.)

As with most Atheists (Richard Dawkins is another example), Adams makes the mistake of thinking that thanks to the theory of evolution, we now have a better explanation than we used to for why we are here. We don't; evolution certainly happens, but it doesn't provide any evidence for or against the existence of a God. It explains a specific process which doesn't require a God (small random mutations resulting in new species through the workings of natural selection) and which we resulted from, but it doesn't provide an ultimate cause. No scientific theory does, or indeed can.

----------


## atiguhya padma

> Any religious attitude other than agnosticism just indicates a big, mad ego in the adherent. Human beings have neither the knowledge nor the ability to determine what exists and what doesn't. To put your faith in a specific set of beliefs is just arrogant. Evidence is irrelevant in the proof/disproof of a God in that the possibility of illusion remains. Is existence what we really know it to be? Thus, is the evidence (or lack thereof) of god an illusion? The ambiguity of such judgment is infinite, therefore it is impossible to disprove the existence of God.


Everyone is either an agnostic or a fool when it comes to knowledge of the existence of god. However, the battle over god is not one of knowledge, it is a matter of belief. When it comes to belief, the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. So in terms of belief or non-belief, agnosticism is irrelevant. We are all born atheists. We are cruelly indoctrinated as children with the nonsense of religion, and then have to spend our adult lives either correcting the conditioning or blindly following it.

It is not impossible to disprove the concepts that many religious people have of god. It is impossible to disprove that I am god, as its also impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns etc etc. Big deal.

----------


## Noisms

> Everyone is either an agnostic or a fool when it comes to knowledge of the existence of god. However, the battle over god is not one of knowledge, it is a matter of belief. When it comes to belief, the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist.


Where does that come from? There are plenty of agnostics who say "I honestly haven't made up my mind." (In fact, those agnostics probably outnumber atheists and theists.) It simply isn't true to say that agnostics 'can either be a theist or an atheist' when it comes to belief. They can be neither.




> So in terms of belief or non-belief, agnosticism is irrelevant. We are all born atheists. We are cruelly indoctrinated as children with the nonsense of religion, and then have to spend our adult lives either correcting the conditioning or blindly following it.


Can you tone down the rhetorical bombast? "Cruelly indoctrinated" ..."nonsense"...."blindly following"...who are you, Christopher Hitchens? Unless you're willing to explain why the 'indoctrination' is 'cruel', or why religion is 'nonsense', or why the only choice is 'correcting the conditioning or blindly following it', keep your terms neutral.

We aren't all born atheists. We're born agnostic in the truest sense of the world - without knowledge. We don't believe in God as babies, but nor do we actively disbelieve - so we aren't atheists. (Even if we were, by the way, I'm not sure what it would prove. We're born atheists! We're born without the ability to speak, too. What does it prove, exactly? We're born without a sense of self or reality. Does that make nihilism any truer?)




> It is not impossible to disprove the concepts that many religious people have of god. It is impossible to disprove that I am god, as its also impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns etc etc. Big deal.


Well, exactly. Big deal. People are free to believe what they want to believe. Nobody has the monopoly on truth. Including atheists. So why do people become atheists? Because they want to, not because they've been persuaded by science and reason and logic.

----------


## atiguhya padma

Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley, from the greek a = without, gnosis = knowledge. That's where it comes from. 

If we are not all born atheists, then some of us are born theists huh? Yeah, sure and the moon's made of cheese.

Just for you, another definition: atheist = a (without) theist (belief in god or gods). Atheism is not specifically about a belief. It is specifically about the absence of a certain belief. Atheists can actively express their opinions about th existence or not of god, or they can just not think about the matter at all. Someone who can't be bothered looking into the issue is an atheist, and possibly an agnostic too, but whatever he or she is, he or she is an atheist.

----------


## rabid reader

I am of the opinion that if God exists or not should not effect my life. My reasoning being that there appears to be only two explanations as to why I am here, I was either planned on and have purpose or I was a member of groups of very lucky cells. Either way it should not effect how I live my life, either God existences and I am fulfilling my purpose or God had been too vague and I was unable to distinguish my purpose, or I am lucky in which case I continue my life unabated. Either way I live with out ever being effect by the fact that their is or isn't a deity, it really doesn't matter.

----------


## monellia

> That's my point, really. I wouldn't use the word arrogance, though: blind faith, perhaps. Arrogance comes into it most often when Atheists portray their own beliefs as somehow inherently more rational than Theists', or when Theists portray their own beliefs as more moral or lofty than Atheists'.


You're right, perhaps "stupid" would be a more fitting word. Blind faith cannot exist without ignorance, after all.




> Everyone is either an agnostic or a fool when it comes to knowledge of the existence of god. However, the battle over god is not one of knowledge, it is a matter of belief.


The battle over god _is_ one of knowledge in that one's beliefs are what one perceives to be knowledge. If I actually believe in God, then I personally understand God's existence to be fact.




> When it comes to belief, the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist.


That contradicts the definition of agnostic. Agnosticism relates to the disbelief in definite beliefs, so how can an agnostic believe or disbelieve in God? What, then, is the difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist?




> We are all born atheists. We are cruelly indoctrinated as children with the nonsense of religion, and then have to spend our adult lives either correcting the conditioning or blindly following it.


No, not all of us are born atheists, not all of us are cruelly indoctrinated, and in any case I don't see how that's relevant.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley, from the greek a = without, gnosis = knowledge. That's where it comes from. 
> atheist = a (without) theist (belief in god or gods). Atheism is not specifically about a belief. It is specifically about the absence of a certain belief.


She's right you know. And another thing,

If agnosticism is taking the stance that one does not know if god exists or not then it implies have considered the possibilities that 1) god exists and 2) that god doesn't exist and not being able to decide between the two. No baby I have ever been acquainted with has considered either 1 or 2.

If atheism is being without a belief in god(s) then all babies do, in fact, appear to be born atheist.

----------


## atiguhya padma

<The battle over god is one of knowledge in that one's beliefs are what one perceives to be knowledge. If I actually believe in God, then I personally understand God's existence to be fact.>

You seem to be talking about our perception of knowledge. Personally understanding something to be fact, that is actaully untrue, is not knowledge, its more like unjustified belief. Belief and knowledge are two separate categories. It's like comparing apples and oranges. I know people who will not walk home alone at night for fear of being attacked. They believe that something bad will happen to them. They cannot claim to know that this will happen, and some of them even admit that it is highly unlikely that anything will happen to them, but, fed by fears through the media, they cannot help but believe something bad will happen to them.

<That contradicts the definition of agnostic. Agnosticism relates to the disbelief in definite beliefs, so how can an agnostic believe or disbelieve in God? What, then, is the difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist?>

What?? Atheism is more like disbelief. Agnosticism is absence of knowledge. What is gnosis? It is knowledge, therefore agnosticism s absence of knowledge. The difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist is one of confidence. An agnostic theist would say that they believe in god, but that there is no way of knowing that god exists. Quakers can be agnostic theists. In fact, I would say the vast majority of traditional believers are agnostic theists. A non-agnostic theist is the kind that believes god talks to him on a daily basis in an unmistakable voice; that nature, the universe, life has a design implanted by a creator and that these creations are sufficient evidence for his existence; that miracles do occur and are sufficient evidence for god's existence etc.

<No, not all of us are born atheists>

So you think some of us are born with the mental development that enables us to believe?

----------


## MaryLupin

> People are free to believe what they want to believe.


Barring, of course, the profound effects of socialization which, I hope you will agree, places limitations on 1)the individual's exposure to belief systems, bodies of evidence, and rational and emotional skills with which to make the "free" decision and 2)creates an emotional atmosphere that tends to "guide" an individual into making the "correct" choice so that society can function. These 2 points are why structuralism/functionalism works as an anthropological theory by the way. Why otherwise do the majority of people in Bali (as one example from Adams by way of Reader) believe so whole heartedly in the divine origin and placement of themselves in the fabric of their society and religion. Was it by accident or by social design? And us? Why do we believe we have the right to argue these kinds of things at all? Did we choose to believe in the right to argue or was it part of our socialization? And finally, if we are socialized, how "free" are our decisions?




> Nobody has the monopoly on truth. Including atheists.


But of course not all truths are self-evident or created equal. So while no one has the monopoly on Truth (that might be because there isn't a Truth I suppose) some of the smaller truths are simply better guides for living and some small truths are simply crock. Small truths are amenable to evidence since as they are understood by human beings they are functions of language and logic, which is how we can distinguish between truths like "women have one less or one more rib than men" (crock) and "Jesus was a historical figure" (probably not crock). We know the difference through the use of evidence and through the application of logic and reason.




> So why do people become atheists? Because they want to, not because they've been persuaded by science and reason and logic.


So, everyone who thinks his/her argument is based logic is actually misguided (or a liar?) - they are actually deciding solely on the emotional grounds of desire? Or is it only atheists who do this? It couldn't be because, since there is no Truth, they are simply negotiating and evaluating truths (for example, claims that god exists because the planet we live on is so well suited to our needs and this couldn't have happened randomly) and the evidence (and/or logic) upon which they rest as Adams suggests?

----------


## Noisms

> Agnosticism was a term created by Thomas Huxley, from the greek a = without, gnosis = knowledge. That's where it comes from.


And that's the sense I was using it in.




> If we are not all born atheists, then some of us are born theists huh? Yeah, sure and the moon's made of cheese.


Point me to the place where I said some people are born theists. Oh, that's right: I didn't.

I said "we're born agnostics in the truest sense of the word": i. e. (since apparently I have to spell it out for you) "without knowledge".




> Just for you, another definition: atheist = a (without) theist (belief in god or gods).


That's the wrong definition. The real one (just for you) = a (without) theos (god) ism (doctrine). Without-god-doctrine, in other words. A belief. Learn your ancient Greek before you start getting pedantic about it.




> Atheists can actively express their opinions about th existence or not of god, or they can just not think about the matter at all. Someone who can't be bothered looking into the issue is an atheist, and possibly an agnostic too, but whatever he or she is, he or she is an atheist.


No, somebody who can't be bothered thinking about it, or hasn't looked into it, is an agnostic - somebody, in other words, "without knowledge".

Again, atheism doesn't mean "without theism". It means "without-god-ism". It can't be mixed together with agnosticism. _Nontheism_ is the absence of belief in a deity. But we aren't talking about that, are we?

----------


## Noisms

> She's right you know. And another thing,


She isn't right. See my post above.




> If agnosticism is taking the stance that one does not know if god exists or not then it implies have considered the possibilities that 1) god exists and 2) that god doesn't exist and not being able to decide between the two. No baby I have ever been acquainted with has considered either 1 or 2.
> 
> If atheism is being without a belief in god(s) then all babies do, in fact, appear to be born atheist.


You're confusing nontheism with atheism. Nontheism (a form of agnosticism) is the lack of belief in a God. (That's what babies have.) Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God. (Without-God-Ism, which babies don't have but some adults do.)

----------


## Noisms

> Barring, of course, the profound effects of socialization


Obviously.




> But of course not all truths are self-evident or created equal. So while no one has the monopoly on Truth (that might be because there isn't a Truth I suppose) some of the smaller truths are simply better guides for living and some small truths are simply crock. Small truths are amenable to evidence since as they are understood by human beings they are functions of language and logic, which is how we can distinguish between truths like "women have one less or one more rib than men" (crock) and "Jesus was a historical figure" (probably not crock). We know the difference through the use of evidence and through the application of logic and reason.


Sure. But we aren't talking about "small truths" that evidence and logic and reason can be applied to. We're talking about two big truths (the biggest, in fact) that evidence and logic and reason _don't_ apply to.




> So, everyone who thinks his/her argument is based logic is actually misguided (or a liar?)


Yes. And yes, that does include theists. (Actually, I'll rephrase that. Nontheistic agnostics are not misguided if they think their argument is based on logic. They're the people who say "I don't believe in God, because I haven't been persuaded of the truth of it yet" - which is different to atheists, who say "I'm convinced there isn't a God", and theists, who say "I'm convinced there is.")

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Everyone is either an agnostic or a fool when it comes to knowledge of the existence of god. However, the battle over god is not one of knowledge, it is a matter of belief. When it comes to belief, the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist. So in terms of belief or non-belief, agnosticism is irrelevant. We are all born atheists. We are cruelly indoctrinated as children with the nonsense of religion, and then have to spend our adult lives either correcting the conditioning or blindly following it.
> 
> It is not impossible to disprove the concepts that many religious people have of god. It is impossible to disprove that I am god, as its also impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns etc etc. Big deal.


Your concept that "the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist" delights me and is an eye-opener.

In the end the battle amongst us, I think, is between

1) Those whose posture is _I know what I know and I don't need or want to know anything else_, and 

2) Those who believe or hope for certain things but whose posture is _Most of the really important questions have yet to be answered for me_.

A problem I have with 1) is that their _I know what I know_ is a mistranslation of _I believe what I believe_, and it is, I believe, a fatal flaw in their thought-process to confuse the two.

----------


## NikolaiI

> That contradicts the definition of agnostic. Agnosticism relates to the disbelief in definite beliefs, so how can an agnostic believe or disbelieve in God? What, then, is the difference between an agnostic theist and a non-agnostic theist?


The definitions of all words contradict the essence of reality, but I am the only one saying that.

----------


## NikolaiI

> She isn't right. See my post above.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing nontheism with atheism. Nontheism (a form of agnosticism) is the lack of belief in a God. (That's what babies have.) Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God. (Without-God-Ism, which babies don't have but some adults do.)


Why do you tell everyone they don't know what the words they're using mean? That's mean. And then when they post it from m-w.com or something, you say there's another word in there of which they don't know the meaning, like magnanimous or something.

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity 

So it can be disbelief or belief in no deity.

----------


## Noisms

> Why do you tell everyone they don't know what the words they're using mean? That's mean. And then when they post it from m-w.com or something, you say there's another word in there of which they don't know the meaning, like magnanimous or something.
> 
> 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity 
> 
> So it can be disbelief or belief in no deity.


Didn't I agree to disagree with you the other day? In which case, why are you sticking your oar in again?

----------


## Noisms

> Your concept that "the agnostic can be either a theist or an atheist" delights me and is an eye-opener.
> 
> In the end the battle amongst us, I think, is between
> 
> 1) Those whose posture is _I know what I know and I don't need or want to know anything else_, and 
> 
> 2) Those who believe or hope for certain things but whose posture is _Most of the really important questions have yet to be answered for me_.
> 
> A problem I have with 1) is that their _I know what I know_ is a mistranslation of _I believe what I believe_, and it is, I believe, a fatal flaw in their thought-process to confuse the two.


I'd agree with that. The problem is that everybody has a tendency to see people with opposing views as belonging to category 1 rather than category 2!

----------


## NikolaiI

> Didn't I agree to disagree with you the other day? In which case, why are you sticking your oar in again?


Eh? It's open to everyone. You ignored me.

----------


## Noisms

> Eh? It's open to everyone. You ignored me.


No, I posted saying I agreed to disagree with you.

----------


## JCamilo

> She isn't right. See my post above.
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing nontheism with atheism. Nontheism (a form of agnosticism) is the lack of belief in a God. (That's what babies have.) Atheism is the belief that there isn't a God. (Without-God-Ism, which babies don't have but some adults do.)



Oh, please, no word plays. The exactly meaning of words basead on greek language will destroy the meaning of several words. There is no Nontheism, there is atheism and it means lack of faith in religion. Evidently, everyone is born with the capacity of faith but no one is born with the believe in the cultural being such as god, Zeus, buda, brama, etc. 
And it is easy to say that atheists hold a more logical belief than theist since they do demand a logical evidence when a theist is happy with the illogical feeling of faith. I would never say that one is superior to the other just because of that.

----------


## NikolaiI

> No, I posted saying I agreed to disagree with you.


Just now? Really?

----------


## mike thomas

atheism? I try not to believe in it

----------

