# Reading > Religious Texts >  why do we need God?

## cacian

is it because one feels lonely lost and aimless?
one does no longer understand what life is for or about one is focused thoughts and locus vehemently on God.

or is it because 
God is the ultimate for our sins and weaknesses?
we need to pass the blame onto a God when we have finished blaming ourselves.

----------


## Frédéric Moreau

That is a difficult question. I am an agnostic and I suffer a lot, actually two of the few reasons that keep me away from suicide (aside from the love of my family and a sense of effrontery, as if I had no right to commit it on account of my lack of actual suffering, like that of the Bulgarian soldiers blinded by Basil II, or the victims of the savagery of Yugoslavia) are both the fear of the existence of God and the possibility of his none-existence, given that I felt that the unique way to end with human cruelty is through his intervention, but somehow the remnant of suffering is still there and, therefore, it exists and still tortures feeble souls like mine. The unique way to erase it should be to delete every trace of this ghastly world. I don't know if I have been clear. I decided not to read History again because I ended up shattered.

----------


## YesNo

We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back. 

The only way to get rid of them would be to "delete every trace of this ghastly world" as Frederk_Moreau suggests. There was a movie a few years ago called Melancholia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film) that showed one way the universe could get rid of us. However, I don't think suicide actually works. For it to work, there has to be no reincarnation or afterlife. So, one has to make sure there is nothing like that before trying it otherwise one might be worse off than one started. Of course there are other reasons to choose life, but then one is breathing, and aware, and looking at others and then at Others.

----------


## Frédéric Moreau

> We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back. 
> 
> The only way to get rid of them would be to "delete every trace of this ghastly world" as Frederk_Moreau suggests. There was a movie a few years ago called Melancholia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film) that showed one way the universe could get rid of us. However, I don't think suicide actually works. For it to work, there has to be no reincarnation or afterlife. So, one has to make sure there is nothing like that before trying it otherwise one might be worse off than one started. Of course there are other reasons to choose life, but then one is breathing, and aware, and looking at others and then at Others.


I agree totally with you. It is impossible to explain it better.

----------


## cacian

> We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back.


I admit I see that but you have not actually said a good reason.
we need light and we need dark as much as we need to breath as well as eat.
does that mean our needs for the universe to connect is the same as that of god's needs?
I could not live without light and water and oxygen.
these are my priorities right? these stands more importance we depend on them.
god is surely not the same.




> The only way to get rid of them would be to "delete every trace of this ghastly world" as Frederk_Moreau suggests. There was a movie a few years ago called Melancholia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melancholia_(2011_film) that showed one way the universe could get rid of us.


if we do not need them we do not need to get rid of them, it seems that it is a work in reverse the more we want it the more we want to push it away and so is it futile to need?
the universe could never get rid of humans. it is an impossibility. I do not see it.




> However, I don't think suicide actually works. For it to work, there has to be no reincarnation or afterlife. So, one has to make sure there is nothing like that before trying it otherwise one might be worse off than one started. Of course there are other reasons to choose life, but then one is breathing, and aware, and looking at others and then at Others.


suicide is tricky and unwanted. to precipitate life to end may adjourn afterlifes theories. I am speculating.
natural death is in accordance with the nature of things. it is suggests harmony life lasts longer.

----------


## Frostball

We don't.

----------


## cacian

> We don't.


and don't we all  :Biggrin:

----------


## YesNo

I think of God as manifested in the process of our breathing. Since we need to breathe we get God whether we like it or not. 

We may actually need God in order to breathe. Certainly we need the body to function on its own. How does it do that? One can say there is some unconscious and random mechanism that makes that work. Or one can say the means is conscious. Both are metaphors. Since we ourselves are conscious, the conscious metaphor makes more sense. 

Of course, I am making all of this up as I go along. I don't have any specific religious tradition that I have to conform to so I can pick and choose what comes to mind. This also means I don't have any religion to rebel against.

I agree with you about suicide. We're here. We might as well enjoy it even when we suffer.

----------


## Frostball

> and don't we all


Some, without a doubt, believe they do need a god or gods. But certainly not all. Certainly not me.

----------


## cacian

> I think of God as manifested in the process of our breathing. Since we need to breathe we get God whether we like it or not.


that is an interesting theory.




> We may actually need God in order to breathe. Certainly we need the body to function on its own. How does it do that? One can say there is some unconscious and random mechanism that makes that work. Or one can say the means is conscious. Both are metaphors. Since we ourselves are conscious, the conscious metaphor makes more sense


to me we make sense but we can see talk hear each other.
we cant see god so it does not make sense.
that is my simplest theory about




> Of course, I am making all of this up as I go along. I don't have any specific religious tradition that I have to conform to so I can pick and choose what comes to mind. This also means I don't have any religion to rebel against.


making things up is a positive attitude to me it means we care about things and so we even imagine to create ideas.




> I agree with you about suicide. We're here. We might as well enjoy it even when we suffer.


we are here and there is no going back.
suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities. we have many and we don't know how to undo them.
it is easier then one thinks because when one wants one can. fear I think is a main factor that we feel we suffer.
it is that that makes us suffer not us and not what is within us. I believe we are logical and the way out is to find courage to expose fear and rid of it.
it is a habit of mine to always say to myself:
I know fear 
but it does not know me
and so I wont suffer but it will.

----------


## cacian

> Some, without a doubt, believe they do need a god or gods. But certainly not all. Certainly not me.


true.
and those who need god would need more then that to give me a rod to pull them out when they are got.

----------


## YesNo

> we cant see god so it does not make sense.


We can't see a lot of stuff, at least, not without some help from technology.




> we are here and there is no going back.


That's how I see. I am amazed how much I take for granted the fact that I'm here at all. It really doesn't make sense.




> suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities. we have many and we don't know how to undo them.
> it is easier then one thinks because when one wants one can. fear I think is a main factor that we feel we suffer.
> it is that that makes us suffer not us and not what is within us. I believe we are logical and the way out is to find courage to expose fear and rid of it.
> it is a habit of mine to always say to myself:
> I know fear 
> but it does not know me
> and so I wont suffer but it will.


Interesting: "suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities". Sounds true. How does fear suffer?

----------


## cacian

> We can't see a lot of stuff, at least, not without some help from technology.


I am not sure. I think we see everything we need to see to live and survive.
we see nature
we see light and dark
we hear sound
we see people each other
so we are in effect complete with everything we need.
the stuff we do not see I am guessing we do not need.
we can see as far as the moon and back and that is as good as it gets.




> That's how I see. I am amazed how much I take for granted the fact that I'm here at all. It really doesn't make sense


agreed and if we are it means we have made it what comes next can only get better.
it may not happen now but it will happen. I feel positive is a way forward. we take it for granted. I feel we ought to count our lucky stars because sometimes when things get too much we forget.
sometimes the questions we want answers too are within us close to us but we chose to look away somewhere else because it is easier to think it is far away from us.
we have learn to accept who we are and until then we won't. I feel there is not that bad after all. 




> QUOTE]Interesting: "suffering is symptomatic of our insecurities". Sounds true. How does fear suffer?


 fear we all know but those who feel it does not know them are the one who do better emotionally and physically.
they are more tolerant of themselves.
fear suffers in the same way that we do.
so we acknowledge it to ignore it. 
ignorance is bliss 
and then it learns to go away and one day there is no fear anymore.
I think it is a mental process that the mind goes through by assimilating logical doable facts.
one reasons with oneself and eventually learns to manage. 
control is about logic
and fear is illogic.

----------


## YesNo

Maybe all the stuff we do see and need is God projecting Herself (or Himself) (or Itself) out there for our benefit. Just trying to rationalize a need for God.

That "fear is illogic" makes sense.

----------


## free

We need god because we don't know for sure how has the world been created. Until we find it out we will ascribe the creation to something as unknown as god. But those who prefer to stay eternal children will always stick to the idea of an unknown, unknowable, unreachable, untouchable idea of divinity.

----------


## The Atheist

There are several answers to the question, "Why do we need god?".

Atheist/agnostic, as already noted: we don't. Over a billion people have need for one, so we certainly don't all need one.

Evolutionary biologists say we need a god because our brains are hard-wired for belief.

Anthropologists say we need god because it has been a cohesive factor in the building of human society.

Theists need god because it's simpler to credit god with all the good and the bad in the world than take personal responsibility for it.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

I think having a god makes perfect sense.

----------


## cacian

> There are several answers to the question, "Why do we need god?".
> 
> Atheist/agnostic, as already noted: we don't. Over a billion people have need for one, so we certainly don't all need one.
> 
> Evolutionary biologists say we need a god because our brains are hard-wired for belief.
> 
> Anthropologists say we need god because it has been a cohesive factor in the building of human society.
> 
> Theists need god because it's simpler to credit god with all the good and the bad in the world than take personal responsibility for it.


science without god would not have a reason.
bad and good would not make a blind difference.




> I think having a god makes perfect sense.


what sense?

----------


## The Atheist

> science without god would not have a reason.


That is complete nonsense, sorry. Science exists to answer questions, and no reason other than the pursuit of knowledge.




> bad and good would not make a blind difference.


Have you checked out the world lately? 

Bad and good make no difference at all to the universe. Murderers walk free while innocents die every hour of the day. Bad and good are human constructs that have no meaning in the real world.

----------


## Sangi

We need God because we created him. We are slaves of our own discoveries, inventions, creations..

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> science without god would not have a reason.
> bad and good would not make a blind difference.
> 
> 
> 
> what sense?


Perfect sense. It is a natural thing for humans.

----------


## YesNo

> We need God because we created him. We are slaves of our own discoveries, inventions, creations..


She created us, then we created Her.
We round dance with a lovely metaphor.

----------


## cacian

> Perfect sense. It is a natural thing for humans.


how is god a natural things for humans?
I don't get it.

----------


## cacian

> That is complete nonsense, sorry. Science exists to answer questions, and no reason other than the pursuit of knowledge.


very well without questions it does not exist.




> Have you checked out the world lately?


indeed I live in one.




> Bad and good make no difference at all to the universe. Murderers walk free while innocents die every hour of the day. Bad and good are human constructs that have no meaning in the real world.


that is not what I meant.
good and bad is a by-product of religion.
in that it punishes hell and rewards heaven so in effect they are in opposition of each a force to be reckoned with.
when there is no religion there is no guilt/punishment/piety devotion/hell/heaven.
what there should be is common sense.

----------


## cacian

> She created us, then we created Her.
> We round dance with a lovely metaphor.


indeed a dancing metaphor.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> how is god a natural things for humans?
> I don't get it.


How is it not? It's the absurd, the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Hence god.

----------


## cacian

> How is it not? It's the absurd, the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Hence god.


but humans have realised more absurd then absurd itself and with a maximum exceeding the skies and beyond and with religions so many there is no room to think.
how is that absurd?

----------


## saralynn

As for theism..I have made the leap off the existential cliff and into faith. There have been many factors, some of which have been works of William James, the poetry of Christian Wiman, and a life long interest in comparative religion. 

Ive exhausted skepticism. I have heard every argument atheists have to offer and I remain unconvinced. This is probably because I am biased, but I have decided to follow where my heart is leading me rather than watch thoughts spin around in my brain, as if they are the debris in a tornado. 

I have certainly not chucked reasoning out the window or closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and forced myself to BELIEVE what I dont believe, but I have made what I consider a rational decision to accept, in a very real sense, the possibility that each and every mystic who has claimed to have experienced God, in a multiplicity of forms, is not a dimwit, pathetic, deluded, or neurologically impaired. Some undoubtedly are; I am assuming some aren't. Some are cynical manipulators. In addition to this, I had my own micro-revelation that mirrored their own. Peace, Love, Joy blah blah blah....it is really quite repetitive. Yes, I have read about the "God helmet"

However, my faith must coexist with doubt because I can see no other alternative.at least at this point. However, instead of focusing on the doubt, Ive decided to focus on the faith.

I may be wrong. Eh.at least Ill die happier than I would be if I continue to indulge confusion. 

Besides..no risk, no reward. And, no, you cynics, I dont mean Heaven. Heaven doesnt interest me at all. My focus is HERE & NOW. 

When the word "God" is mentioned, most people immediately think of Christ, Mohammed or whatever. I NEVER think of Jesus when I use the word (which will be quite unfortunate for me if HE turns out to be the real deal.), but that is because my background was secular. I never went to bed with JC holding my hand or lay awake worrying about whether I or my loved ones were going to Hell. My father was openly anti-religious. 

My own conception of God is sort of Jewish-Hindu-Buddhist May the Force Be With You, spiritual energy in the form of intelligence, love and consciousness, not entirely impersonal, but definitely not a micro-manager in human affairs. However, he/she/it may have a spiritual interaction with people who pray in devotion, so I don't reject that notion completely. 

Most importantly, for many, God is not a concept, but a living reality. Here is a description of a revelation that was quite similar to my own......

"There came upon me a sense of exultation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination impossible to describe. Among other things, I did not merely come to believe, but I saw that the universe is not composed of dead matter, but is, on the contrary, a living Presence; I became conscious in myself of eternal life. It was not a conviction that I would have eternal life,but a consciousness that I possessed eternal life then; I saw that all men are immortal; that the cosmic order is such that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all; that the foundation principle of the world, of all the worlds, is what we call love, and that the happiness of each and all is in the long run absolutely certain 

The feeling of certitude departed rather quickly for me, but the memory of this experience never allowed me to accept atheism with certitude either.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> but humans have realised more absurd then absurd itself and with a maximum exceeding the skies and beyond and with religions so many there is no room to think.
> how is that absurd?


I have no idea what you just said sorry, maybe rephrase it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism

----------


## cacian

> I have no idea what you just said sorry, maybe rephrase it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism


you said it was absurd without god
I said people have already gone absurd with religions and more.
god does not solve the absurdity people get up to.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> you said it was absurd without god
> I said people have already gone absurd with religions and more.
> god does not solve the absurdity people get up to.


I didn't say that, I said that it was _the absurd_. Ie-* the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any.* This is why humans have a tendency to create gods, and why it is a normal thing that they do so.

----------


## cacian

> I didn't say that, I said that it was _the absurd_. Ie-* the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any.* This is why humans have a tendency to create gods, and why it is a normal thing that they do so.


oh I understand now. sorry about this I misunderstood you.
I think humans are reknown to create and then destroy it is an accolade they do habitually naturally. 
they may as well have god they could not destroy .the one and only they could not if they tried.
that is their one and only legacy that will haunt them forever because they could not destroy it. it almost mergers on deliria
irony.
I think this makes sense.

----------


## cacian

> As for theism..I have made the leap off the existential cliff and into faith. There have been many factors, some of which have been works of William James, the poetry of Christian Wiman, and a life long interest in comparative religion. 
> 
> Ive exhausted skepticism. I have heard every argument atheists have to offer and I remain unconvinced. This is probably because I am biased, but I have decided to follow where my heart is leading me rather than watch thoughts spin around in my brain, as if they are the debris in a tornado. 
> 
> I have certainly not chucked reasoning out the window or closed my eyes, gritted my teeth, and forced myself to BELIEVE what I dont believe, but I have made what I consider a rational decision to accept, in a very real sense, the possibility that each and every mystic who has claimed to have experienced God, in a multiplicity of forms, is not a dimwit, pathetic, deluded, or neurologically impaired. Some undoubtedly are; I am assuming some aren't. Some are cynical manipulators. In addition to this, I had my own micro-revelation that mirrored their own. Peace, Love, Joy blah blah blah....it is really quite repetitive. Yes, I have read about the "God helmet"
> 
> However, my faith must coexist with doubt because I can see no other alternative.at least at this point. However, instead of focusing on the doubt, Ive decided to focus on the faith.
> 
> I may be wrong. Eh.at least Ill die happier than I would be if I continue to indulge confusion. 
> ...


when did you have the revelation?
what we you doing?

----------


## saralynn

> when did you have the revelation?
> what we you doing?


I wasn't doing anything special. I was bustling around the house and then sat down on the couch, intending to take a break and read. 

It occurred suddenly, as if a curtain was lifted. It was a brief encounter, indeed, because after a minute I said in astonishment, "Yikes! I'm having a spiritual experience!" It seems that looking at it destroyed it. 

Yes, there are many explanations, all of which are legitimate possibilities, yet....the experience was so vivid and seemed so "real", that I have never been able to tidily dispose of it. 

I recently read a book by Barbara Ehrenreich entitled Living With a Wild God: A Nonbelievers Search for the Truth About Everything, 

This is what she had to say about her own experiences, "Something peeled off the visible world, taking with it all meaning, inference, association, labels and words. I was looking at a tree, and if anyone had asked, thats what I would have said I was doing, but the word tree was gone, along with all the notions of tree-ness that had accumulated in the last dozen or so years since I had acquired language. 

Another occurred a few years later during a predawn walk in Lone Pine, Calif., when the world flamed into life. She writes: There were no visions, no prophetic voices or visits by totemic animals, just this blazing everywhere. Something poured into me, and I poured out into it.

The book was a bit of a disappointment, but her description of something that cannot be described was excellent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/bo...-wild-god.html

----------


## cacian

> I wasn't doing anything special. I was bustling around the house and then sat down on the couch, intending to take a break and read. 
> 
> It occurred suddenly, as if a curtain was lifted. It was a brief encounter, indeed, because after a minute I said in astonishment, "Yikes! I'm having a spiritual experience!" It seems that looking at it destroyed it. 
> 
> Yes, there are many explanations, all of which are legitimate possibilities, yet....the experience was so vivid and seemed so "real", that I have never been able to tidily dispose of it.


a brief encounter it sounds like a film or a book I have heard of.
were you nervous scared?



> I recently read a book by Barbara Ehrenreich entitled “Living With a Wild God: A Nonbeliever’s Search for the Truth About Everything,”


wild and truth. quite a conflict of realities.




> This is what she had to say about her own experiences, "“Something peeled off the visible world, taking with it all meaning, inference, association, labels and words. I was looking at a tree, and if anyone had asked, that’s what I would have said I was doing, but the word ‘tree’ was gone, along with all the notions of tree-ness that had accumulated in the last dozen or so years since I had acquired language.”


a tree is a tree I guess it depends how long and how much one is willing to stare at it.
trees seem to always be mentioned in literature. I am not quite sure why. one would not think a fertile tree and a god never associate tree hugging comes to mind. I have a huge tree at the back of my garden a citrusy type of tree. stunning. and I have not ''dreamed it''.



> Another occurred a few years later during a predawn walk in Lone Pine, Calif., when “the world flamed into life.” She writes: “There were no visions, no prophetic voices or visits by totemic animals, just this blazing everywhere. Something poured into me, and I poured out into it.”
> 
> The book was a bit of a disappointment, but her description of something that cannot be described was excellent.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/bo...-wild-god.html


a disappointment I agree too. ''the world to flame into life'' is rather a cryptic denouncement the writer sounds like he/she was tripping.
many who do often are quoted alongside these huge scenes.
I am not sure why or how those who ''search for the truth '' always seem to search for it out and about. the open is already found.

----------


## saralynn

> a brief encounter it sounds like a film or a book I have heard of.
> were you nervous scared?


No, same ole sh**......peace, love, joy. 





> wild and truth. quite a conflict of realities.


Agree. I have a rather low-key personality, so my experience was more like "vivid and possible"






> a tree is a tree I guess it depends how long and how much one is willing to stare at it.
> trees seem to always be mentioned in literature. I am not quite sure why. one would not think a fertile tree and a god never associate tree hugging comes to mind. I have a huge tree at the back of my garden a citrusy type of tree. stunning. and I have not ''dreamed it''.


You're right about the tree being a potent symbol in literature, including the one in the Garden of Eden. I think Freud made a few remarks about them, as well. 

The problem with "describing" any kind of revelation is that it is experiential and words are basically memories of memory. It's like trying to describe "is-ness" or maybe the quality of being conscious. 




> a disappointment I agree too. ''the world to flame into life'' is rather a cryptic denouncement the writer sounds like he/she was tripping.
> many who do often are quoted alongside these huge scenes.
> I am not sure why or how those who ''search for the truth '' always seem to search for it out and about. the open is already found.


I know, my briefest of brief revelations occurred when I was in the most mundane circumstances, which I think adds a touch of credibility. 

However, faith is, at bottom, a decision, even for atheists.

----------


## osho

> is it because one feels lonely lost and aimless?
> one does no longer understand what life is for or about one is focused thoughts and locus vehemently on God.
> 
> or is it because 
> God is the ultimate for our sins and weaknesses?
> we need to pass the blame onto a God when we have finished blaming ourselves.


We need a God(s) to ruminate on or to arrive at Eureka when we are drifting with so many existential questions and fail to anchor the ship. Or else what life is for and we just are born purposelessly and this cosmic world is a joke and man a sheer dust and through a cosmic lens nonessential, insignificant entity. People timelessly are seeking for some concrete, something that does not get dissolved or evaporate or something that has caused all causation or something that helps him to find order in this world of pandemonium

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> However, faith is, at bottom, a decision, even for atheists.


Oh no it isn't.
An atheist does not place "faith" in Science. We simply apply the same reasoned thought to the question of God as we do to all other aspects of life. We find no evidence of a God or any supernatural entity, therefore until evidence shows itself to the contrary, we disbelieve in the existence of a God.

What is more plausible, that your revelation was due to God contacting you... are that your mind was simply in a state that made you believe that you had been contacted by God? If you had never heard of God and were never indoctrinated by our culture into a religion, would you have come to the same conclusions?

----------


## cacian

> Oh no it isn't.
> An atheist does not place "faith" in Science. We simply apply the same reasoned thought to the question of God as we do to all other aspects of life. We find no evidence of a God or any supernatural entity, therefore until evidence shows itself to the contrary, we disbelieve in the existence of a God.
> 
> What is more plausible, that your revelation was due to God contacting you... are that your mind was simply in a state that made you believe that you had been contacted by God? If you had never heard of God and were never indoctrinated by our culture into a religion, would you have come to the same conclusions?


faith is secular and science peculiar or is it the other way around ??

----------


## The Atheist

> How is it not? It's the absurd, the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life and the human inability to find any. Hence god.





> As for theism…..I have made the leap off the existential cliff and into faith.


Just a thought: it sounds like you've actually picked up deism rather than theism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

----------


## YesNo

> Oh no it isn't.
> An atheist does not place "faith" in *Science*. We simply apply the same reasoned thought to the question of God as we do to all other aspects of life. We find no evidence of a God or any supernatural entity, therefore *until evidence shows itself to the contrary*, we disbelieve in the existence of a God.
> 
> What is more plausible, that your revelation was due to God contacting you... are that your mind was simply in a state that made you believe that you had been contacted by God? If you had never heard of God and were never *indoctrinated by our culture* into a religion, would you have come to the same conclusions?


The point you bring up about indoctrination could be applied to atheism as well. How is atheism any less a cultural delusion than theism?

I know the response. As you mentioned earlier, there is "science" and "reason" that supposedly puts atheism on a higher ground, but does it really, especially after considering the scientific findings over the past century? 

I don't see science and reason taking sides in the debate between theists and atheists. They are just tools both sides use in defining their differing conceptual view of the universe.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> The point you bring up about indoctrination could be applied to atheism as well. *How is atheism any less a cultural delusion than theism?*
> 
> I know the response. As you mentioned earlier, there is "science" and "reason" that supposedly puts atheism on a higher ground, but does it really, especially after considering the scientific findings over the past century? 
> 
> I don't see science and reason taking sides in the debate between theists and atheists. They are just tools both sides use in defining their differing conceptual view of the universe.


Well you could make the case that since various cultures have their own religions (and as all cultures have throughout history), and since none can possibly be 'correct' then atheism, or the absence of a belief is the default position. No child is born believing in a particular deity, that depends on where they were born. Atheism in the agressive sense that you find nowadays is due to indocrination, or a sort of herd mentality that they accuse religion of hving, but the actual concept of atheism isn't.

----------


## cacian

> Well you could make the case that since various cultures have their own religions (and as all cultures have throughout history), and since none can possibly be 'correct' then atheism, or the absence of a belief is the default position. No child is born believing in a particular deity, that depends on where they were born. Atheism in the agressive sense that you find nowadays is due to indocrination, or a sort of herd mentality that they accuse religion of hving, but the actual concept of atheism isn't.


atheism is the opposite of religion so in a way it reinforces it.
I think it is preferable to be neither.

----------


## YesNo

> Well you could make the case that since various cultures have their own religions (and as all cultures have throughout history), and since none can possibly be 'correct' then atheism, or the absence of a belief is the default position. No child is born believing in a particular deity, that depends on where they were born. Atheism in the agressive sense that you find nowadays is due to indocrination, or a sort of herd mentality that they accuse religion of hving, but the actual concept of atheism isn't.


Or you could say that since all these cultures have some religious belief, the proclaimed absence of any belief is more likely incorrect than any of these particular beliefs. 

I remember reading some survey of the beliefs of children. I think the children had some generic belief in super-human agents that could not be explained by cultural indoctrination. It sort of makes one wonder where such beliefs come from at all.

----------


## Pope of Eruke

> Or you could say that since all these cultures have some religious belief, the proclaimed absence of any belief is more likely incorrect than any of these particular beliefs. 
> 
> I remember reading some survey of the beliefs of children. I think the children had some generic belief in super-human agents that could not be explained by cultural indoctrination. It sort of makes one wonder where such beliefs come from at all.


Hey you can have your beliefs, I should never have replied because I decided a while ago that arguing about religion gets no where!

----------


## cacian

> Hey you can have your beliefs, I should never have replied because I decided a while ago that arguing about religion gets no where!


it does does it not?? I wonder why.  :Smile: 
I think the faith are too similar one believe one does not.
the tension is equal and so there is no agreement.
however an atheist may turn religious more then a religious turn atheist but then I may be wrong.

----------


## The Atheist

> however an atheist may turn religious more then a religious turn atheist but then I may be wrong.


The enormous decline of christianity in the past 40 years would say you certainly are.

----------


## cacian

> The enormous decline of christianity in the past 40 years would say you certainly are.


indeed but never say never. things do eventually turn around one way or another.

----------


## YesNo

Sometimes I think when someone says they are an atheist, they really mean they are anti-Christian, or maybe anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamic. In some ways, I can't really blame them. I remember when George W Bush was starting his baked-up weapons-of-mass-destruction Iraq war having had a bellyful of Christian war-mongering. The only thing that tempered it was the Catholic pope at the time telling Bush to cool it. 

Christians blew the absolute perfect opportunity of "turning the other cheek". They will hopefully never get another opportunity like that. Of course, the Muslims who were in those planes annoyed me as well. Both groups shamed their respective religions. To be fair, over the past 150 years, atheists haven't behaved any better. 

All of this, however, doesn't have much to do with atheism as a theoretical position. Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option. That doesn't mean the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions have to be taken by default. They need to justify themselves as well especially in liberal democracies where one is not required to be a member of a certain religion and people have easily available information.

----------


## Chasesnider10

Yes we need god. God created each and every one of us, and gives us a choice every day to follow him.

----------


## Frostball

> Sometimes I think when someone says they are an atheist, they really mean they are anti-Christian, or maybe anti-Judeo-Christo-Islamic. In some ways, I can't really blame them. I remember when George W Bush was starting his baked-up weapons-of-mass-destruction Iraq war having had a bellyful of Christian war-mongering. The only thing that tempered it was the Catholic pope at the time telling Bush to cool it. 
> 
> Christians blew the absolute perfect opportunity of "turning the other cheek". They will hopefully never get another opportunity like that. Of course, the Muslims who were in those planes annoyed me as well. Both groups shamed their respective religions. To be fair, over the past 150 years, atheists haven't behaved any better. 
> 
> All of this, however, doesn't have much to do with atheism as a theoretical position. Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option. That doesn't mean the Judeo-Christo-Islamic religions have to be taken by default. They need to justify themselves as well especially in liberal democracies where one is not required to be a member of a certain religion and people have easily available information.


It's only religious folks who actually think that given modern science it is not reasonable to be an atheist. You're right about the whole 'even if we prove god, that doesn't say which god it is' bit, but the 'even if' has yet to be satisfied by a long shot. You even cite fields of neuroscience, cosmology, and quantum physics. I suppose if those fields make it unreasonable to be an atheist that must mean the overwhelming majority of scientists in those fields must be believers... Oh wait.. it's the other way around? That's unusual, given your statement.

As far as atheist meaning "anti-Christian", I think you should imagine it like a venn diagram. There are atheists who don't care about others' religion but don't have one themselves, there are people who hate christians yet are religious, and there's some that are atheist and also hate religion in the middle. Another way to look at it is that all atheists don't believe in a god or gods, but some section of them also are anti-theists, who are against religion and might actively seek to thwart religion and convince religious folks that it's not true.

If there is an emphasis on Christianity among anti-theists it's because christians dominate in most western countries where most atheists and anti-theists are. There are simply so many more christians out there causing so many perceived problems. I consider myself an atheist and anti-theist, but it's not like I spend that much time railing against Islam (although I do sometimes) because there simply aren't very many in my area doing much harm. The main religious harm bringers in my city, state, and country, are all Christian.

But I hold the same basic opinion about Christianity as I do about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism (when it contains supernatural beliefs) Wicca, Astrology, or Jainism; that is, I think they are superstitious beliefs with no basis in reality and are harmful to the extent that they cause people to make ill-informed decisions. While I think all these religions are the same in this respect, they all have different amounts of different claims that believers are required to ascribe to, and these beliefs all make their believers act in different ways. This is why some religions can be said to be worse than others. For example, Islam, which has peaceful verses (throat clearing), also has many verses that can be interpreted (easily) to be telling believers to kill non-believers, take part in holy war, and even that sacrificing yourself will guarantee life in Heaven. One doesn't need to try hard to imagine how a fundamentalist Muslim could be quite bad. But on the other hand, if you take Jainism, whose core tenet prescribes complete nonviolence toward all living beings. It is difficult to see how a fundamentalist Jain could ever be as bad as a fundamentalist Muslim can easily be.

Essentially I see Christianity as one of the more powerful, more life effecting (when it's followed), and more dangerous religions than Jainism, but also less dangerous than Islam.

----------


## cacian

> It's only religious folks who actually think that given modern science it is not reasonable to be an atheist.


it is reasonable to think whatever one wants to atheist or not, it is not reasonable to link science to thinking it is not or anything for that matter.
science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up. people are born to feel or think the way they want to.
in the same way that people are born straight gay or both. science bares no bearings over how nature dictates.
in this sense science has no meanings whatsoever. it has no role.
about atheism however
does an atheist believe in evolution for example.
is automatic is what I am trying to say.

----------


## Frostball

> it is reasonable to think whatever one wants to atheist or not, it is not reasonable to link science to thinking it is not or anything for that matter.
> science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up. people are born to feel or think the way they want to.
> in the same way that people are born straight gay or both. science bares no power over how nature dictates.
> in this sense science has no meanings whatsoever. it has no role.
> about atheism however
> does an atheist believe in evolution for example.
> is automatic is what I am trying to say.


If you think "science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up." Why didn't you tell that to YesNo? They are the one claiming science makes it unreasonable to be an atheist. I can quite easily see how somebody can believe in a god even with what we know of modern science, but I do not see how modern science could lead a person to that belief.

----------


## cacian

> If you think "science bares no judgement over how people make their minds up." Why didn't you tell that to YesNo?


 hi Frostball I don't think YesNo is saying that science dictates how people are born. it may influence their judgement but it wont make their minds up for them it is ultimately personal.
in the same way we are born a certain way science has no hands on it.



> They are the one claiming science makes it unreasonable to be an atheist.


they may claim it but it won't make any difference on how someone's beliefs is going to turn out to be.




> I can quite easily see how somebody can believe in a god


thousands of people believe in a god they have never met. so thousands others wont believe in it either. it the strike of the balance.
this means that faith has no logic. it makes no sense because it is random. it can be anyone. a monk an atheist a nudist a fanatic a terrorist. all these people run with a belief that they have acquired themselves through others.




> even with what we know of modern science, but I do not see how modern science could lead a person to that belief.


 science to me has no beliefs it has convictions and it wants to make a point about something because it feels it has to or because it feels ultimately it has not control and so it goes searching for things to prove to give itself that boost of 'control'.
that is my opinion.
religion is the same it claims it knows things and so create the word god to keep at people. it wants the control too.

----------


## Frostball

> hi Frostball I don't think YesNo is saying that science dictates how people are born. it may influence their judgement but it wont make their minds up for them it is ultimately personal.
> in the same way we are born a certain way science has no hands on it.


I never mentioned anything about dictating anything being born. I said that YesNo said "Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option."




> they may claim it but it won't make any difference on how someone's beliefs is going to turn out to be.


This also has nothing to do with the fact that YesNo is the one saying that given the state of Modern Science, it is unreasonable to be an atheist. Again, I'm the one saying that the state of modern science is compatible with BOTH theism and atheism. YesNo is the one stating that it is _unreasonable_ to believe in god given the state of modern science, and even states specific fields. Fields in which the great majority of experts are atheists, which I think is good evidence that people with more knowledge than either YesNo or me probably disagree with YesNo.




> thousands of people believe in a god they have never met. so thousands others wont believe in it either. it the strike of the balance.
> this means that faith has no logic. it makes no sense because it is random. it can be anyone. a monk an atheist a nudist a fanatic a terrorist. all these people run with a belief that they have acquired themselves through others.


The idea that whether a person believes in god or not is entirely random is just false. It's dependant on a lot of factors, some of which nobody can control, but some which can be controlled. A person can be convinced either to believe or to not believe by good arguments, bad arguments, fear, or manipulation. Ultimately the choice of what one believes is not under one's own control, but to say belief in god is random, or that a person can never be convinced one way or the other is wrong.




> science to me has no beliefs it has convictions and it wants to make a point about something because it feels it has to or because it feels ultimately it has not control and so it goes searching for things to prove to give itself that boost of 'control'.
> that is my opinion.
> religion is the same it claims it knows things and so create the word god to keep at people. it wants the control too.


Science is just a method and a body of knowledge, while religion is a set of beliefs generally laid out in some holy book or by some holy person.

----------


## cacian

> I never mentioned anything about dictating anything being born. I said that YesNo said "Given modern science (quantum physics, cosmology, neuroscience), atheism doesn't seem to be a reasonable option."


I understand.
what I am saying one is one born with premeditated thoughts already formed what comes next is random.
that is according to me.
and therefore science is unreasonable to presume anything. 
to be an atheist is like the same as being indifferent. it is a state of mind but with few differences. it could be anything as long as a firm a believe is beheld then that it is more or less the same.




> This also has nothing to do with the fact that YesNo is the one saying that given the state of Modern Science, it is unreasonable to be an atheist. Again, I'm the one saying that the state of modern science is compatible with BOTH theism and atheism. YesNo is the one stating that it is _unreasonable_ to believe in god given the state of modern science, and even states specific fields. Fields in which the great majority of experts are atheists, which I think is good evidence that people with more knowledge than either YesNo or me probably disagree with YesNo.


again I understand what you are saying.
I am saying people are born with beliefs they want to develop and hold on to because it is part of the human mind.
it does not mater what it is they believe in, it is how they develop the belief that makes them the same one and only.
hence the word random.





> The idea that whether a person believes in god or not is entirely random is just false. It's dependant on a lot of factors, some of which nobody can control, but some which can be controlled. A person can be convinced either to believe or to not believe by good arguments, bad arguments, fear, or manipulation. Ultimately the choice of what one believes is not under one's own control, but to say belief in god is random, or that a person can never be convinced one way or the other is wrong.


I think as long as people hold a belief system they will go for whatever suits their chain of thoughts and how they develop understanding of things.
to believe in a god maybe false but they way they do it is not. one is ultimately convinced and therefore it is a hard thing to crack how it is done.
for example it is easier to have a conversation with an atheist for example because they are not they byest they don't believe and so anything goes.
religious people believe in an order an other being and therefore they could not ultimately believe in each other in a way that understanding and logic wans them to. it is therefore extremely hard to converse with them I find personally.




> Science is just a method and a body of knowledge, while religion is a set of beliefs generally laid out in some holy book or by some holy person.


I don't fell science is knowledge science wants to think it has knowledge. sciene is driven by lack of knowledge and ultimately power.
I think:
those who understand know and those who don't quiz. that is what science does it quizzes and pokes at everything because it does not understand it.
religion is the opposite it presumes it knows and so makes up a god to be the ultimate then it can justify what it does not know.

----------


## YesNo

> It's only religious folks who actually think that given modern science it is not reasonable to be an atheist. You're right about the whole 'even if we prove god, that doesn't say which god it is' bit, but the 'even if' has yet to be satisfied by a long shot. You even cite fields of neuroscience, cosmology, and quantum physics. I suppose if those fields make it unreasonable to be an atheist that must mean the overwhelming majority of scientists in those fields must be believers... Oh wait.. it's the other way around? That's unusual, given your statement.


It is not about a poll of scientists, but what they have discovered. So, what have they discovered? Well, the universe had a beginning. Determinism breaks down at the quantum level. The problem of reducing awareness, that is, first person conscious experience, to physics and chemistry is likely impossible.

Can atheism survive those kinds of discoveries? I don't think so, but I am sure people will do their best to rationalize it as long as possible. 

Maybe "many worlds" can replace quantum indeterminism. Maybe we will build that AI machine that is conscious. Maybe the universe is old enough and there were enough viable mutations for life in its huge variety of forms to have happened by chance. I doubt it, but that's my opinion. I don't want to cause anyone undue cognitive dissonance, but I also don't want to live in an ideological fantasy land just to keep atheism afloat.

I've started reading Thomas Nagel's _Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False_. Nagel is an atheist. He also thinks there is an alternative that could save atheism. It is a sort of monism based on his earlier panpsychism views. Although I don't have any problem with panpsychism as such the monism might be falsified if one accepts out-of-body experiences as real. Will something like that work?

----------


## The Atheist

> Can atheism survive those kinds of discoveries?


I have to admit, your posts contain some of the most hilarious things ever typed on the internet.

Pity it's not intentional.

----------


## tailor STATELY

> I have to admit, your posts contain some of the most hilarious things ever typed on the internet.
> 
> Pity it's not intentional.


Ad hominem.

Ta ! _(short for tarradiddle)_,
tailor STATELY

----------


## Melanie

Well said, tailorSTATELY.

*Scientific Evidence For God:*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw

----------


## cacian

> Well said, tailorSTATELY.
> 
> *Scientific Evidence For God:*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw


what is going on with that 4/FOUR???
that is one number bigger then god who is supposed to be ONE.
4>1.
and as Judge Judy says I don't believe you!
science could not prove god let alone prove itself. 
if god himself could not prove to us he exists then he does not exist.
there is no self evidence to prove it.
there is my theory done.

----------


## Poetaster

> Can atheism survive those kinds of discoveries?


Yes, of course it would. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean we need to jump to conclusions. All atheism is, all it really is, is the lack of belief in a god. Even if there is a god out there, and we found it, some people will still be demanding absolute proof - and in some ways that's an impossible thing to do. 

Just pointing to something unknown and saying 'Look, atheism doesn't know everything' is just poor reasoning. It's better to be open-minded when dealing with something unknown and suspend judgement outright until you know, because until you know your opinion is worthless. What's that saying? One experiment is worth a million expert opinions? 

I'm not saying the two are the same thing, but skepticism and atheism are pretty much bedfellows, because it's not believing in a god - it is not believing in a claim to knowledge. The reasons for this need hardly to be stated.

----------


## mal4mac

> *Scientific Evidence For God:*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw


An anonymous utube poster waffling on about crank physics does not constitute scientific evidence of God. Please quote journals like "Nature" or "Science" if you want to be taken seriously when trying to use physics to back your idea that God exists.

----------


## Melanie

Each to his own. Whether visual or written, there is information available everywhere and in every form to learn from. If you want to verify what you see by researching journals, be my guest. Don't be lazy and tell other people to do it for you.

----------


## Melanie

> ...science could not prove god let alone prove itself. 
> if god himself could not prove to us he exists then he does not exist.


Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
> I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.


But don't you sometimes worry that what you're seeing, is what you want to see?
Evolution isn't a miracle, it just is. There's no intelligence behind it, it has no brain, no destiny, it sets no goals; not even for survival. Evolution ends in extinction, every time.

----------


## Frostball

> Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
> I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.


Really? Your idea of evidence for god is basically "look at the pretty clouds, and trees, and animals! Wow!"

----------


## Poetaster

> Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
> I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.


Evolution isn't one animal metamorphosing into another, like in Pokemon or Ovid or something. You don't get fish turning into cats or whatever. What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line. The idea of apes turning into humans is ridiculous. There are still great apes around, because they didn't all die out - that's it. We are related to them and share a common ancestor, but we are not the same species anymore, not even the same genetic line anymore.

----------


## cacian

> Evolution isn't one animal metamorphosing into another, like in Pokemon or Ovid or something. You don't get fish turning into cats or whatever. What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line. The idea of apes turning into humans is ridiculous. There are still great apes around, because they didn't all die out - that's it. We are related to them and share a common ancestor, but we are not the same species anymore, not even the same genetic line anymore.


such a time consuming affair and rather tiring even nature would fed up.
I think if I was nature I would have created each and one separately simply and quickly and be done with it. that is sensible and logic.
instead I am having to wait millennia to metamorphose something that is already a shape because I decided to change it into another a different look and body is frankly quite tiresome and laborious task.
I am not prepared to wait so I do not believe it. time is at the essence.

----------


## PeterL

> such a time consuming affair and rather tiring even nature would fed up.
> I think if I was nature I would have created each and one separately simply and quickly and be done with it. that is sensible and logic.
> instead I am having to wait millennia to metamorphose something that is already a shape because I decided to change it into another a different look and body is frankly quite tiresome and laborious task.
> I am not prepared to wait so I do not believe it. time is at the essence.


Evolution is one of the tols that the Gods and Goddesses use for changing things and trying out other designs. If one tries enough random changes, then eventually one will be good and useful You have to remember that the Gods aren't making each and every change. There are ntural processes whereby things changes slowly over time. It isn't boring at all. Stick around for a few millennia and you'll see how interesting it can be.

----------


## cacian

> Evolution is one of the tols that the Gods and Goddesses use for changing things and trying out other designs. If one tries enough random changes, then eventually one will be good and useful You have to remember that the Gods aren't making each and every change. There are ntural processes whereby things changes slowly over time. It isn't boring at all. Stick around for a few millennia and you'll see how interesting it can be.


Peter as much as I would like to stick around I think nature already does things in a way that is too perfect for us to believe. the name of nature is fast. evolution is the opposite is time consuming and boring.
we humans tend to be negative and see things in a negative way as if they needed changing all the time. they don't it is us that need to change and begin to see things they way they are and to accept them.
I am not prepared to believe animals were here before us.
evolution has a negative string about it. 
I feel it is short-sighted and thoughtless. to think the origin of men springs from a jungle is just too crazy for words.
but that is me  :Smile:

----------


## Poetaster

> such a time consuming affair and rather tiring even nature would fed up.
> I think if I was nature I would have created each and one separately simply and quickly and be done with it. that is sensible and logic.
> instead I am having to wait millennia to metamorphose something that is already a shape because I decided to change it into another a different look and body is frankly quite tiresome and laborious task.
> I am not prepared to wait so I do not believe it. time is at the essence.


Who said it was a task that is laboured over?

----------


## cacian

> Who said it was a task that is laboured over?


you said I quote:




> What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line.


basically I interpret this as saying we had to wait millennia/millions of years before we came about?! it feels forever and forever is laborious. nature is speed. I thought quantum established a physics that is fast.
this is the opposite of what science is ultimately saying. in fact it ditches the whole theory of speed.

I don't know why we bothered.
I don't believe it in the same way that I could not believe animals were here before us.
this makes no sense.

----------


## Poetaster

> basically I interpret this as saying we had to wait millennia/millions of years before we came about?! it feels forever and forever is laborious. nature is speed. I thought quantum established a physics that is fast.
> this is the opposite of what science is ultimately saying. in fact it ditches the whole theory of speed.
> 
> I don't know why we bothered.
> I don't believe it in the same way that I could not believe animals were here before us.
> this makes no sense.


Nah, there is no interpretation needed in what I wrote. It's just how evolution works. It can make sense to you or not, but it is what it is.

----------


## cacian

> Nah, there is no interpretation needed in what I wrote. It's just how evolution works. It can make sense to you or not, but it is what it is.


fair enough everyone is entitled their opinions/interpretations.  :Smile: 
can i ask you this?
how long did it take you to understand evolution when you first read.
that is presuming you have read it first or was it you were told it first?

----------


## Poetaster

> fair enough everyone is entitled their opinions/interpretations. 
> can i ask you this?
> how long did it take you to understand evolution when you first read.
> that is presuming you have read it first or was it you were told it first?


I don't know how long exactly. I've read a few books on the subject.

----------


## cacian

> I don't know how long exactly. I've read a few books on the subject.


so did you make your mind up straight away after few books?

----------


## Poetaster

'so did you make your mind up straight away after few books?'

No.

----------


## cacian

> 'so did you make your mind up straight away after few books?'
> 
> No.


can i ask why not?

----------


## Poetaster

> can i ask why not?


It took physical artifacts as evidence, and a long period of existential misery. I come from mildly religious parents, and often thought I should have faith myself. It took time, seeing a small part of the fossil record with my own eyes and also I've lived in the country my entire life. I've never had the inability to believe in anything (though for some time I had the strong want to have that). Being an atheist does not mean you must accept evolution, you can still have whatever believes you want outside of one about a creator god, but without a god to me the idea the universe is a pleasant, ordered, caring place is just nonsensical. Evolution by natural selection is the best, most logical thing to me because it basically requires a universe of constant struggle, extinction and adaption.

----------


## PeterL

> Peter as much as I would like to stick around I think nature already does things in a way that is too perfect for us to believe. the name of nature is fast. evolution is the opposite is time consuming and boring.
> we humans tend to be negative and see things in a negative way as if they needed changing all the time. they don't it is us that need to change and begin to see things they way they are and to accept them.


You may see things negatively, but not all humans do. But indeed humans need evolution; I made a few proposals for inprovement in my most recent blog post; see if you agree. 




> I am not prepared to believe animals were here before us.


Why are you "not prepared to believe animals were here before us?" The available evidence is strongly in favor of animals having preceded humans adn for humans being evolved from other animals. 




> evolution has a negative string about it. 
> I feel it is short-sighted and thoughtless. to think the origin of men springs from a jungle is just too crazy for words.
> but that is me


What would you mean by that? I would suggect that you take a university course on Evolutionary biology. The evidence is overwhelming, but the way that human evolvution is described in the general press is shallow and imaccurate. Genetics and the methods and steps of evolution are well established science, and the evidence that humans have evolved and will continue to evolve is there is the world.

----------


## cacian

> It took physical artifacts as evidence, and a* long period of existential misery*.


misery? how do you mean?




> I come from mildly religious parents, and often thought I should have faith myself. It took time, seeing a small part of the fossil record with my own eyes and also I've lived in the country my entire life.


what country?





> I've never had the inability to believe in anything (though for some time I had the strong want to have that). Being an atheist does not mean you must accept evolution, you can still have whatever believes you want outside of one about a creator god,


I agree.
however there is also the idea of being neither which means it does not matter where we come from.
the importance is that we are.
I think i just challenge titles we give ourselves because i see they complicate more then they help.




> but without a god to me the idea the universe is a pleasant, ordered, caring place is just nonsensical. Evolution by natural selection is the best, most logical thing to me because it basically requires a universe of constant struggle, extinction and adaption.


i see what you mean and i understand your point.
to me nature is ordered. it has to be if we are to be alive on this planet.
we are the ones that are not ordered.
god is a symbol not a reality and therefore i don't believe it exists. I may believe there is something else but not the word god,
Evolution as you put it is a struggle.
I do not agree it is about adaption because if it was there could not have been any changes from one form species to another one.
that is what i call a transition.
i don't believe we are transited.
we come to be fully as we are.
to adapt is to remain true to oneself while managing to cope until nature satisfies we are.

----------


## Poetaster

> misery? how do you mean?
> 
> 
> what country?


First question: I'm philosophically an existentialist, I guess. I'm not going to go into exactly what that is here, or what that means to me, but look up Jean-Paul Sartre if you are interested.

Second question: the British countryside. I've actually lived in both England and the Scottish highlands, but I've always lived in very rural places. I've always been close to nature.

----------


## cacian

> First question: I'm philosophically an existentialist, I guess. I'm not going to go into exactly what that is here, or what that means to me, but look up Jean-Paul Sartre if you are interested.
> 
> Second question: the British countryside. I've actually lived in both England and the Scottish highlands, but I've always lived in very rural places. I've always been close to nature.


I get it.
do you think you could ever be just you yourself without all these titles?
you know like when one is a kid and does not hold any of these beliefs.
they simply are until i guess they read and start to collect things they would have never thought about before.
i am saying this because i call myself none of these and others. i don't like thinking too much.
i go out and i see and i am satisfied. i don't look for anything and yet they seem to find me.  :Smile:

----------


## Poetaster

> I get it.
> do you think you could ever be just you yourself without all these titles?
> you know like when one is a kid and does not hold any of these beliefs.
> they simply are until i guess they read and start to collect things they would have never thought about before.
> i am saying this because i call myself none of these and others. i don't like thinking too much.
> i go out and i see and i am satisfied. i don't look for anything and yet they seem to find me.


I am me, the 'titles' are just good shorthand for describing how I tend to think.

----------


## YesNo

> Well said, tailorSTATELY.
> 
> *Scientific Evidence For God:*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw


This was an interesting video. I will have to check some of the references. I liked the four part characterization of God as eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. 

I normally think of God as superior consciousness and view the atheistic fascination with materialism as a way to devalue consciousness including our own. This is what I think is failing and what I understand Thomas Nagel to claim is failing as well.

Here's a video that looks at it from the consciousness perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Thanks for noting the ad hominem remarks, tailorSTATELY. An ad hominem comment is a sign that no rational argument can be thought of.

----------


## cacian

> I am me, the 'titles' are just good shorthand for describing how I tend to think.


I see and thanks for sharing your thoughts with me  :Smile:

----------


## YesNo

> Yes, of course it would. Just because we do not fully understand something does not mean* we need to jump to conclusions*. All atheism is, all it really is, is the lack of belief in a god. Even if there is a god out there, and we found it, some people will still be demanding absolute proof - and in some ways that's an impossible thing to do. 
> 
> Just pointing to something unknown and saying 'Look, atheism doesn't know everything' is just poor reasoning. *It's better to be open-minded when dealing with something unknown and suspend judgement outright until you know*, because until you know your opinion is worthless. What's that saying? One experiment is worth a million expert opinions? 
> 
> I'm not saying the two are the same thing, but skepticism and atheism are pretty much bedfellows, because it's not believing in a god - it is not believing in a claim to knowledge. The reasons for this need hardly to be stated.


I'm not saying there is a God or Goddess. I'm saying the atheistic arguments for the materialistic conclusions that they have "jumped to" have failed. Thomas Nagel (_Mind and Cosmos_), who is an atheist, is saying the same thing although I might disagree with him on the alternatives available.

Regarding having an open mind, do atheists themselves have an open mind about the existence of God? I don't think so. 

Let's bring it closer to home. Do atheists have an open mind about the existence of consciousness as something more than an epiphenomenon of matter? Do they have an open mind about the "causal closure of physics"?

----------


## Melanie

> But don't you sometimes worry that what you're seeing, is what you want to see?
> Evolution isn't a miracle, it just is. There's no intelligence behind it, it has no brain, no destiny, it sets no goals; not even for survival. Evolution ends in extinction, every time.


Worry about what I'm seeing?….You must not be seeing what I'm seeing.

No intelligence (no brain) behind it?….It's much easier to have faith in intelligent design than in mass confusion turning into perfect awesomeness (sorry, but there are no words to describe it's magnitude) out of nowhere.

No destiny? No goals?….are you sure about that? Have you ruled out eternity? Think about it. No offense but you're not exactly the Grand Poobah of all knowledge….or are you saying you believe that by faith?

Evolution ends in distinction every time?…Exactly!! Physical death ends…but what about beyond that? There's more to the living than skin and bones (some describe as soul). Even plants; there's more to them than we can even imagine. I believe everything that we can't physically touch (love for example) lives for eternity. Yes, it's a "belief". But your statement is also a "belief". Think about it. Don't rule so much out of possibility when you don't know for sure.

----------


## Melanie

> Really? Your idea of evidence for god is basically "look at the pretty clouds, and trees, and animals! Wow!"


Double "Wow".you apparently saw nothing of significance in that video. You have minimized the magnitude of the beauty, power, perfect design, planI'm sorry but there are no words to describe the awesomeness of creation. It's something that I see. But you just see pretty clouds, trees, and animals. I see so much more.

----------


## Poetaster

> I'm not saying there is a God or Goddess. I'm saying the atheistic arguments for the materialistic conclusions that they have "jumped to" have failed. Thomas Nagel (_Mind and Cosmos_), who is an atheist, is saying the same thing although I might disagree with him on the alternatives available.


What 'materialistic conclusions' have atheists assumed? Other than the one: that the material world is all that exists. This hasn't been 'jumped to', all we know is the material world from our normal senses. If someone can show they have a sense (like sense of smell, sense of touch - that sort of sense) that can make contact with something beyond the material I'd be very interested to see that. If that is the conclusion you are talking about it seems to me a pretty safe conclusion to make. 




> Regarding having an open mind, do atheists themselves have an open mind about the existence of God? I don't think so.


This one certainly does. I just don't happen to believe in one, but I'm not saying there is or isn't - I just happen to think there isn't. That to me is a distinction very rarely made. When talking about 'atheists' it's worth remembering that we aren't all 14 year olds who have just read _The God Delusion_. 




> Let's bring it closer to home. Do atheists have an open mind about the existence of consciousness as something more than an epiphenomenon of matter? Do they have an open mind about the "causal closure of physics"?


Well, I can't speak for everyone who calls them self an atheist. I can't be expected to either. What I can say is that most atheists I've ever met don't have much of an open mind to consciousness being anything more than a by product of life, because most atheists do not consider such a thing to be possible. It's hard to say you are open to supernatural things when you just don't believe in the supernatural. However, I'm sure most atheists would change their mind if shown convincing evidence that something created life to develop consciousness. The ball is in your court to prove it is, then, since it's to me a very strange idea. 

'Causal closure of physics' is a phrase I'm struggling to wrap my head around to be honest.

----------


## Melanie

> Evolution isn't one animal metamorphosing into another, like in Pokemon or Ovid or something. You don't get fish turning into cats or whatever. What it is is the accumulation of uncountable variations in each successive generation to create (over the course of hundreds of thousands/millions of years) noticeable morphological and genetic changes to the appearance of that animal's genealogical line. The idea of apes turning into humans is ridiculous....


You're saying you agree with me then. Isn't God's power, intelligent design, and plan for all of his creation as it evolves, an amazing mind-blowing thing?!

Note to Iain and Frostball: please see previous page6 (?) for my response to you in post 89 and 90. It quickly got buried.

----------


## Poetaster

> You're saying you agree with me then. Isn't God's power, intelligent design, and plan for all of his creation as it evolves, an amazing mind-blowing thing?!


I'm not sure how you think I agree with you. I did have to explain evolution wasn't 'an ape turning into a man', that just isn't what evolution is. It isn't often an agreement when you are critiquing the other person's side, but maybe that's just me. 'Apes turning into men' often sounds like something people who do not understand evolution say to make it sound illogical, in the equivalent of saying 'I don't like Communism, the dudes use far too many images of frogs'. (hint: no Communist party has ever used the image of a frog).

If you are arguing a Deist position, fine. If you are arguing for the existence of a god that is happy to sit back and watch extinction and endless suffering and adaptation go on then I don't see much use of power or intelligence to be frank. In fact this god seems quite lazy if he can directly intervene but doesn't. If you are arguing for the God of 'All things Bright and Beautiful' then you are completely mistaken, and clearly didn't bother to read the post you quoted.

----------


## Melanie

> Are you sure? Just because you are not seeing God's proof everyday, every minute, every second, doesn't mean it's not happening.
> I see it: http://faithtap.com/524/gods-beautiful-creation/?a=1 . And once you view that video, if you say "I only saw evolution", then please know that I see evolution too. I don't see an ape turning into a man but I see God's miraculous evolution.


Poetaster…no, you didn't have to explain evolution to me!!!!...apparently you read my post #65 wrong so I have quoted it here for you to review. *I clearly stated, " I don't see an ape turning into a man"*. God tells us that He created man in his own image…not in the apes image. The ape has evolved and man has evolved on two different paths but one did not become the other.

I hesitate to post further to you for fear you'll misquote me again. Please read carefully: 

God does not look at death as a bad thing. He's looking at the total picture of Eternity while you are only looking at a speck of time. When someone dies they leave all this sin and suffering that has been caused by man and satan. Yes, God is more powerful than satan and often intervenes but sometimes God allows us to go through trials and tribulations for a whole network of reasons that ultimately lead to a perfect life in eternity. Over a hundred of those reasons are listed in the Bible.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I hesitate to post further to you for fear you'll misquote me again. Please read carefully: 
> 
> God does not look at death as a bad thing. He's looking at the total picture of Eternity while you are only looking at a speck of time. When someone dies they leave all this sin and suffering that has been caused by man and satan. Yes, God is more powerful than satan and often intervenes but sometimes God allows us to go through trials and tribulations for a whole network of reasons that ultimately lead to a perfect life in eternity. Over a hundred of those reasons are listed in the Bible.



Is this the same God of the Christian Bible who condones institutional slavery, sets rules and restrictions for the fair treatment and punishment of human property?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Your God and your Bible are that part of literature I most enjoy... fantasy.

----------


## YesNo

> What 'materialistic conclusions' have atheists assumed? *Other than the one: that the material world is all that exists.* This hasn't been 'jumped to', all we know is the material world from our normal senses. If someone can show they have a sense (like sense of smell, sense of touch - that sort of sense) that can make contact with something beyond the material I'd be very interested to see that. If that is the conclusion you are talking about it seems to me a pretty safe conclusion to make.


Materialism is the conclusion that atheists have jumped to and it is no longer justified. I mentioned a youtube video earlier that challenged this conclusion citing scientific research. Here it is a again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM

Maybe we can discuss it? It might help both of us clarify our respective views.




> This one certainly does. I just don't happen to believe in one, but I'm not saying there is or isn't - I just happen to think there isn't. That to me is a distinction very rarely made. When talking about 'atheists' it's worth remembering that we aren't all 14 year olds who have just read _The God Delusion_.


Then you would be an agnostic and not an atheist. 




> Well, I can't speak for everyone who calls them self an atheist. I can't be expected to either. *What I can say is that most atheists I've ever met don't have much of an open mind to consciousness being anything more than a by product of life, because most atheists do not consider such a thing to be possible.* It's hard to say you are open to supernatural things when you just don't believe in the supernatural. However, I'm sure most atheists would change their mind if shown convincing evidence that something created life to develop consciousness. The ball is in your court to prove it is, then, since it's to me a very strange idea.


That is the problem that Thomas Nagel is faced with as well. He is mainly concerned with the philosophy of mind and questions neo-Darwinism (which is not the same as evolution or the results of paleontology) because of its assumption that random mutations in DNA are all that is needed to produce the abundance of life forms we see on earth. He thinks, and I agree, that more is needed than these mutations since there haven't been enough of them for this to happen by chance in the limited amount of time that life has existed on earth. He feels mind needs to be added to matter in a form of monism.

In my case, I'm wondering if George Berkeley's idealism might not be right after all, however, I have only started reading him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley




> 'Causal closure of physics' is a phrase I'm struggling to wrap my head around to be honest.


It is meant as a challenge, to myself as well. The causal closure of physics basically is a claim that there are no non-physical, that is, conscious, causes of any physical phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure

----------


## Poetaster

> Poetaster…no, you didn't have to explain evolution to me!!!!...apparently you read my post #65 wrong so I have quoted it here for you to review. I clearly stated, " *I DON'T see an ape turning into a man". God tells us that He created man in his own image…not in the apes image.* The ape has evolved and man has evolved on two different paths but one did not become the other.
> 
> I hesitate to post further to you for fear you'll misquote me again. Please read carefully: 
> 
> God does not look at death as a bad thing. He's looking at the total picture of Eternity while you are only looking at a speck of time. When someone dies they leave all this sin and suffering that has been caused by man and satan. Yes, God is more powerful than satan and often intervenes but sometimes God allows us to go through trials and tribulations for a whole network of reasons that ultimately lead to a perfect life in eternity. Over a hundred of those reasons are listed in the Bible.


The bit in bold shows me I read your post correctly, and that you believe that god molded man to look something like himself. And so, I'm completely mystified you thought I agree with you. However, if you are fine leaving this here, I would be ok with that. I don't believe in God or Satan, I don't believe in anything. 




> Materialism is the conclusion that atheists have jumped to and it is no longer justified. I mentioned a youtube video earlier that challenged this conclusion citing scientific research. Here it is a again:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM
> 
> Maybe we can discuss it? It might help both of us clarify our respective views.


Interesting video. I will say I don't understand Quantum Physics at all, I'm not going to pretend like I do. However, one thing I will say is that atheism often prides itself on being based on reason, and often the results of science point against what mere reason will tell you. Our brains have evolved in a certain way, a way that isn't exactly the way things are on a quantum level. 

I'm sorry, I just don't know enough about Quantum Physics to have a very meaningful discussion on it. However, it appears a few people have made responses to the video who seem to know what they are talking about. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuEHe_BK-oI




> Then you would be an agnostic and not an atheist.


No, that would make me an atheist. This might just be a difference in lexical interpretation, I've always understood 'agnostic' to mean someone who understands they do not have ultimate knowledge, and may never do. If so, isn't that most of the human race? I certainly can't say I know. I'm an atheist, though, because I do not believe in god, as per the meaning and origin of the word, from the Greek 'A-theos' meaning A(without)-theos(god). I actually think there are no gods, that makes me an atheist. A person who believes in god and who also understands they do not know would also not be a theist but an agnostic? No, of course not. 

If you want to call me an agnostic atheist, fine, I'll accept that. But understand, I am an atheist, because I don't believe in god. In fact I believe there are no gods. 




> That is the problem that Thomas Nagel is faced with as well. He is mainly concerned with the philosophy of mind and questions neo-Darwinism (which is not the same as evolution or the results of paleontology) because of its assumption that random mutations in DNA are all that is needed to produce the abundance of life forms we see on earth. He thinks, and I agree, that more is needed than these mutations since there haven't been enough of them for this to happen by chance in the limited amount of time that life has existed on earth. He feels mind needs to be added to matter in a form of monism.


4 billion years of life on earth is a pretty long time (I think it is). To say it's 'limited' is to make 4 billion years seem trivial, which of course it isn't. 4 billion years is a mighty long time, and a lot can happen in that time. Just because we might not know how it happens (I'm not an expert, I'm a Literature student) doesn't mean that we should assume it is impossible and then call on a god to solve the problem. 




> It is meant as a challenge, to myself as well. The causal closure of physics basically is a claim that there are no non-physical, that is, conscious, causes of any physical phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_closure


Ah, then in that case I would say that atheists are open-minded to that, yes.

----------


## cacian

> Ah, then in that case I would say that atheists are open-minded to that, yes.


I am sorry to interrupt but I don't believe that is entirely true.
if you negate something then that is not open minded. 
it is in opposition against a belief.
it means one blocks the notion of god by putting a block against it which means your are closed not open to it.

----------


## Poetaster

> I am sorry to interrupt but I don't believe that is entirely true.
> if you negate something then that is not open minded. 
> it is in opposition against a belief.
> it means one blocks the notion of god by putting a block against it which means your are closed not open to it.


Non-physical things having an effect on the physical has nothing to do with belief or any notion of god, why should it?

----------


## cacian

> Non-physical things having an effect on the physical has nothing to do with belief or any notion of god, why should it?


well if one rejects god then one in contradiction with the fact someone else believes in god.
an atheist is in opposition with a religious one.
take an agnostic he or she believe that god cannot be proven.
but then an agnostic in opposition with themselves because without the god notion they could not be who they claim to be.
therefore agnosticism does not make sense because if they cant prove god existence then they could not call themselves agnostic because they have not got a god to deny.
if there is no god there in atheism not agnosticism and no religious.
there reasons these titles are is because of god.

----------


## Poetaster

> well if one rejects god then one in contradiction with the fact someone else believes in god.
> an atheist is in opposition with a religious one.
> take an agnostic he or she believe that god cannot be proven.
> but then an agnostic in opposition with themselves because without the god notion they could not be who they claim to be.
> therefore agnosticism does not make sense because if they cant prove god existence then they could not call themselves agnostic because they have not got a god to deny.
> if there is no god there in atheism not agnosticism and no religious.
> there reasons these titles are is because of god.


This is the result of a conversation I am not sure I had. What you quoted was me commenting on nonphysical things having effects on physical things. That's all.

----------


## cacian

> This is the result of a conversation I am not sure I had. What you quoted was me commenting on nonphysical things having effects on physical things. That's all.


sure I think I was commenting having a reply with what you had said. it was something I needed to think about I guess for myself  :Smile: 

non physical things I don't know what they are.
we are the only physical thing there is.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't believe in God or Satan, I don't believe in anything.


Mostly people are not aware of what they believe. One of the reasons to discuss issues like this is to become aware of what we assume or believe to be true.




> Interesting video. I will say I don't understand Quantum Physics at all, I'm not going to pretend like I do. However, one thing I will say is that atheism often prides itself on being based on reason, and often the results of science point against what mere reason will tell you. Our brains have evolved in a certain way, a way that isn't exactly the way things are on a quantum level. 
> 
> I'm sorry, I just don't know enough about Quantum Physics to have a very meaningful discussion on it. However, it appears a few people have made responses to the video who seem to know what they are talking about. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuEHe_BK-oI


No problem. This is, however, one of the supporting reasons for my position against materialism.





> No, that would make me an atheist. This might just be a difference in lexical interpretation, I've always understood 'agnostic' to mean someone who understands they do not have ultimate knowledge, and may never do. If so, isn't that most of the human race? I certainly can't say I know. I'm an atheist, though, because I do not believe in god, as per the meaning and origin of the word, from the Greek 'A-theos' meaning A(without)-theos(god). I actually think there are no gods, that makes me an atheist. A person who believes in god and who also understands they do not know would also not be a theist but an agnostic? No, of course not.
> 
> 
> If you want to call me an agnostic atheist, fine, I'll accept that. But understand, I am an atheist, because I don't believe in god. In fact I believe there are no gods.


As long as atheism is acknowledged as a belief system, I have no problem. It is often portrayed as being on some higher ground with scientific and rational support. It doesn't have that any more than any other religion.




> 4 billion years of life on earth is a pretty long time (I think it is). To say it's 'limited' is to make 4 billion years seem trivial, which of course it isn't. 4 billion years is a mighty long time, and a lot can happen in that time. Just because we might not know how it happens (I'm not an expert, I'm a Literature student) doesn't mean that we should assume it is impossible and then call on a god to solve the problem.


The problem is there have been models presented, in particular one by Michael Behe, and others that Nagel mentioned which show that there was not enough time given the rate of DNA mutations for this to be considered a chance process. Rationally, that falsifies this neo-Darwinist position. It doesn't matter if one thinks 4 billion years is a long time or not. The model shows it is not long enough for chance to have been at work. 

What does one do with a falsified theory? One can be unscientific and maintain it is still true or one can modify the theory. Nagel explains why one should expect the theory to be falsified by discussing the philosophy of mind and suggests some paths for modification that would still support atheism. However, as I think about reports of out-of-body experiences, I don't think what he is promoting will survive a falsification either. But it is worth understanding the alternatives.





> Ah, then in that case I would say that atheists are open-minded to that, yes.


The causal closure of physics is fundamental to materialism. An atheist open to questioning that causal closure, and I think Nagel would be one, would need to ground physics on something other than materialism.

----------


## Poetaster

> Mostly people are not aware of what they believe. One of the reasons to discuss issues like this is to become aware of what we assume or believe to be true.


I agree with this, I do know, however, that I don't believe in most things in the area of the supernatural anyway. 




> No problem. This is, however, one of the supporting reasons for my position against materialism.


That's fair enough. 




> As long as atheism is acknowledged as a belief system, I have no problem. It is often portrayed as being on some higher ground with scientific and rational support. It doesn't have that any more than any other religion.


Is atheism a belief 'system' when it is just a stance on a single issue? I don't think so. You can have atheistic religions, and have spiritual beliefs when you are an atheist. You can also be like me an atheist and an existentialist. People who claim atheism is on the same level as a scientific theory are not really much more worth listening to than the Harold Campings. There is no point talking to them, they already know everything and all they want to do is to impose on you the idea that you really should think for yourself, so long as you think like them. 




> The problem is there have been models presented, in particular one by Michael Behe, and others that Nagel mentioned which show that there was not enough time given the rate of DNA mutations for this to be considered a chance process. Rationally, that falsifies this neo-Darwinist position. It doesn't matter if one thinks 4 billion years is a long time or not. The model shows it is not long enough for chance to have been at work. 
> 
> What does one do with a falsified theory? One can be unscientific and maintain it is still true or one can modify the theory. Nagel explains why one should expect the theory to be falsified by discussing the philosophy of mind and suggests some paths for modification that would still support atheism. However, as I think about reports of out-of-body experiences, I don't think what he is promoting will survive a falsification either. But it is worth understanding the alternatives.


Michael Behe? 'Neo-Darwinist'? I'm sorry but the whole Irreducible Complexity, Intelligent Design movement has been largely discredited. Especially here in the United Kingdom. The tree of life is now pretty well understood - we are still working on Abiogenesis, but we have some nifty ideas floating about - from everything I've read 4 billion years is ample time to go from single celled acids and simple RNA to complex life. Especially considering how quickly successive generations of single-celled organisms last. In the length of time I've typed this message a generation of bacteria will have died and gave birth to a new one, plenty of time for variation and evolution. 

Out of body experiences - the mind is a powerful thing. I've actually had a near death experience myself, and experienced something of 'leaving this world' and I'm just not impressed by stories of visiting hell or heaven. Sorry, my own experience tells me otherwise. 




> The causal closure of physics is fundamental to materialism. An atheist open to that, and I think Nagel would be one, would need to ground physics on something other than materialism.


If that's the case then there is nothing to argue with there.

----------


## YesNo

> Is atheism a belief 'system' when it is just a stance on a single issue? I don't think so. You can have atheistic religions, and have spiritual beliefs when you are an atheist. You can also be like me an atheist and an existentialist. People who claim atheism is on the same level as a scientific theory are not really much more worth listening to than the Harold Campings. There is no point talking to them, they already know everything and all they want to do is to impose on you the idea that you really should think for yourself, so long as you think like them.


I don't see how that shows that atheism is not a belief system. 

For what it's worth, I don't want you to agree with me. It would spoil the fun and I wouldn't learn anything because I would no longer need to think up a response.




> Michael Behe? 'Neo-Darwinist'? I'm sorry but the whole Irreducible Complexity, Intelligent Design movement has been largely discredited. Especially here in the United Kingdom. The tree of life is now pretty well understood - we are still working on Abiogenesis, but we have some nifty ideas floating about - from everything I've read 4 billion years is ample time to go from single celled acids and simple RNA to complex life. Especially considering how quickly successive generations of single-celled organisms last. In the length of time I've typed this message a generation of bacteria will have died and gave birth to a new one, plenty of time for variation and evolution.


I don't think Behe is viewed much differently in the US than he is in the UK. That is probably why Nagel cites him. I think Nagel wants to rub in the noses of neo-Darwinists a basic piece of scientific etiquette that essentially says that it doesn't matter _who_ has falsified a theory, the theory remains falsified.

For his part, he attempts a different type of falsification based on the philosophy of mind. One could also attempt a third approach by contrasting the slow, steady flow of mutations with the "punctuated equilibrium" one sees in the fossil record.

Regarding finding sources that believe that 4 billion years is adequate, I'm sure they exist. There are sources for just about everything. It is just whether one wants to bet that they are correct. For myself, I would need to see a mathematical argument that shows that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that all of this occurred by chance. And then I would want that checked by someone like Behe who would be motivated to find some hole in it.




> Out of body experiences - the mind is a powerful thing. I've actually had a near death experience myself, and experienced something of 'leaving this world' and I'm just not impressed by stories of visiting hell or heaven. Sorry, my own experience tells me otherwise.


So what did you experience in your near-death experience?

----------


## Melanie

> Is this the same God of the Christian Bible who condones institutional slavery, sets rules and restrictions for the fair treatment and punishment of human property?
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)


Many who condemn the Bible, as yourself, don't understand that slavery as we know it in recent centuries is not the same as slavery as in the Old Testament Bible. "Slaves in our time and in recent centuries are "chattel" slaves. They were tricked into or forced to work. They received no pay and had no right to refuse to work. Their humanity was owned by another person.

Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).

In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.

Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions." 
~ http://www.compellingtruth.org/slave...Testament.html

----------


## mona amon

> Is this the same God of the Christian Bible who condones institutional slavery, sets rules and restrictions for the fair treatment and punishment of human property?
> However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
> 
> Your God and your Bible are that part of literature I most enjoy... fantasy.


Iain, not fair, quoting the Old Testament!  :Biggrin:  Although the passage you quoted comes from a part of the scriptures that are common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, today there is no religion in the world that insists on upholding all 613 commandments of Old Testament Law. Different times, different laws.

----------


## ravisrajput5

I think the most important thing for which we really need god is that there should be someone to get blamed if we fail in any aspect of life  :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:   :Biggrin:  Secondly, If we are believing in God means We will always feel as if there is someone who is always there supporting us in every stages of Life. It is said that If our life is going good then we are surround by NUMBER OF PEOPLE.. But on the other hand if our days are surrounded with negativity WE ARE ALLONE i.e. LONELINESS so we need GOD to Remove our loneliness...

----------


## Frostball

> Many who condemn the Bible, as yourself, don't understand that slavery as we know it in recent centuries is not the same as slavery as in the Old Testament Bible. "Slaves in our time and in recent centuries are "chattel" slaves. They were tricked into or forced to work. They received no pay and had no right to refuse to work. Their humanity was owned by another person.
> 
> Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).
> 
> In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.
> 
> Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slavery—masters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions." 
> ~ http://www.compellingtruth.org/slave...Testament.html


This is the old "Slavery was different back then" bit. It's true that it wasn't exactly the same, but that doesn't mean it was in any way right, or good, or something I'd expect a good god to endorse. It was only the hebrew slaves that had a slavery duration of 6 years. Other slaves were slaves for life, and you could even pass them on to your children (Leviticus 25:44-46). It also gives a loophole in which if the master gives the male slave a wife, and they have children, then the wife and children will still belong to the master. If the man wants to stay with his family, then they drive a spike through his ear and he has to be a slave forever (Exodus 21:2-6 ). The OT describes how you can beat your slave and that if they die the slave owner should be punished, but if they survive, it's ok (Exodus 21:20-21). Yikes! I wouldn't want to be a slave.

This so often also comes with the "those were different times" bit. I don't see why something would be ok back then but not ok now, and I don't think anybody now would like to endure the kind of slavery the bible describes. I also wonder why a god would even make different rules at different times. Did he change his mind? The argument that the socio-economic situation would have been so upset by a prohibition of slavery is a bad one because this is god we're talking about. He was giving commandments left and right, clearly not overly worried about delving into every little detail of the israelites affairs from what they ate to what they wore. He could have easily given a commandment against slavery. "Do not rape" also would have been a good addition.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Iain, not fair, quoting the Old Testament!  Although the passage you quoted comes from a part of the scriptures that are common to Judaism, Islam and Christianity, today there is no religion in the world that insists on upholding all 613 commandments of Old Testament Law. Different times, different laws.


It's that damnable Old Testament that had me scratching my head as a kid way back in Sunday School. :Smile:  
And yes, that would only be true if they were manmade laws; which are subject to time, circumstance, and cultural proclivities. But that these laws are presumably handed down to humanity by way of God, they must be timeless and give no regard to human failings. Slavery, whether it be institutional or conditional servitude should have been condemned by God... but God doesn't do that.
When this God condones such evil as slavery, or as Melanie likes to skirt the issue, renaming slavery as conditional servitude, and other absurd musings in the bible such as women submitting themselves to husbands... well then, I'm left wondering what kind of God do we have here?
A manmade God is what we have.
A God created in our image. :Smile:

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Many who condemn the Bible, as yourself, don't understand that slavery as we know it in recent centuries is not the same as slavery as in the Old Testament Bible. "Slaves in our time and in recent centuries are "chattel" slaves. They were tricked into or forced to work. They received no pay and had no right to refuse to work. Their humanity was owned by another person.
> 
> Slavery in the Old Testament was very different and involved a variety of methods, situations, and restrictions. But the Old Testament is clear about capturing people and selling them as chattel: kidnapping was a crime punishable by death (Exodus 21:16).
> 
> In an ideal world, slavery would neither be an option nor a necessity. Because of the socioeconomic situation of Old Testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. God did not intend for Israel to have poverty (Deuteronomy 15:4), but sin made it inevitable (Deuteronomy 15:5), and God allowed slavery to deal with that reality.
> 
> Some people categorically condemn the Bible because it does not call for the universal abolition of slavery. What they don't understand are the cultural conditions that made slavery a sad necessity. Even so, this was not chattel slaverymasters did not "own" their slaves' humanity; they leased their work. Like divorce and polygamy, slavery was never in God's perfect plan. But, because of sin, for a time and place, slavery was permitted by God, with certain restrictions." 
> ~ http://www.compellingtruth.org/slave...Testament.html


Let us move on to the act of rape, and how God not only condones slavery but also treats rape in a rather disturbing manner...
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".

----------


## cacian

> Let us move on to the act of rape, and how God not only condones slavery but also treats rape in a rather disturbing manner...
> If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.


notice how the word *young* is inserted there.
as though rape is only directed at the young. it makes you think the lunacy is beyond belief.





> What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.


nope. god does not write speak we don't hear him.
answer: these texts are the product of somebody.



> COLOR="#800080"]If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.[/COLOR]
> 
> It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".


I think my concern is that rape is mentioned at all and in such details you wonder what the one behind these ideas is about.
I mean to read the text is quite simple and rather fragmented almost like someone who with a disability.
a lunatic. a sadistic lunatic who has dedicated time and effort to write such demented stuff is truly demented

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> notice how the word *young* is inserted there.
> as though rape is only directed at the young. it makes you think the lunacy is beyond belief.
> 
> 
> 
> nope. god does not write speak we don't hear him.
> answer: these texts are the product of somebody.
> 
> I think my concern is that rape is mentioned at all and in such details you wonder what the one behind these ideas is about.
> ...


Agreed... it's when you read the bible within its proper context; that it was written by powerful men of a certain tribe who wished to stay in power, that it all makes perfect sense.

----------


## Poetaster

> I don't see how that shows that atheism is not a belief system.


Because a system is usually the sum of a load of parts working in a unity. Such as a system of government or a drainage system. A single philosophical position cannot be considered a system. It's just not what the word means. 




> For what it's worth, I don't want you to agree with me. It would spoil the fun and I wouldn't learn anything because I would no longer need to think up a response.


Fair enough.




> I don't think Behe is viewed much differently in the US than he is in the UK. That is probably why Nagel cites him. I think Nagel wants to rub in the noses of neo-Darwinists a basic piece of scientific etiquette that essentially says that it doesn't matter _who_ has falsified a theory, the theory remains falsified.


The mere fact you call secular evolutionary theory 'Neo-Darwinism' tells me all sorts of things. Sure, National Selection is still a big thing in evolutionary theory, but _On the Origin of Species_ is not required reading in a evolutionary biology classroom. Darwin got a lot of stuff wrong. You say it is a falsified theory, so considering it is at the heart of virology (you almost literally cannot have virology without evolution) and still being taught in schools and universities, and wrote about in scientific journals and text books, why do you say it's falsified?




> For his part, he attempts a different type of falsification based on the philosophy of mind. One could also attempt a third approach by contrasting the slow, steady flow of mutations with the "punctuated equilibrium" one sees in the fossil record.
> 
> Regarding finding sources that believe that 4 billion years is adequate, I'm sure they exist. There are sources for just about everything. It is just whether one wants to bet that they are correct. For myself, I would need to see a mathematical argument that shows that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that all of this occurred by chance. And then I would want that checked by someone like Behe who would be motivated to find some hole in it.


Mathematical argument? So essentially, you are saying it's a mathematical improbability? Well, if we are around then evolution clearly evolution doesn't involve a mathematical argument. 

Anyway, what about the Lenski E-coli experiment that produced genetic change given a few thousand generations of e-coli, that's actually been observed within only two decades? E-coli adapted and evolved to start consuming starch? That's clear evidence of evolution that has been closely monitored by human beings and facilitated, but not directed. Lenski and his team did not produce and introduce the mutation into the e-coli soup, it's something the e-coli did itself. 

Also, you have to remember that Behe is a member of the Discovery Institute, an organization that is known for pumping out pro-Creationist and pro-Christian material. He isn't exactly an objective, independent, unbiased source, so frankly I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I'm a weak man, physically, I likely couldn't even pick him up. 




> So what did you experience in your near-death experience?


I was surfing off the coast of Crete, slammed into a rock pool, and was nearly knocked out. Very quickly I had sea water rushing into my lungs and I started drawning. All my sensations started to dull, and time seemed to slow down. Even though I was cold with sweat, I felt this intense warmth, and happiness over the idea of passing out of this world. And all the while, my vision started to dim and become more distant. Like I was floating backward down a tunnel no light could enter. All sounds were not just diminishing, they were falling away. I knew there wasn't an end road for me, that was the end road, I felt there was no where for me to go, no heaven or hell, no god or devil, the black of the tunnel I was being pulled down was my own brain shutting down, and I was facing oblivion. 

Well, my body gave one last push of energy and I was able to gather enough strength to pull myself out of the rocks and out of the water. I was what you might have called a believer when this happened. Not much of a one, but I had some religious inclination, and I come from Christian parents. It took a near-death experience to turn me in to an atheist. So when religious people say to me that I'm only an atheist because I'm in the prime of life, young and reckless, well, it takes a lot to not say some very choice words back because I've seen something of the other side. I saw nothing there.

----------


## YesNo

> Because a system is usually the sum of a load of parts working in a unity. Such as a system of government or a drainage system. A single philosophical position cannot be considered a system. It's just not what the word means.


That's why philosophy is important. Atheism is not a single philosophical position, but hinges on other concepts. For example, a belief in materialism or perhaps determinism or perhaps a view of the universe as dead or unconscious. It may not be all these things in your case, but although I consider myself theistic and recite mantras to Saraswati to prove it to myself, I still find ideas, or rather biases, that I would consider "atheistic" surfacing that I didn't realize I had.




> The mere fact you call secular evolutionary theory 'Neo-Darwinism' tells me all sorts of things. Sure, National Selection is still a big thing in evolutionary theory, but _On the Origin of Species_ is not required reading in a evolutionary biology classroom. Darwin got a lot of stuff wrong. You say it is a falsified theory, so considering it is at the heart of virology (you almost literally cannot have virology without evolution) and still being taught in schools and universities, and wrote about in scientific journals and text books, why do you say it's falsified?


Evolutionary theory has not been falsified. What has been falsified is the view that chance mutations are all that there is that drives evolutionary change upon which natural selection acts. That is the neo-Darwinist position. Why has that been falsified? Because there have not been enough of these mutations in the given time frame to mathematically claim that they occurred by chance. There must be something more. It's the chance component that has been falsified.

Think about "chance" for a moment. What is the difference between saying that chance caused something or a miracle caused something? In both cases science is at a dead-end. Neither allows for further explanation. Neither allows for the event to be reproduced. What makes them different is that chance implies unconsciousness and a miracle implies that some intentional agent was involved. Those are both metaphysical, not scientific, positions. 





> Mathematical argument? So essentially, you are saying it's a mathematical improbability? Well, if we are around then evolution clearly evolution doesn't involve a mathematical argument.


Yes, we are here. That doesn't mean that we must be here by chance. 




> Anyway, what about the Lenski E-coli experiment that produced genetic change given a few thousand generations of e-coli, that's actually been observed within only two decades? E-coli adapted and evolved to start consuming starch? That's clear evidence of evolution that has been closely monitored by human beings and facilitated, but not directed. Lenski and his team did not produce and introduce the mutation into the e-coli soup, it's something the e-coli did itself.


Genes exist. Evolutionary change happens. Natural selection provides a constraint on what will survive long enough to reproduce. None of this implies that any of it occurred _by chance_.




> Also, you have to remember that Behe is a member of the Discovery Institute, an organization that is known for pumping out pro-Creationist and pro-Christian material. He isn't exactly an objective, independent, unbiased source, so frankly I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him. And I'm a weak man, physically, I likely couldn't even pick him up.


I don't trust him. I trust Nagel, even though I don't agree with Nagel on all points. Since Nagel, an atheist, citied him, and in general agreed with the argument, I learned I need to keep an open mind even though I thought my mind was already open. 




> I was surfing off the coast of Crete, slammed into a rock pool, and was nearly knocked out. Very quickly I had sea water rushing into my lungs and I started drawning. All my sensations started to dull, and time seemed to slow down. Even though I was cold with sweat, I felt this intense warmth, and happiness over the idea of passing out of this world. And all the while, my vision started to dim and become more distant. Like I was floating backward down a tunnel no light could enter. All sounds were not just diminishing, they were falling away. I knew there wasn't an end road for me, that was the end road, I felt there was no where for me to go, no heaven or hell, no god or devil, the black of the tunnel I was being pulled down was my own brain shutting down, and I was facing oblivion. 
> 
> Well, my body gave one last push of energy and I was able to gather enough strength to pull myself out of the rocks and out of the water. I was what you might have called a believer when this happened. Not much of a one, but I had some religious inclination, and I come from Christian parents. It took a near-death experience to turn me in to an atheist. So when religious people say to me that I'm only an atheist because I'm in the prime of life, young and reckless, well, it takes a lot to not say some very choice words back because I've seen something of the other side. I saw nothing there.


I'm no expert on near-death experiences. P. M. H. Atwater has a reference work, _The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences_, that I use when I try to get an understanding of the possibilities that people have reported. Hellish near-death experiences exist. I am using "hellish" here as unpleasant which I think would describe yours. She mentions that these could happen to anyone. Some of this must be caused by the body shutting down, as you mention, since that is what death means for the body.

----------


## Poetaster

> That's why philosophy is important. Atheism is not a single philosophical position, but hinges on other concepts. For example, a belief in materialism or perhaps determinism or perhaps a view of the universe as dead or unconscious. It may not be all these things in your case, but although I consider myself theistic and recite mantras to Saraswati to prove it to myself, I still find ideas, or rather biases, that I would consider "atheistic" surfacing that I didn't realize I had.


Again, this might be a difference in linguistic interpretation but Atheism, A-theos, means without god. It literally just means you don't believe in any gods, and so it is a single philosophical position, just like theism is a single philosophical position. You can have things around atheism, just like you can have things around theism. How many atheist Christians do you know? How many theist existentialists do you know? I rest my case. You don't need to be a materialist and be an atheist, just as you don't need to be an atheist and be a materialist - one does not need to mean the other. 




> Evolutionary theory has not been falsified. What has been falsified is the view that chance mutations are all that there is that drives evolutionary change upon which natural selection acts. That is the neo-Darwinist position. Why has that been falsified? Because there have not been enough of these mutations in the given time frame to mathematically claim that they occurred by chance. There must be something more. It's the chance component that has been falsified.
> 
> Think about "chance" for a moment. What is the difference between saying that chance caused something or a miracle caused something? In both cases science is at a dead-end. Neither allows for further explanation. Neither allows for the event to be reproduced. What makes them different is that chance implies unconsciousness and a miracle implies that some intentional agent was involved. Those are both metaphysical, not scientific, positions.


What is the difference between 'chance' caused something or a 'miracle': a miracle by definition is a suspension of the natural order. A mutation is very much in the natural order. Unless you want to call cancer from radiation a miracle. That's a dangerous line to go down to be honest. 'Neo-Darwinism' (if you must insist on that term) or 'Evolution by Natural Selection' has not been falsified at all. Sorry, it just hasn't.

Why do I say that? Well. You have ignored my overall point about the Lenski experiment with e-coli. The fact is it isn't chance, if you read up on that experiment you'd know that after a while starch was introduced to the e-coli broth, and after so many generations the e-coli adapted to find in that a source of energy, and thus out-developed the e-coli that did not have the ability to use starch as an energy source. Not only that, but this adaption to starch was found in every successive generation of the experiment, so it's not chance, and it's not random - it is instead something adapting to it's environment and being naturally 'selected' to dominate and thrive over the organisms that did not have that adaption. 

Unless you want to say God directly intervened in the Lenski experiment and gave the e-coli the ability to use starch as a food source, and every mutation is a result of artificial selection and not natural selection, you still have to prove your God hypothesis. Either way, chance has nothing to do with it at all. If you can prove God exists you shouldn't be talking to me, you should be talking to the Nobel Prize people. 




> Yes, we are here. That doesn't mean that we must be here by chance.


It might if you can't prove there is a god. 




> Genes exist. Evolutionary change happens. Natural selection provides a constraint on what will survive long enough to reproduce. None of this implies that any of it occurred _by chance_.


Again, Natural Selection isn't chance. That's why it's called Natural _Selection_. Only this selection is not a conscious decision, but rather the result of a collective action. The collective action of every factor that affects that organism. Imagine it like an idiot committee, that might be a good analogy. 




> I don't trust him. I trust Nagel, even though I don't agree with Nagel on all points. Since Nagel, an atheist, citied him, and in general agreed with the argument, I learned I need to keep an open mind even though I thought my mind was already open.


As have I. This Nagel I know nothing about, I'm completely unfamiliar with his work. What I will say is that while they mix their work with ideology, even a Creationist might say something interesting. If they come out with an interesting finding, however, is another matter - that I can leave in the safe hands of the scientific community and peer revision. That is the most important part of the process really. 




> I'm no expert on near-death experiences. P. M. H. Atwater has a reference work, _The Big Book of Near-Death Experiences_, that I use when I try to get an understanding of the possibilities that people have reported. Hellish near-death experiences exist. I am using "hellish" here as unpleasant which I think would describe yours. She mentions that these could happen to anyone. Some of this must be caused by the body shutting down, as you mention, since that is what death means for the body.


The brain shutting down can - I know from my study of psychology (I'm an English teacher, this is A-level psychology stuff) that while this is happening, like in sleep, the brain can create very powerful fantasies and illusions. Especially when the person is stressed as they lose consciousness, they can see anything at all. That's the other reason why Near-Death Experiences do not impress me. It is very easy to see the dream of a dying man as what is actually happening to the consciousness on the point of death, it's a big mistake to make. The human brain is very good at creating illusions, as I said.

----------


## Frostball

An atheist doesn't have to be a materialist. Not by a long shot, there are plenty of atheists who believe in ghosts, or magic, or all sorts of things. Buddhists are atheist (Buddha isn't a god) and can believe all kinds of supernatural things. The term atheist is just a single position, but that just means you have to actually ask an atheist what they believe instead of assuming, just like you have to do with everybody else. I can't relate how it gets on my nerves when people say "you are an atheist so you must believe X". I might even believe that particular X (materialism, determinism, evolution.. yes) but the audacity of people to just assume without asking gets on my nerves. Christians all even use the same basic holy book, yet I never say to one "You're a Christian, that means you believe in hell" for example, because some Christians, of course, don't believe in hell. So even though Christians even have the same source for their religion, and so should be more similar than atheists who don't, that still doesn't mean I can just assume a Christian's whole set of beliefs without asking.

----------


## YesNo

> Again, this might be a difference in linguistic interpretation but Atheism, A-theos, means without god. It literally just means you don't believe in any gods, and so it is a single philosophical position, just like theism is a single philosophical position. You can have things around atheism, just like you can have things around theism. How many atheist Christians do you know? How many theist existentialists do you know? I rest my case. You don't need to be a materialist and be an atheist, just as you don't need to be an atheist and be a materialist - one does not need to mean the other.


I agree with what you are saying about assuming what someone else believes if they claim they are an atheist or a Christian or whatever. Frostball also makes this point. We don't know what they actually maintain. Nor do they, in many cases, until questioned.

My point is that a position on atheism doesn't come alone. There are other ideas that will come with it so that it appears consistent and believable. Those ideas all need to be examined should we ever become aware of them.




> What is the difference between 'chance' caused something or a 'miracle': a miracle by definition is a suspension of the natural order. A mutation is very much in the natural order. Unless you want to call cancer from radiation a miracle. That's a dangerous line to go down to be honest. 'Neo-Darwinism' (if you must insist on that term) or 'Evolution by Natural Selection' has not been falsified at all. Sorry, it just hasn't.
> 
> Why do I say that? Well. You have ignored my overall point about the Lenski experiment with e-coli. The fact is it isn't chance, if you read up on that experiment you'd know that after a while starch was introduced to the e-coli broth, and after so many generations the e-coli adapted to find in that a source of energy, and thus out-developed the e-coli that did not have the ability to use starch as an energy source. Not only that, but this adaption to starch was found in every successive generation of the experiment, so it's not chance, and it's not random - it is instead something adapting to it's environment and being naturally 'selected' to dominate and thrive over the organisms that did not have that adaption. 
> 
> Unless you want to say God directly intervened in the Lenski experiment and gave the e-coli the ability to use starch as a food source, and every mutation is a result of artificial selection and not natural selection, you still have to prove your God hypothesis. Either way, chance has nothing to do with it at all. If you can prove God exists you shouldn't be talking to me, you should be talking to the Nobel Prize people.


It looks like you are saying chance is not involved. I would agree with that. Chance, the result of a uniformly distributed or set of equally likely outcomes, doesn't even operate at the quantum indeterministic level. 

The reason I use "neo-Darwinism" is because that is the term that Nagel uses. It distinguishes the position from evolution in general.

Natural "Selection" is a metaphor for the constraints in the environment the organism must respond to. There is nothing in general being "selected" since that would imply an intentional act, unless there is another organism involved who is protecting or eating the one that is changing. However, the e-coli are alive. That means they are conscious in their own way and can take an intentional role in the changes. 




> It might if you can't prove there is a god.


Whether we think we are here by chance or through some non-chance scenario depends on which we think is more likely. That depends more on how we conceptualize the universe and ourselves in it. 

If we think of the universe in reductionist, materialist terms, that is, unconscious except for some spots of life and see God as some intentional agent outside it and potentially creating it, we get the situation that Nagel is closer to and trying to resolve because the chance option is too improbable for him. It is too improbable for me as well.

If one takes an very different view of the universe, say, as something some consciousness gave birth to then chance is irrelevant. From that perspective, if you want to see God with your own eyes, just open them. The body of God would be all around you.





> Again, Natural Selection isn't chance. That's why it's called Natural _Selection_. Only this selection is not a conscious decision, but rather the result of a collective action. The collective action of every factor that affects that organism. Imagine it like an idiot committee, that might be a good analogy.


What occurs by chance in the neo-Darwinist position are the mutations, not natural selection. 




> As have I. This Nagel I know nothing about, I'm completely unfamiliar with his work. What I will say is that while they mix their work with ideology, even a Creationist might say something interesting. If they come out with an interesting finding, however, is another matter - that I can leave in the safe hands of the scientific community and peer revision. That is the most important part of the process really.


No one is completely wrong in their positions. That is why it is difficult to sort out what part to accept or not. In the case of trusting an author, taking them as an "authority", one is taking a gamble that one has to take because no one can read everything.

Peer review should help, but I don't trust that process either. 




> The brain shutting down can - I know from my study of psychology (I'm an English teacher, this is A-level psychology stuff) that while this is happening, like in sleep, the brain can create very powerful fantasies and illusions. Especially when the person is stressed as they lose consciousness, they can see anything at all. That's the other reason why Near-Death Experiences do not impress me. It is *very easy to see* the dream of a dying man as what is actually happening to the consciousness on the point of death, it's a big mistake to make. The human brain is very good at creating illusions, as I said.


Psychologically, why does one person find something "easy to see" and another does not? It goes back to the ideas or positions one holds to make the world consistent. This brings me back to the very beginning of this post when I said that atheism is not one position, but involves many positions that don't have anything to do with God directly.

----------


## Poetaster

> I agree with what you are saying about assuming what someone else believes if they claim they are an atheist or a Christian or whatever. Frostball also makes this point. We don't know what they actually maintain. Nor do they, in many cases, until questioned.
> 
> My point is that a position on atheism doesn't come alone. There are other ideas that will come with it so that it appears consistent and believable. Those ideas all need to be examined should we ever become aware of them.


Yes, atheism does not come alone. Lack of believe in a god cannot be an entire philosophy. Thus: not a system. 




> It looks like you are saying chance is not involved. I would agree with that. Chance, the result of a uniformly distributed or set of equally likely outcomes, doesn't even operate at the quantum indeterministic level.


What is your background in quantum mechanics? 




> The reason I use "neo-Darwinism" is because that is the term that Nagel uses. It distinguishes the position from evolution in general.


Right, because I don't really know what exactly you mean by it. Evolution by natural selection is what I know about, 'Neo-Darwinism' I've only ever heard as a Creationist short hand for that, so if I've called you a creationist without merit then I take it back. Neo-Darwinism, though, is a phrase I have problems with because it assumes some sort of hero worship of Darwin which to be honest just doesn't exist. 




> Natural "Selection" is a metaphor for the constraints in the environment the organism must respond to. There is nothing in general being "selected" since that would imply an intentional act, unless there is another organism involved who is protecting or eating the one that is changing. However, the e-coli are alive. That means they are conscious in their own way and can take an intentional role in the changes.


The e-coli may be alive but they cannot decide to change their own genetic make up, this happens through mutation. In a way, as I said before, Natural Selection is just that, something is being selected, but it's not a conscious selection. It's being selected by nature. Think of it as an idiot committee, again, as I said before. 




> Whether we think we are here by chance or through some non-chance scenario depends on which we think is more likely. That depends more on how we conceptualize the universe and ourselves in it.


You are right about this. 




> If we think of the universe in reductionist, materialist terms, that is, unconscious except for some spots of life and see God as some intentional agent outside it and potentially creating it, we get the situation that Nagel is closer to and trying to resolve because the chance option is too improbable for him. It is too improbable for me as well.
> 
> If one takes an very different view of the universe, say, as something some consciousness gave birth to then chance is irrelevant. From that perspective, if you want to see God with your own eyes, just open them. The body of God would be all around you.


Well, is that the same god as someone else's god? Shouldn't even the definition of god be consistent if everyone is supposed to accept a god exists? That is one thing I can never understand. I do not believe in god, to me the universe is a place that was invented I don't know how, and the only 'alive' part on it is the rare planet that can support life. If such a universe exists like ours, chance is irrelevant if not even an active factor. I've said all this before. 




> What occurs by chance in the neo-Darwinist position are the mutations, not natural selection.


Well, not exactly. As the Lenswki experiment shows, the mutations happen very rapidly and very frequently over a number of generations, the selection is just the process. Again, chance is not the issue, changes, variations and mutations happen all the time - for example: are you an exact clone of your father? Is your father an exact clone of his father? 




> No one is completely wrong in their positions. That is why it is difficult to sort out what part to accept or not. In the case of trusting an author, taking them as an "authority", one is taking a gamble that one has to take because no one can read everything.
> 
> Peer review should help, but I don't trust that process either.


Why don't you trust peer revision? 




> Psychologically, why does one person find something "easy to see" and another does not? It goes back to the ideas or positions one holds to make the world consistent. This brings me back to the very beginning of this post when I said that atheism is not one position, but involves many positions that don't have anything to do with God directly.


Well, it would be hard to answer that question. A lot of people can 'sense' a god. People like me can't. It doesn't mean anything other than people think in different ways.

----------


## caddy_caddy

Hi
I think we need Allah because we are imperfect . And He created us imperfect to need Him. He needs to be worshiped and loved by all his creatures. He is useless without us .

----------


## YesNo

> What is your background in quantum mechanics?


What I have learned about quantum physics, along with atheism, the big bang, evolution and literature has come from reading discussions on Lit Net and then using the internet and the library. I am not an authority on any topic. 




> Right, because I don't really know what exactly you mean by it. Evolution by natural selection is what I know about, 'Neo-Darwinism' I've only ever heard as a Creationist short hand for that, so if I've called you a creationist without merit then I take it back. Neo-Darwinism, though, is a phrase I have problems with because it assumes some sort of hero worship of Darwin which to be honest just doesn't exist.


Here is the Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism




> The e-coli may be alive but they cannot decide to change their own genetic make up, this happens through mutation. In a way, as I said before, Natural Selection is just that, something is being selected, but it's not a conscious selection. It's being selected by nature. Think of it as an idiot committee, again, as I said before.


How can something be "selected" without consciousness? I am simply pointing out a problem with the term. The same thing could be said about the term "selfish" gene. If "nature" does the selecting, is nature conscious? Even an idiot committee is conscious.




> Well, is that the same god as someone else's god? Shouldn't even the definition of god be consistent if everyone is supposed to accept a god exists? That is one thing I can never understand. I do not believe in god, to me the universe is a place that was invented I don't know how, and the only 'alive' part on it is the rare planet that can support life. If such a universe exists like ours, chance is irrelevant if not even an active factor. I've said all this before.


Different religions describe what they mean by God differently, but, if there is any reality behind these descriptions, they would have to be describing the same reality. When discussing God with atheists, one can switch the concepts and talk about the universe as a whole instead. They certainly believe the universe exists.

Regarding the universe one can ask questions like the following. Is the universe more like a machine or more like an organism? How does the big bang fit in? Is the universe good?




> Well, not exactly. As the Lenswki experiment shows, the mutations happen very rapidly and very frequently over a number of generations, the selection is just the process. Again, chance is not the issue, changes, variations and mutations happen all the time - for example: are you an exact clone of your father? Is your father an exact clone of his father?


Chance is used to get an unconscious change to occur when there is no other explanation. It doesn't actually explain anything. 

Regarding the exact clone idea, there can be variations within an "equilibrium" according to the Niels Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium approach to evolutionary change seems sound to me. It also fits the fossil record where you see the sandstone stratification containing long periods of equilibrium punctuated by a relatively short transition into another long period of equilibrium. Within each period of equilibrium the fossils that are found are similar. 





> Why don't you trust peer revision?


What I meant was that I don't trust peer review to filter out error and only error. So just because an article has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it can be trusted. Peer review can also lead to censorship. However, I don't see an alternative for it.

----------


## YesNo

> Hi
> I think we need Allah because we are imperfect . And He created us imperfect to need Him. He needs to be worshiped and loved by all his creatures. He is useless without us .


This all makes sense to me except the part about Allah being useless without us. Perhaps I just don't understand.

----------


## YesNo

> *Scientific Evidence For God:*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw


I'm looking at the video more closely. 

Here is one link http://www.quantumbalancing.com/news/russian_dna.htm that I found interesting. I don't understand most of it, but the idea of sound and language having an effect on DNA is what is keeping my interest.

In general, this link seems to contain the text base for the video with links to the sources: http://fernandoymas.blogspot.com/201...re-is-god.html

----------


## caddy_caddy

> This all makes sense to me except the part about Allah being useless without us. Perhaps I just don't understand.


 What I mean is that Allah is a sign with no signified without us . Men is the signifier, and the whole process of signification depends on us . Otherwise there is no "meaning" for having a God . That's why He is pissed off if we reject Him . Why should He even bother? 
Allah said that He created men " to worship Him " . This is the only reason for our existence .

----------


## Poetaster

> What I have learned about quantum physics, along with atheism, the big bang, evolution and literature has come from reading discussions on Lit Net and then using the internet and the library. I am not an authority on any topic.


Then forgive me on this, but it sounds like it's not been a guided or very serious study. Intellectual honesty is always be a problem in online debates. This is why universities and centers of academia like universities exist. Well, I'm academically minded, and I'm consciously trying to be as intellectually honest as I can. I suppose it's easy to think 'atheism' is an ideology when you are talking to Richard Dawkins fans, but trust me, 'atheism' is just a single philosophical stance. It literally can't be anything else. 

I'm not being pedantic here I don't think, it's just what the word means. 




> Here is the Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism


Then yes, it's exactly what I thought it was. And no, that has certainly not been falsified, in fact gene and natural selection led evolution has libraries-worth of evidence and proof behind it.




> How can something be "selected" without consciousness? I am simply pointing out a problem with the term. The same thing could be said about the term "selfish" gene. If "nature" does the selecting, is nature conscious? Even an idiot committee is conscious.


Well, I'm trying to use a shorthand, and it's obviously failed. The fact is that the English language is poorly equipped to completely express these things because of how many different meanings a word can hold. Beneficial genes are being selected, because they stay around. Also, the English language is built around servitude. 

Nature isn't deciding anything consciously, it's just the strongest survive and the beneficial genes live. Sure some animals with bad mutations might get lucky, but eventually natural selection removes most of those unbeneficial mutations. It's like that saying of infinite monkeys at infinite typewriters will write the full works of Shakespeare - infinity did the work for you. It's not chance, it's sociology. 




> Different religions describe what they mean by God differently, but, if there is any reality behind these descriptions, they would have to be describing the same reality. When discussing God with atheists, one can switch the concepts and talk about the universe as a whole instead. They certainly believe the universe exists.


But they don't describe the same reality, nearly everything between the three monotheisms are different outside of the one god. Pagan religions are much different still, and there is no consistent description of god, my question is why. Of course the universe exists for us to talk on it, or we wouldn't be talking on it. 




> Regarding the universe one can ask questions like the following. Is the universe more like a machine or more like an organism? How does the big bang fit in? Is the universe good?


From my own perspective: it's just a place subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, the big bang created space/time, and the universe is not good because it is not evil - good and evil do not exist. 




> Chance is used to get an unconscious change to occur when there is no other explanation. It doesn't actually explain anything. 
> 
> Regarding the exact clone idea, there can be variations within an "equilibrium" according to the Niels Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium approach to evolutionary change seems sound to me. It also fits the fossil record where you see the sandstone stratification containing long periods of equilibrium punctuated by a relatively short transition into another long period of equilibrium. Within each period of equilibrium the fossils that are found are similar.


That is true. My point was that mutations are not all like the effects of fallout or something, sexual acts between male and female is practically designed to create variation, there are in Deep Time long periods of not much variation and then explosions of life and diversity. This isn't a conscious act, and can't be attributed to consciousness, rather population distribution. 




> What I meant was that I don't trust peer review to filter out error and only error. So just because an article has been peer reviewed doesn't mean it can be trusted. Peer review can also lead to censorship. However, I don't see an alternative for it.


Well, I would certainly think peer revision greatly enhances a papers credibility. You are always going to have errors and things that simply are not true in peer reviewed work, but that's because we are human, we make mistakes, and it also is because what we know and what we think we know is always changing, and thanks to peer revision even old ideas like the Theory of Gravity can be amended and changed and adapted. Really, what is the Theory of Relativity if not a revision and deconstruction of Newtonian physics?

----------


## YesNo

> Then yes, it's exactly what I thought it was. And no, that has *certainly not* been falsified, in fact gene and natural selection led evolution has libraries-worth of evidence and proof behind it.


Regarding the word "certainly", it appears Nagel would take the opposite view. Part of the subtitle of _Mind and Cosmos_ reads "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".

Nagel backs that up by noting that experts such as Behe as well as Francis Crick consider the origin of life to have occurred by chance to be improbable. Crick considered this so improbable that having aliens seed earth with life was worth considering. (_Mind and Cosmos_, page 123)

Then Nagel pursues, for the majority of the book, an explanation _why_ neo-Darwinism is almost certainly false from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, an area in which he is an expert. The issue hinges around consciousness and whether it can be reduced to physics and chemistry. He claims it cannot.




> Well, I'm trying to use a shorthand, and it's obviously failed. The fact is that the English language is poorly equipped to completely express these things because of how many different meanings a word can hold. Beneficial genes are being selected, because they stay around. Also, the English language is built around servitude. 
> 
> *Nature isn't deciding anything consciously*, it's just the strongest survive and the beneficial genes live. Sure some animals with bad mutations might get lucky, but eventually natural selection removes most of those unbeneficial mutations. It's like that saying of* infinite* monkeys at *infinite* typewriters will write the full works of Shakespeare -* infinity* did the work for you. *It's not chance*, it's sociology.


That's where the big bang comes in, and other estimates of how long life has been around on earth. _We don't have an infinite amount of time._ If the universe were eternal, you might have an argument. The problem is that science has shown that the universe is not eternal and it has given a close estimate of its "birth", "creation" or beginning.

In spite of that you say it is "not chance" and nothing is happening "consciously". Then how are those genetic mutations occurring? If nothing changes natural selection will have nothing to do. At the very least, neo-Darwinists realize that they have to come up with an explanation for the fact of change. When they use "chance", although a dead-end for science as much as a miracle is, it is at least an explanation and one can attempt a mathematical refutation of it.




> But they don't describe the same reality, nearly everything between the three monotheisms are different outside of the one god. Pagan religions are much different still, and there is no consistent description of god, my question is why. Of course the universe exists for us to talk on it, or we wouldn't be talking on it.


When I say they "describe the same reality", I am simply saying that we all have to make sense out of reality, whatever it is. I am not saying that the various descriptions of reality are consistent between themselves.




> From my own perspective: it's just a place subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, the big bang created space/time, and the universe is not good because it is not evil - good and evil do not exist.


I see the big bang as evidence that the universe might be better seen as an organism than a machine. 

The non-existence of values does seem problematic especially when I hear an atheist say that. Consider the atheistic Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the subject of the movie, _The Killing Fields_. Can atheists make value judgments about that historical event? Nagel addressed the issue of values as well. It is, however, a part of his book that I least understood.

----------


## YesNo

> What I mean is that Allah is a sign with no signified without us . Men is the signifier, and the whole process of signification depends on us . Otherwise there is no "meaning" for having a God . That's why He is pissed off if we reject Him . Why should He even bother? 
> Allah said that He created men " to worship Him " . This is the only reason for our existence .


That makes sense. If we fail, given our free will, to live up to the only reason for our existence, I can see why Allah would be pissed off. I can't think or any other, or any better, reason for our existence than worship. Everything else passes away.

I was looking further at the links that Melanie's link lead me to. There was an artcile by Tara Maclsaac featuring ideas by Bruce Lipton on how our thoughts control our DNA. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/5231...dna-biologist/ I wonder how rejecting God affects our DNA.

----------


## Poetaster

> Regarding the word "certainly", it appears Nagel would take the opposite view. Part of the subtitle of _Mind and Cosmos_ reads "the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False".
> 
> Nagel backs that up by noting that experts such as Behe as well as Francis Crick consider the origin of life to have occurred by chance to be improbable. Crick considered this so improbable that having aliens seed earth with life was worth considering. (_Mind and Cosmos_, page 123)
> 
> Then Nagel pursues, for the majority of the book, an explanation _why_ neo-Darwinism is almost certainly false from the perspective of the philosophy of mind, an area in which he is an expert. The issue hinges around consciousness and whether it can be reduced to physics and chemistry. He claims it cannot.


Well, I'd be interested to know why he thinks consciousness cannot be reduced to the laws of nature, but I'm totally unfamiliar with both his work and reputation so I'll leave this here. 




> That's where the big bang comes in, and other estimates of how long life has been around on earth. _We don't have an infinite amount of time._ If the universe were eternal, you might have an argument. The problem is that science has shown that the universe is not eternal and it has given a close estimate of its "birth", "creation" or beginning.


I don't understand why you think there hasn't been enough time to pass for evolution to evolve to produce complex organisms. The big bang, in terms of evolution for life on earth, is utterly irreverent too. I can't say I know what the time passage is exactly, but the Big Bang happened billions of years before the Earth was even formed. Suns had to die to produce the higher elements that make us up like the Iron that's in our bodies. 

The Earth itself is about 6 billion years old, the first cell is thought to have developed via Abiogenesis 4 billion years ago. That is two billion years for Abiogenesis to work and for the first very primitive life to develop, then 4 billion for that life to develop. That includes a long period of time when the earth was completely uninhabitable. That's not bad going for the development of life, really. More later.




> In spite of that you say it is "not chance" and nothing is happening "consciously". Then how are those genetic mutations occurring? If nothing changes natural selection will have nothing to do. At the very least, neo-Darwinists realize that they have to come up with an explanation for the fact of change. When they use "chance", although a dead-end for science as much as a miracle is, it is at least an explanation and one can attempt a mathematical refutation of it.


How are mutations occuring: The development of sexual reproduction is the best thing to happen to life because it lead to dramatic variation for every generation. Asexual, cellar reproduction means mutations are much slower, but still not impossible - resulting either from atmospheric reproduction, or minor changes not being carried over in the act of reproduction - in the same way that computer code isn't always exact, although with computers it's much rarer as that's pure maths. Remember the e-coli. Sexual reproduction, though, 'mutation' begins to be the wrong word, because it's essentially differences in genetic lines. I'm assuming you are not an exact clone of your father, that he wasn't an exact clone of his father and so on. Well, the mixing of genes creates interesting differences between father and son. I am taller than my father, that's an example of 'mutation'. These changes, call them micro-changes, over the accumulation of thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of years, all add up to a macro-change, and morphological change. Thus it's no longer the same species. 

It's barely a miracle mutations occur, it's just simple biology. 




> When I say they "describe the same reality", I am simply saying that we all have to make sense out of reality, whatever it is. I am not saying that the various descriptions of reality are consistent between themselves.


Ah, I get you. But still, my question stands, why are the descriptions of God not consistent? Even among the monotheisms, when it's the same god. 




> I see the big bang as evidence that the universe might be better seen as an organism than a machine.


I suppose in a poetic sense that makes sense, but in pretty much every other respect that just doesn't make sense to me. How? 




> The non-existence of values does seem problematic especially when I hear an atheist say that. Consider the atheistic Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the subject of the movie, _The Killing Fields_. Can atheists make value judgments about that historical event? Nagel addressed the issue of values as well. It is, however, a part of his book that I least understood.


Again, there isn't one philosophic field around atheism, so I can only tell you from my perspective. And I'm an existentialist. 

Anyway, an atheist can make value judgments about historical events because they have morals just like a religious person. They just don't tend to believe in a universal, fixed morality. For an existentialist like myself there is no good and evil, and what you consider good and what you consider evil is entirely subjective. Yes, something like the Cambodia killing fields isn't pleasant, but that's only speaking from a subjective, human feeling. And morals change depending on the situation and different cultures. Is it right for some gang banger to murder someone from another gang? No, but is it right for some GI to shoot a terrorist, yes - given your subjective perspective. Was it right for the Ancient Greeks to kill their children in sacrifice to the gods? They thought it was helping, who are we to really judge? 

I don't find the idea of polygamy offensive or immoral, though I consciously have decided it's not for me, yet others do. I find bigotry offensive, others do not. Morals are entirely subjective from what I can see, I mean, the planet's not going to miss us when we are done ****ing things up and killing each other. Just because I can feel morality affecting me, like I can feel love and hate, happiness and misery just like anyone else, does not mean that I think it comes from anywhere other than my own brain and psychological make up.

----------


## Ecurb

> The development of sexual reproduction is the best thing to happen to life ....


I like sex as much as the next person -- but what about ice hockey?




> .....because it lead(s) to dramatic variation for every generation.


Variety may be the spice of life, but is this really the best thing about sexual reproduction?

(Actually, I know what you mean -- genetic diversity, upon which natural selection can act, is the inevitable result of sexual reproduction, even if there are NO mutations. Nonetheless, it's a complicated issue. Some eusocial insects, for example, practice haplodiploidy. The males do not have a father; they hatch from unfertilized eggs. There may be selective advantages to this, just as there are to diploid reproduction.)

----------


## The Atheist

> ... experts such as Behe ...


You just keep those zingers coming!

Michael Behe. 

Wow. He's not even a good liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...over_testimony

----------


## The Atheist

> Allah said that He created men " to worship Him " . This is the only reason for our existence .


Gotta say I find it incredibly sad that anyone would want to believe something so vain and shallow.

What you're saying is that your god is a small boy with an ant-farm. That boy is every bit their god, and they exist solely for his amusement.

I guess it's pretty boring when you're god, and creating the odd universe and life form for your own enjoyment is all very well, but it sounds awful to me.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> Gotta say I find it incredibly sad that anyone would want to believe something so vain and shallow.
> 
> What you're saying is that your god is a small boy with an ant-farm. That boy is every bit their god, and they exist solely for his amusement.
> 
> I guess it's pretty boring when you're god, and creating the odd universe and life form for your own enjoyment is all very well, but it sounds awful to me.


 Hi  :Smile: 
You are completely right if that was the whole story . But the story has other " episodes " 

At the beginning the boy created one ant in his image, and He put it next to Him at home and the ant was eternal , in perfect happiness, and not even looking for her own food . Then when the ant sinned, He sent her to the animal-farm to punish her for being ungrateful to Him . But this is only temporal, because she will be again in His company and in her original condition . 
-- The End

----------


## YesNo

> You just keep those zingers coming!
> 
> Michael Behe. 
> 
> Wow. He's not even a good liar.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael...over_testimony


I'm glad you liked them. 

According to Nagel, Francis Crick basically said the same about the likelihood of chance getting life to work on earth. In Crick's case he preferred aliens as an explanation over intelligent design. The obvious next question is: where did those aliens come from? Here's something on "panspermia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.

----------


## Poetaster

> I like sex as much as the next person -- but what about ice hockey?
> 
> 
> 
> Variety may be the spice of life, but is this really the best thing about sexual reproduction?
> 
> (Actually, I know what you mean -- genetic diversity, upon which natural selection can act, is the inevitable result of sexual reproduction, even if there are NO mutations. Nonetheless, it's a complicated issue. Some eusocial insects, for example, practice haplodiploidy. The males do not have a father; they hatch from unfertilized eggs. There may be selective advantages to this, just as there are to diploid reproduction.)


Yeah, I'm speaking in general, naturalistic terms. Sex is great. :P

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I'm glad you liked them. 
> 
> According to Nagel, Francis Crick basically said the same about the likelihood of chance getting life to work on earth. In Crick's case he preferred aliens as an explanation over intelligent design. The obvious next question is: where did those aliens come from? Here's something on "panspermia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
> 
> Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.


This is one of those statements that makes me want to bash my head in with a hammer. :Smile: 

Guess what, the fact that you are able to type that above mentioned comment means what?.. YOU-ARE-ALIVE! Which means no matter how improbable life is, it is in fact probable enough! There is no evidence that stands up to any reasonable scrutiny that either a God exists to create life, nor that aliens came here to "seed" life on Earth. We are improbable, not impossible.

----------


## Calidore

> Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.


People keep using "highly improbable" as a synonym for "impossible", but it isn't. Like Sherlock Holmes said in _The Sign of the Four_: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm not making a point in this argument regarding what's impossible or not, just pointing out the distinction. 

I do think that "panspermia" is one of the greatest words I've ever heard.

----------


## The Atheist

> Hi 
> You are completely right if that was the whole story . But the story has other " episodes " 
> 
> At the beginning the boy created one ant in his image, and He put it next to Him at home and the ant was eternal , in perfect happiness, and not even looking for her own food . Then when the ant sinned, He sent her to the animal-farm to punish her for being ungrateful to Him .


Do you ever wonder what kind of twisted entity would create the perfect conditions for his ants to sin against him? After all, he created the serpent as well.

I always wonder why religious people think god tempting humans, then punishing them somehow makes it better.

Not to mention the billions he's tortured since.

The boy with the ant-farm would have had his ants taken away by the RSPCA if he withheld food and water from them and allowed diseases to run unchecked that could be cured.

I do appreciate the irony, though.





> But this is only temporal, because she will be again in His company and in her original condition . 
> -- The End


Gotcha.

----------


## The Atheist

> I'm glad you liked them. 
> 
> According to Nagel, Francis Crick basically said the same about the likelihood of chance getting life to work on earth. In Crick's case he preferred aliens as an explanation over intelligent design.


I prefer panspermia to ID as well, although I still rate it an infinitesimal chance against the likelihood of abiogenesis.

Not to mention that Crick regretted that single comment and later took quite a different stance, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story:

http://thelessonlocker.com/materials...biogenesis.pdf



The obvious next question is: where did those aliens come from? Here's something on "panspermia": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

Why does one need ideas like panspermia? Because the idea that life could have started by chance in the given time frame is highly improbable.[/QUOTE]

----------


## YesNo

> I prefer panspermia to ID as well, although I still rate it an infinitesimal chance against the likelihood of abiogenesis.
> 
> Not to mention that Crick regretted that single comment and later took quite a different stance, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story:
> 
> .


I think Dawkins said something similarly ridiculous about aliens as well when interviewed by Ben Stein. The point is if the models show that chance could not be the cause continuing to claim that chance is the cause is irrational.

----------


## YesNo

> People keep using "highly improbable" as a synonym for "impossible", but it isn't. Like Sherlock Holmes said in _The Sign of the Four_: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm not making a point in this argument regarding what's impossible or not, just pointing out the distinction. 
> 
> I do think that "panspermia" is one of the greatest words I've ever heard.


Given materialistic neo-Darwinism, chance seems like the only alternative. When chance has to be rejected because it fails mathematical tests of likelihood one has to reexamine the assumptions why one needs chance in the first place, which means questioning neo-Darwinism. That's what falsification of theories is all about.

----------


## YesNo

> This is one of those statements that makes me want to bash my head in with a hammer.
> 
> Guess what, the fact that you are able to type that above mentioned comment means what?.. YOU-ARE-ALIVE! Which means no matter how improbable life is, it is in fact probable enough! There is no evidence that stands up to any reasonable scrutiny that either a God exists to create life, nor that aliens came here to "seed" life on Earth. We are improbable, not impossible.


Given a theistic perspective life is not improbable at all. It is only given certain metaphysical beliefs that it is improbable. The existence of life is then evidence those metaphysical beliefs are false.

----------


## YesNo

> Unless you want to say God directly intervened in the Lenski experiment and gave the e-coli the ability to use starch as a food source, and every mutation is a result of artificial selection and not natural selection,.


The Lenski experiment is valuable. It provides data on when mutations occur. If expermiental evidence exists for an adaptive mutation process, that is one involving the species controling at some level what mutations are tried given a stressful environment, then chance is also discredited. The intentionality of the species replaces chance. I think this is something Nagel would welcome. It does not involve God, but involves the consciousness of the species under stres.

----------


## Melanie

> If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.


You don't seem to understand what you're reading in the Bible (or you haven't read the Bible) and you are taking scripture out of context. Do you find your info on atheist websites instead of the Bible? If you read the Bible you would see the truth in context:

"Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists...as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist…not so

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!). Also that "he may not divorce her all his days"...and is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.

But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says…

...Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist."

http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteron...ry-rapist.html

----------


## Melanie

> If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
> It is clear that God doesn't give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans "property".


"...the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape" (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).
http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteron...ry-rapist.html

----------


## Oedipus

What YesNo needs to understand (and this is not an insult; it is quite common and natural to initially misunderstand probabilities) is that simply because something is improbable doesn't mean it cannot occur and one should start looking for alternates. If the evidence supports something improbable, it just means that something improbable happened; and many improbable things happen every day. It is improbable, just looking at the odds, for a single pipe in a single house to burst on a single day: but we still have plumbers. In the same way, we know that the conditions for abiogenesis were present on Earth at its formation. For it to occur at any one moment is improbable; but the timespan and the number of proteins it is not so surprising. 

Saying that abiogenesis is "impossible" because of the odds (impossible because improbable seems to be the basis of the argument), so God must have done it, is the same as someone winning the lotto and becoming convinced that it was an act of God, because it was so unlikely.

As for Nagel, here are some quotes from a review from two people, one of which was a philosopher himself; they have understood the book better than YesNo because they were not affected by confirmation bias and hence are aware that it is flawed on many levels.



the thesis Nagel opposes is what we will call naturalism, the view that features of our worldincluding consciousness, intentionality, meaning, purpose, thought, and valuecan ultimately be accounted for in terms of the natural processes described by the various sciences (whether or not they are ever reduced to physics). Nagels arguments here are aimed at a more substantial target, although he gives us few specifics about the kind of naturalism he opposes. He does characterize it as the attempt to explain everything at the most basic level by the physical sciences, extended to include biology, and the one named proponent of this view is the philosopher Daniel Dennett. Although Dennett would not characterize his project as trying to explain everything at the most basic level, he does aim to show that phenomena such as consciousness, purpose and thought find a natural home in a picture of human beings inspired by Darwin. In the absence of any clearer statement of the argument, we will assume that this is the so-called neo-Darwinian picture that Nagel opposes.

Defending such a sweeping claim might seem to require a detailed engagement with the relevant science, yet in a striking admission early on, Nagel reveals that his book is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. And a recurring objection to what he learned from his laymans reading of popular science writing is that much science flies in the face of common sense, that it is inconsistent with evident facts about ourselves, that it require[s] us to deny the obvious, and so on. This style of argument does not, alas, have a promising history.



Happily, Nagel does not attempt to repudiate the Copernican revolution in astronomy, despite its hostility to common sense. But he displays none of the same humility when it comes to his preferred claims of common sensethe kind of humility that nearly 400 years of nonevident yet true scientific discoveries should engender. Are we really supposed to abandon a massively successful scientific research program because Nagel finds some scientific claims hard to square with what he thinks is obvious and undeniable, such as his confidence that his clearest moralreasonings are objectively valid?

In support of his skepticism, Nagel writes: The world is an astonishing place, and the idea that we have in our possession the basic tools needed to understand it is no more credible now than it was in Aristotles day. This seems to us perhaps the most startling sentence in all of Mind and Cosmos. Epistemic humilitythe recognition that we could be wrongis a virtue in science as it is in daily life, but surely we have some reason for thinking, some four centuries after the start of the scientific revolution, that Aristotle was on the wrong track and that we are not, or at least not yet. Our reasons for thinking this are obvious and uncontroversial: mechanistic explanations and an abandonment of supernatural causality proved enormously fruitful in expanding our ability to predict and control the world around us. The fruits of the scientific revolution, though at odds with common sense, allow us to send probes to Mars and to understand why washing our hands prevents the spread of disease. We may, of course, be wrong in having abandoned teleology and the supernatural as our primary tools for understanding and explaining the natural world, but the fact that common sense conflicts with a laymans reading of popular science writing is not a good reason for thinking so.

Philosophical naturalists often appeal to the metaphor of Neuraths Boat, named after the philosopher who developed it. Our situation as inquirers trying to understand the world around us, according to Neurath, is like that of sailors who must rebuild their ship while at sea. These sailors do not have the option of abandoning the ship and rebuilding a new one from scratch. They must, instead, try to rebuild it piecemeal, all the time staying afloat on other parts of the ship on which they continue to depend. In epistemological terms, we are also at sea: we cannot abandon all the knowledge about the world we have acquired from the sciences and then ask what we really know or what is really rational. The sciences that have worked so well for us are precisely our benchmark for what we know and what is rational; theyre the things that are keeping us afloat. Extending this metaphor, we can say that Nagel is the sailor who says, I know the ideal form a ship should takeit is intuitively obvious, I am confident in itso let us jump into the ocean and start building it from scratch.

We conclude with a comment about truth in advertising. Nagels arguments against reductionism are quixotic, and his arguments against naturalism are unconvincing. He aspires to develop rival alternative conceptions to what he calls the materialist neo-Darwinian worldview, yet he never clearly articulates this rival conception, nor does he give us any reason to think that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two. Mind and Cosmos is certainly an apt title for Nagels philosophical meditations, but his subtitleWhy the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly Falseis highly misleading. Nagel, by his own admission, relies only on popular science writing and brings to bear idiosyncratic and often outdated views about a whole host of issues, from the objectivity of moral truth to the nature of explanation. No one could possibly think he has shown that a massively successful scientific research program like the one inspired by Darwins theory of evolution by natural selection is almost certainly false. The subtitle seems intended to market the book to evolution deniers, intelligent-design acolytes, religious fanatics and others who are not really interested in the substantive scientific and philosophical issues. Even a philosopher sympathetic to Nagels worries about the naturalistic worldview would not claim this volume comes close to living up to that subtitle. Its only effect will be to make the book an instrument of mischief.

----------


## cacian

> People keep using "highly improbable" as a synonym for "impossible", but it isn't. Like Sherlock Holmes said in _The Sign of the Four_: "*When you have eliminated the impossible,* whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm not making a point in this argument regarding what's impossible or not, just pointing out the distinction. 
> 
> I do think that "panspermia" is one of the greatest words I've ever heard.


how does one eliminate the impossible?
and the other thing is why eliminate when one can turn into possible??
it is not about eliminating it is about changes that move one forward.
eliminating means extinction which means no remains of anything.
i don't agree with sherlock.

----------


## Oedipus

Cacien, I don't quite follow. One eliminates the impossible by determining that it is in fact impossible. There is no "extinction", because obviously if it was impossible it would only have existed as a concept in the first place. Eliminating the impossible is a step forward because it always us to go past the impossible and focus on the possible, leading us to the correct answer.

----------


## cacian

> Cacien, I don't quite follow. One eliminates the impossible by determining that it is in fact impossible. There is no "extinction", because obviously if it was impossible it would only have existed as a concept in the first place. Eliminating the impossible is a step forward because it always us to go past the impossible and focus on the possible, leading us to the correct answer.


what is the impossible?
let's define it.
to me if i say something is impossible it means it is not doable. it is not approachable.
in effect an impossible means it is not something one can touch feel or even imagine.
so in something impossible is something that is not there.

----------


## Oedipus

Alright.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> You don't seem to understand what you're reading in the Bible (or you haven't read the Bible) and you are taking scripture out of context. Do you find your info on atheist websites instead of the Bible? If you read the Bible you would see the truth in context:
> 
> But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.
> 
> The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says



First, I was a Born Again Christian long before becoming Agnostic, then an Atheist... so, both as a child and well into my adult years I read the Bible, attended a private Christian school as a child, and of course went to church on Sundays. I do not visit "atheist websites", nor do I need such sites to offer an opinion.

Just got to laugh at this quote of yours...
_"But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband."_

Really?.. a daughter is little more than a goat or a piece of property as she is exchanged from Father to Husband.

----------


## caddy_caddy

[QUOTE=The Atheist;1265604]Do you ever wonder what kind of twisted entity would create the perfect conditions for his ants to sin against him? After all, he created the serpent as well.


[QUOTE=The Atheist;1265604]Do you ever wonder what kind of twisted entity would create the perfect conditions for his ants to sin against him? After all, he created the serpent as well.


 I have always been impressed by your great mind and rationality . These words cant be yours!!
This is a rhetorical question . For sure whoever does such stupid thing is twisted. 
we simply sin , because only those who are " perfect " doesn't sin . And don't tell me He should have created another " PERFECT " entity to worship him . That would be another stupid thing because the perfect can't worship his equal.

I always wonder why religious people think god tempting humans, then punishing them somehow makes it better.

 Satan is the one who tempts men. Religious people never think like this.

Not to mention the billions he's tortured since.

IC . Men tortures men. Allah is throwing bombs and rockets on men? !! See now who is blaming Allah on everything!!

The boy with the ant-farm would have had his ants taken away by the RSPCA if he withheld food and water from them and allowed diseases to run unchecked that could be cured.

One of His rules " First, We change ourselves from within" Then He changes the rest. Everything begins in our hearts and ends there. 

I do appreciate the irony, though.

----------


## Frostball

Satan tempts men? Well as long as god is all powerful and all knowing, every single thing satan supposedly does is something god must want to happen, otherwise he would stop it. God either doesn't want to stop satan, or can't. So blaming bad things on satan doesn't fix anything. Also, it isn't just humans hurting humans (the free will solution to the argument of evil), but cancer, aids, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., that have nothing to do with free will. Those are pretty much in god's court. (if he existed.. which he luckily probably doesn't)

----------


## Frostball

> Really?.. a daughter is little more than a goat or a piece of property as she is exchanged from Father to Husband.


Really! I love when people say the bible isn't that bad, and that you've got it wrong, and then proceed to describe something that is STILL bad as if it's good. The whole thing with rape in the bible is that it's a crime against the father, or the husband of the woman. No crime is committed to the woman--she's property. Husbands won't want a raped wife, so they aren't worth as much to fathers. The father won't be able to find a husband for his daughter, so that's why he must give it to the rapist since nobody else would want her, and he at least gets 50 shekels of silver for the offense of his daughter having been raped. It's essentially property damage.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Really! I love when people say the bible isn't that bad, and that you've got it wrong, and then proceed to describe something that is STILL bad as if it's good. The whole thing with rape in the bible is that it's a crime against the father, or the husband of the woman. No crime is committed to the woman--she's property. Husbands won't want a raped wife, so they aren't worth as much to fathers. The father won't be able to find a husband for his daughter, so that's why he must give it to the rapist since nobody else would want her, and he at least gets 50 shekels of silver for the offense of his daughter having been raped. It's essentially property damage.



Exactly.
And when you ask religious folks to square what they read in the Bible with modern attitudes toward women, they cry "but that was the Old Testament!". To that my answer is... it's the same God in both Old and New Testaments; a timeless God of wisdom and love wouldn't count half of humanity as property of the other half.

----------


## Melanie

> Just got to laugh at this quote of yours...
> _"But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband."_
> Really?.. a daughter is little more than a goat or a piece of property as she is exchanged from Father to Husband.


I appreciate your opinions based on your knowledge of the Bible. You did take scripture out of context though…but thank you for the opportunity to clarify for others what the true meaning was. I'm not sure why you found this particular quote funny considering it happened centuries ago…a time when father's and husband's were head of their households, pre-women's lib! Keeping everything in context is key.

----------


## Melanie

Frostball, apparently you didn't read posts #143 and #144….nor #155...or you would see clearly what the Bible is saying about rape and "property"

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I appreciate your opinions based on your knowledge of the Bible. You did take scripture out of context though…but thank you for the opportunity to clarify for others what the true meaning was. I'm not sure why you found this particular quote funny considering it happened centuries ago…a time when father's and husband's were head of their households, pre-women's lib! Keeping everything in context is key.


But a God has no such necessity to put things in proper context.

----------


## Frostball

> Frostball, apparently you didn't read posts #143 and #144….nor #155...or you would see clearly what the Bible is saying about rape and "property"


The verses in #143 are exactly what I'm talking about. What they say is indeed backwards, cruel, and misogynist. In both of them the woman's desires are never even mentioned. Any law that could force a woman to marry her rapist against her will is clearly cruel. This isn't anything unexpected in an ancient bronze age culture, but it's not something you would expect from a good god. So I do think that the verses are evidence that the bible is just like any other ancient religious text--that is, not divinely inspired.

----------


## Melanie

God is not responsible for man's choices. He created man to have choices because otherwise we'd be robots. And along with man's choices come natural consequences. The ultimate choice is for us to choose to love God or not love Him. Robots can't do that. Life is all about love. Our choices affect whether we give love and whether we receive love.

----------


## Pumpkin337

I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> God is not responsible for man's choices. He created man to have choices because otherwise we'd be robots. And along with man's choices come natural consequences. The ultimate choice is for us to choose to love God or not love Him. Robots can't do that. Life is all about love. Our choices affect whether we give love and whether we receive love.


“Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.” - Christopher Hitchens

Melanie, in respects to God we are either cats or dogs. :Smile:

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.


I think it's probably two reasons; feelings of doubt, and having so much of their life invested in this belief in God, they can't imagine a world without it. God gives them purpose, makes the universe and their place in it seem... meaningful.

----------


## tailor STATELY

Why do we need God ? 

A spurious question at best; one best suited for baiting.




> Originally Posted by Pumpkin337 
> I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.
> I think it's probably two reasons; feelings of doubt, and having so much of their life invested in this belief in God, they can't imagine a world without it. God gives them purpose, makes the universe and their place in it seem... meaningful.


Faith bashing is as disrespectful as disrespecting anything else.

For those of the Christian faith, we know that Jesus has fulfilled the law of Moses; it is His law that is in effect today. 

I am LDS. God is. We are his spirit children and He has a glorious plan for us. He has given us a Savior who has overcome death and atoned for all the hurts, cares and sins of all creation; and much more.

I know God lives and that Jesus is the Christ foretold in the Old Testament and chronicled in the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. I know that those without the benefit of a spiritual understanding can know these truths if they truly desire to. 

Those who desire no spiritual understanding should be respectful of those who have these divine gifts.

Ta ! _(short for tarradiddle)_,
tailor STATELY

----------


## cacian

> I'm curious as to why none of the other religions that believe in a god or gods comes and defends these questions.


there is nothing to defend surely.
god is an imposition not a defence. god demands people to believe not defend him/her.

----------


## mona amon

> Exactly.
> And when you ask religious folks to square what they read in the Bible with modern attitudes toward women, they cry "but that was the Old Testament!". To that my answer is... it's the same God in both Old and New Testaments; a timeless God of wisdom and love wouldn't count half of humanity as property of the other half.


 As Christians we are not bound to follow the Old Testament. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21, _"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!_ or again in chapter 5:4-6, _"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."_

As for God being "the same God, a timeless God of wisdom and love", that may very well be, but man's perception and knowledge of Him does change. As a Christian I only have to bother about the teachings of Christ. _"Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well."_ - John 14:6-7.

----------


## Pumpkin337

I think you all missed my point. These discussions always devolve into Bible / Christianity bashing with a few foolhardy souls who inexplicably feel the need to defend either or both. The question is seldom directed at any other faith, nor do they end up defending their scriptures / beliefs. This strikes me as beyond biased. 

So why aren't any of the many other people attempting to weigh in on why humanity needs a god?

I admit to not having read more than the last few pages ... so perhaps the most obvious answer has already been stated ... because the best we can come up with on our own is either that we are gods ... pah LOL yeah right ... or a kind of moral relativism in which everything is ok provided you can find something worse to compare your actions to and given the muliticiplity of evil things humans have proven themselves capable of (see why we can not be gods ourselves?) this just means that all actions, no matter how evil, are OK. We need the absolute black and white of good and evil as given by something outside ourselves to have a standard of behaviour to adhere to so that we do not do our worst. Not that this has stopped us, but it is why we need it.

----------


## Frostball

> Why do we need God ? 
> 
> A spurious question at best; one best suited for baiting.
> 
> Faith bashing is as disrespectful as disrespecting anything else.
> 
> For those of the Christian faith, we know that Jesus has fulfilled the law of Moses; it is His law that is in effect today. 
> 
> I am LDS. God is. We are his spirit children and He has a glorious plan for us. He has given us a Savior who has overcome death and atoned for all the hurts, cares and sins of all creation; and much more.
> ...


I don't think anybody here is bashing Christians. I think people are just expressing their opinions on god, religion, and christianity. It must be ok to criticize religion. What isn't fine is if somebody were to bash religious people on a personal level, and I don't personally think anybody has stooped that low in this thread. Think of it like criticizing somebody's political affiliation. Then you might see what I mean when I say that it _must_ be ok to criticize a political party, but that doesn't mean you're meaning any insult toward people who affiliate with that party. The person in that party might feel hurt or offended anyway that something they believe in deeply is being criticized, but that's not really anybody's problem but theirs.

As far as your assertions that "god is" and the rest. Assertions are easy to make. Nobody needs to respect religious people any more or less than anybody else. I respect you, and others, simply for being fellow humans. In my opinion a holy person deserves no more respect than every other human. This goes for world leaders, politicians, and movie stars, too; we're all equally deserving of respect.

----------


## Frostball

> As Christians we are not bound to follow the Old Testament. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21, _"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”_ or again in chapter 5:4-6, _"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."_
> 
> As for God being "the same God, a timeless God of wisdom and love", that may very well be, but man's perception and knowledge of Him does change. As a Christian I only have to bother about the teachings of Christ. _"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well."_ - John 14:6-7.


Jesus also said, in Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." 

And just a bit later in Mathew 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Regardless, the real point for me is that Jesus himself embraced the old testament, and he spoke of moses and Isaac as real people. So according to Jesus the old testament was real. Now deciding to forsake the old testament and just follow Jesus is well and good. I am very glad that almost everybody has chosen to stop following those silly laws in the old testament, because they're mostly crap laws. 

But the fact is that according to Jesus it's the same god back then as now, so my question to christians is: Why would you _want_ to follow a god that made such cruel and idiotic laws? What kind of god is this? Yes, you can say "oh, it's better now" but doesn't this tell a lot about god's character? Doesn't it make you dislike him.. at least a little? What, he's god, so you just _can't_ dislike him? Because.. like.. heaven and stuff? The fact is that the god as described in the bible advocated slavery, genocide, child abuse, child murder, women marrying rapists, etc.. And the best people say is that that was back then, and we don't have to worry about it now. Sure we're fine, but what about those people back then? Is it ever ok for a man to own another man? Is it ever ok to force a woman to marry her rapist? I personally don't think so.

I see these things as reason to believe that the bible is a religious text like any of the countless others on this earth, and so it isn't surprising to find this kind of stuff. But even if I'm wrong, and the bible turns out the be true, and Yahweh is really up there and really did all that stuff, I would definitely not worship him. If he is going to send me to hell just for not worshipping him, then I can't stop him since he's all powerful, but as least my conscience can rest easy with the knowledge that I'm a better person than god.

----------


## Pumpkin337

The problem with defending faith to those without is that, to borrow a phrase, one is generally casting one's pearls before the swine.

----------


## Ecurb

Anthropologist Vincent Crapanzano wrote a book called, "Serving the word: Literalism in America from the Pulpit to the Bench". It offers a literary approach to looking at literalist, fundamentalist principles, comparing the literalism of Fundamentalist Christians to that of their political allies, literalist Supreme Court Justices. From a literary perspective, of course, no single interpretation of a text is definitive. In addition (as has been pointed out in this thread) it is ridiculous to ignore changing mores: nobody, not even strict biblical or Constitutional constructionists, accepts slavery as morally permissible any more. 

It's been a while since I read the book, but (among other things) Crapanzano shows how Fundamentalist Christians often revere their physical Bible -- a little like some book lovers here at Litnet enjoy collecting and cherishing physical copies of their favorite books. Crapanzano's own point of view is that there cannot be one, literal interpretation of any text: context and changing mores change the way we relate to the text.

One legal example I remember from the book: an Alabama law mandated a long sentence for anyone using a machine gun in the commission of a felony. A drug dealer had been sentenced to 20 years (or whatever it was) based on this mandated sentence. The facts of the case were that the drug dealer had accepted machine guns as payment for drugs. The question before the court was: does this constitute "using" an automatic weapon during the commission of a felony. I remember Scalia wondering whether if a drug dealer scratched his head with a machine gun while driving to consummate a drug dealer, that would constitute "use" under the letter of the law.

Revering texts and those who write the texts is commonplace here at Litnet. Perhaps we can see some similarities (as well as differences) between the ways in which we revere texts, and the ways in which literalist Christians and legal scholars revere them.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> As Christians we are not bound to follow the Old Testament. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21, _"I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”_ or again in chapter 5:4-6, _"You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love."_
> 
> As for God being "the same God, a timeless God of wisdom and love", that may very well be, but man's perception and knowledge of Him does change. As a Christian I only have to bother about the teachings of Christ. _"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well."_ - John 14:6-7.


Speaking purely from my own perspective, and that way in which I began to question my religious beliefs as I entered adulthood; I could no longer ignore that most of what appears in the Old Testament could not have possibly happened, nor could I consider it a sort of mythology about God. What it turns out to be is a mishmash of stories and myths borrowed from more ancient mediterranean cultures, and repackaged to be the acts of the One True God by a single tribe of people.
I think anytime you can discount half a book as being fantasy, you can certainly conclude the other half as being less than true. And as I ask some Christians... what if Jesus Christ never existed, what if he is a myth?

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> So why aren't any of the many other people attempting to weigh in on why humanity needs a god?


It's part of human evolution. Such notions as Gods and a Supernatural World beyond our own probably go back as far as the first advanced human societies. We are the only creature in the Animal Kingdom with a greater awareness of our own mortality. In short, we are the only animal with imagination, and the ability to harness that imagination.
As a species, I don't think we ever reach science and reason without first imagining a God... but that was then and this is now. Now we have no need of a God or Religion.
A thousand years from now, I very much doubt that Humanity will be struggling with the idea of God.
To keep things in some perspective, it's really been in the last 200 years of human history that science has advanced to the point that we can disprove most religious teachings, certainly Western Religions don't hold up well against the evidence.

----------


## Ecurb

> So why aren't any of the many other people attempting to weigh in on why humanity needs a god?
> 
> .


One reason: humanity doesn't "need" a God. Huge swathes of humanity do not believe in Gods -- billions of people, in fact. Chinese Communists, Japanese Buddhists, Tibetan expatriots and Western Intellectuals all agree -- we do not need Gods. 

In fact, the notion that humanity "needs" God is insulting to the religous -- as if they, unlike us robust and healthy atheists, are psychologically "needy". Like Tiny Tim, they cannot walk without their crutches.

We should, perhaps, distinguish between a "need" and an inchoate longing, a longing for the past, and for the future. We seek ourselves, as Wordsworth suggests ("Ode: Intimmations of Immortality from Reflections on Early Childhood")





> . 
> ..... Thanks to the human heart by which we live, 205 
> Thanks to its tenderness, its joys, and fears, 
> To me the meanest flower that blows can give 
> Thoughts that do often lie too deep for tears.

----------


## YesNo

> What YesNo needs to understand (and this is not an insult; it is quite common and natural to initially misunderstand probabilities) is that simply because something is improbable doesn't mean it cannot occur and one should start looking for alternates. If the evidence supports something improbable, it just means that something improbable happened; and many improbable things happen every day. It is improbable, just looking at the odds, for a single pipe in a single house to burst on a single day: but we still have plumbers. In the same way, we know that the conditions for abiogenesis were present on Earth at its formation. For it to occur at any one moment is improbable; but the timespan and the number of proteins it is not so surprising.


If one can show that an explanation is improbable so much so that one has to reject the null hypothesis that chance could have been the cause that falsifies the claim that chance was the cause. This is not rocket science. There must be something else involved. The solution: stop pushing chance like an ideological drug and find out what that something else is.

It amazes me how "chance" is so quickly turned to in neo-Darwinism. When Einstein and Bohr were debating the problem of indeterminacy (which is often confused with "chance") in quantum physics there was no rush on the part of Einstein to accept the idea. Ultimately indeterminacy won, but not without a fight that lasted decades and not without leaving competing interpretations such as many worlds or Bohm's theory that still tried to remove the indeterminacy. I don't see anything like that in neo-Darwinism.

----------


## The Atheist

> Satan is the one who tempts men. Religious people never think like this


That was my whole point: did the god not create Satan?

My understanding is that the god created everything - the stars, the universe, the air we breathe, light even, and the angels, one of whom became Satan.





> If one can show that an explanation is improbable so much so that one has to reject the null hypothesis that chance could have been the cause that falsifies the claim that chance was the cause.


That is worthy of etching onto stone tablets.

----------


## YesNo

> One reason: humanity doesn't "need" a God. Huge swathes of humanity do not believe in Gods -- billions of people, in fact. Chinese Communists, Japanese Buddhists, Tibetan expatriots and Western Intellectuals all agree -- we do not need Gods. 
> 
> In fact, the notion that humanity "needs" God is insulting to the religous -- as if they, unlike us robust and healthy atheists, are psychologically "needy". Like Tiny Tim, they cannot walk without their crutches.
> 
> We should, perhaps, distinguish between a "need" and an inchoate longing, a longing for the past, and for the future. We seek ourselves, as Wordsworth suggests ("Ode: Intimmations of Immortality from Reflections on Early Childhood")


Regarding the eastern Buddhists, I wonder how many actually don't believe in some sort of consciousness that someone might call a "God". Here is an article, one of the first that popped on the search list, on the Gods and Goddesses of Buddhism: http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia..._and_Goddesses

The point I want to make is that the atheism that westerners perceive to be characteristic of Buddhism seems to me more like marketing material directed toward western intellectuals. In a similar way, yoga, viewed as something that is good for your health, is a way to market Hinduism in the west. 

You become what you think, what you keep repeating to yourself. That goes for both theists and atheists and that ultimately might be the best evidence that theism, in general, is correct--consciousness trumps matter.

Theists will value consciousness to the point of manifesting some form of God to their consciousness that they can relate to. In that sense they need God. The atheist could view this need as a delusion, but then again the atheist could be the one who is deluded. Atheism is just one more story that people keep repeating to themselves. 

The atheists value matter over consciousness and _supposedly_ use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done. Then they have to do the same thing that any other religion has to do when confronted with cognitive dissonance: change their views or rationalize. Rationalization is nothing more than telling themselves another adhoc story to get by.

----------


## Poetaster

> The atheists value matter over consciousness and _supposedly_ use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done. Then they have to do the same thing that any other religion has to do when confronted with cognitive dissonance: change their views or rationalize. Rationalization is nothing more than telling themselves another adhoc story to get by.


How many times does it need to be said: not all atheists are secular and non-religious?

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> The atheists value matter over consciousness and _supposedly_ use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done. Then they have to do the same thing that any other religion has to do when confronted with cognitive dissonance: change their views or rationalize. Rationalization is nothing more than telling themselves another adhoc story to get by.



Atheists do no such thing.
You neither understand the "scientific method", nor have respect for its meaning or applications. 
Let’s make a brief digression to talk about the terminology for a moment. By way of analogy: Voltaire famously remarked that the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. The term "Holy Roman Empire" cannot be taken literally, yet we continue to use it. It is what we call an idiomatic expression. In English, there are hundreds of idiomatic expressions. When an idiomatic expression is taken literally, it crosses the boundary from idiomatic to idiotic.

It is important to realize that "the scientific method" is an idiomatic expression, and must never be taken literally. There is not any cut-and-dried method for doing science, just as there is not any cut-and-dried method for writing a novel. Scientists are quite aware of this. Peter Medawar, for example, has explained why there cannot be any such thing as the scientific method, if you take the term literally. Alas, misconceptions about this are appallingly common among non-scientists and the religiously-minded.

When a religious person is confronted with the unknown or met with evidence that contradicts their belief system, or as you put it "cognitive dissonance" , they will all to often cross that bridge using "faith". An atheist does not have "faith" in science. What we do not know, we simply do not know.

----------


## YesNo

> How many times does it need to be said: not all atheists are secular and non-religious?


You may have to do this a few more times. However, it shouldn't hurt any of us to clarify our various positions. Do you have examples of atheists who are non-secular or religious?

----------


## YesNo

> When a religious person is confronted with the unknown or met with evidence that contradicts their belief system, or as you put it "cognitive dissonance" , they will all to often cross that bridge using "faith". An atheist does not have "faith" in science. What we do not know, we simply do not know.


I don't think atheism provides atheists with any privileged position when it comes to cognitive dissonance or knowledge.

----------


## The Atheist

> Do you have examples of atheists who are non-secular or religious?


Lots: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbu...dhaatheism.htm

----------


## Melanie

> When a religious person is confronted with the unknown or met with evidence that contradicts their belief system, or as you put it "cognitive dissonance" , they will all to often cross that bridge using "faith".


There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible or my faith or belief. Post one piece of your "evidence" please.




> An atheist does not have "faith" in science. What we do not know, we simply do not know.


My faith is based on obvious signs like fulfilled prophecy in perfect accuracy, order of creation, miracles, and specific answers to prayer (whether "yes" or "no" or immediate or in God's perfect timing). Whatever science can't explain, what they "simply do not know", Atheists base their "belief"/"faith" in what they refer to as…random consequences that just happen. The former makes more sense to me.

----------


## YesNo

> Lots: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbu...dhaatheism.htm


That seems to work. It is certainly not materialistic.

----------


## The Atheist

> The atheists value matter over consciousness and _supposedly_ use the scientific method to justify their beliefs, that is, unless the scientific method stops supporting materialism which is what it appears to have done.





> ...Atheists base their "belief"/"faith" in what they refer to asrandom consequences that just happen...


Few things I enjoy more than theists attempting to describe what atheists do.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> There is no evidence that contradicts the Bible or my faith or belief. Post one piece of your "evidence" please.
> 
> 
> My faith is based on obvious signs like fulfilled prophecy in perfect accuracy, order of creation, miracles, and specific answers to prayer (whether "yes" or "no" or immediate or in God's perfect timing). Whatever science can't explain, what they "simply do not know", Atheists base their "belief"/"faith" in what they refer to as…random consequences that just happen. The former makes more sense to me.


You must have this strange idea that I'm trying to convince you to become an atheist.
I could care less what you believe, no matter how utterly absurd those beliefs are. Melanie, there is no God, leastwise not the silly God portrayed in various Judeo-Christian holy books.

Here, conclusive evidence that the Bible was written by Men, not God...
The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:12–13, Eccles. 1:5, 1 Chron. 16:30). Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE.

Let us move on to the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology. For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.

Do you really want me to disprove biblical prophesy?.. because you won't like what I have to say. I can disprove each and every one.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> You must have this strange idea that I'm trying to convince you to become an atheist.
> I could care less what you believe, no matter how utterly absurd those beliefs are. Melanie, there is no God, leastwise not the silly God portrayed in various Judeo-Christian holy books.
> 
> Here, conclusive evidence that the Bible was written by Men, not God...
> The universe, as presented literally in the Bible, consists of a flat earth within a geocentric arrangement of planets and stars (e.g. Joshua 10:1213, Eccles. 1:5, 1 Chron. 16:30). Modern astronomy has provided overwhelming evidence that this model is false. The spherical shape of the earth was established with certainty by Hellenistic astronomers in the 3rd century BCE. The heliocentric nature of the solar system was conclusively established in the 16th century CE.
> 
> Let us move on to the Genesis creation narrative. According to young Earth creationism, which takes a literal view of the book of Genesis, the universe and all forms of life on Earth were created directly by God sometime between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. This assertion is contradicted by radiocarbon dating of fossils, as well as modern understanding of genetics, evolution, and cosmology. For instance, astrophysical evidence suggests that the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. Moreover, it would require an impossibly high rate of mutation to account for the current amount of genetic variation in humans if all humans were descended from two individuals several thousand years ago.
> 
> Do you really want me to disprove biblical prophesy?.. because you won't like what I have to say. I can disprove each and every one.


The problem is that not that you think you can, but that your mind is closed to the possibility that you can't. 

Lets agree - atheism, evolutionary theory, and any other belief system, requires faith, and faith once set in the human mind is usually fairly unshakable .. so you go your way, and the others will go theirs ... each believing theirs to be right and lets try not to start any more wars over our differences ... whether real ones in the real world ... or virtual ones.

----------


## The Atheist

> Lets agree - atheism, evolutionary theory, and any other belief system, requires faith.....


How about we disagree entirely on that?

Atheism requires no faith at all. 

Repeat after me:

A = without
Theos = god

Without god. Being without god requires a lack of faith rather than the alternative.

It's actually quite simple.

----------


## Pumpkin337

Whether or not you believe in something, or in the absence of something it is still a belief system. You BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in... and you have faith that you are right .... this ... astonishingly .... is no less an act of blind faith as any other belief system. Some people believe the world is held up by four elephants standing on the back of a turtle flying through space (no Terry Pratchett did not make that up). You believe an invisible force called 'gravity' holds it up ... this is also just as much faith as faith in flying turtles is. They both require the same volitional act to choose to accept them as true or not.

I say this because both gravity and flying turtles are equally unprovable. Aah you say .. but science .. to which I shall reply ... aah but science is moving toward a new revision of the theory of gravity as there is some evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as gravity .. I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it ... and am too lazy right now to google it ... but go ahead ... look it up ... 

Newton and his apple are proving to be as much a construct of the human imagination as any other belief system is. The fact that you believe the faith system called 'science' is no less a faith system as any other. It is pretty much the same thing you pooh-pooh in every one else. Each person comes to their own explanation of how the universe is put together .... some just sound more creative than others but are no less founded in the same urge to have some comforting explanation for the unknowable, and belief in any of them is all called 'faith'.

You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than some one who believes in one (or several) can prove to you that god(s) do exist. It is all a matter of faith and what you choose to believe or not.

----------


## The Atheist

Predictable response, but you're so wrong it becomes absurd.




> Whether or not you believe in something, or in the absence of something it is still a belief system.


Nice try, but atheists do not generally believe in the absence of god/s. Some do, but a minority only.

Accordingly, your point is just wrong.




> You BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in...


See above - you're saying the same thing in a different way and it's just as wrong.




> and you have faith that you are right .... this ... astonishingly .... is no less an act of blind faith as any other belief system.


This is where the absurdity creeps in.

Belief in being right has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

Remember: a = without, theos = god. Atheist is without god and nothing else.

Do people who do not collect stamps have to have faith in aphilatelism?

No. Ditto atheists.




> I say this because both gravity and flying turtles are equally unprovable. Aah you say .. but science .. to which I shall reply ... aah but science is moving toward a new revision of the theory of gravity as there is some evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as gravity .. I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it ... and am too lazy right now to google it ... but go ahead ... look it up ...


I'm not surprised you're too lazy to post links, because the statement you make is laughably wrong. 




> Newton and his apple are proving to be as much a construct of the human imagination as any other belief system is. The fact that you believe the faith system called 'science' is no less a faith system as any other.


From the ridiculous to the sublime as my old man used to say.

Science has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism. Yes, some atheists are scientific atheists - for want of a better term - but atheism requires no science at all.




> You can't prove God doesn't exist any more than some one who believes in one (or several) can prove to you that god(s) do exist. It is all a matter of faith and what you choose to believe or not.


Atheism doesn't require any proof that gods do not exist.

You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of religious findamentalism that demands certain actions by its members. There are two things wrong with that:

1 There are no rules
2 There are no actions

A = without, theos = god. Without god.

Could not be simpler, but feel free to continue posting what you think atheism is. Probably a good idea to refer to this post as well:







> Few things I enjoy more than theists attempting to describe what atheists do.

----------


## Poetaster

> Few things I enjoy more than theists attempting to describe what atheists do.


Haha, it's fantastic, isn't it? 

Atheism, as The Atheist says, has it's root in Ancient Greek: a-theos. Surely theists do not reject etymology?

----------


## Pumpkin337

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gravity+does+not+exist <- let me help you with that then, I apparently labored under the misapprehension that people were quite capable of Googling for themselves. I should have known better.

----------


## Lokasenna

Oh lord, this thread is priceless. Stumbling in here has made my day.

Just because there are some elements of gravity that we don't quite fully understand (yet), that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! We've categorically disproved the flying space-turtle hypothesis - gravity, we're still working with. But you know what the wonderful thing is about scientists is? Most of them are entirely undogmatic. Take a concept or theory they've believed in all their life and demonstrate, empirically, how it is wrong, they are not going to hold on to their old opinions simply because it's a matteri of faith.

If there is a god (and assuming we can even use such a word), it's the god of Einstein and Spinoza. If there is a god that is anything like the hideous monster that Abraham worshipped, I would be both surprised and horrified.

----------


## YesNo

> Nice try, but atheists do not generally believe in the absence of god/s. Some do, but a minority only.


So what is that supposed to mean?




> You seem to be confusing atheism with some kind of religious findamentalism that demands certain actions by its members. There are two things wrong with that:
> 
> 1 There are no rules
> 2 There are no actions
> 
> A = without, theos = god. Without god.


I see atheism as a religious fundamentalism.

----------


## Poetaster

> I see atheism as a religious fundamentalism.


Atheism isn't a religion. We have already established it is a single philosophical point, so no matter how you see it, if you say this you are wrong by definition.

----------


## Pumpkin337

1. if atheism was not a belief system in which you have invested yourself you wouldn't feel the need to defend it :-) people do not defend things they do not believe in.

2. It always amuses me how heated people get in their response when you point out that they also have a belief structure which orders their universe just like the people they are so fond of disparaging. Faith and belief are an integral part of being human and I fail to see why it bothers people so much. You exercise faith when you sit down without testing if the chair is sound first. You exercise faith everytime you switch on an electrical appliance and expect one of the least understood phenomenona in the universe aka electricity to work. You believe what you are taught about how the universe works and you have faith that it is true. Often, however it is not, even science. 

My example with regard gravity is better than you are allowing because until recently it was assumed gravity was understood - there is neat formula to calculate it, it can be measured and demonstrated etc and everyone not a theoretical phycisist ignored or was unaware of how gravity failed to plug in to both nuclear physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This lack of knowledge and/or questioning did not shake your belief based on high school science lessons that you knew what gravity is and that it is a fixed reality of our world. The fact that it is proving to not be so well understood, does not explain a great many other observable phenonema, and now those scientists willing to throw out 200+ years of scientific 'fact' are discovering we basically know very little.But you and others like you will ignore that and continue to defend your faith in what you believe to be true, unwilling to admit that you are also choosing to buy into a faith/belief system just as much as anyone else is. 

The aaddest thing is that science is so closed minded and arrogant about its belief structures that it is blind to the possibility that there are truths embedded in other faith systems that go a long way to better explaing some of the mysteries in the universe. In what is perhaps the greatest irony of all time quantum phycists have named the unknown force that keeps everything together at a sub-atomic level the 'god particle'. Isn't that just too marvellously ironically amusing for words?

----------


## YesNo

> Whether or not you believe in something, or in the absence of something it is still a belief system. You BELIEVE that there is nothing to believe in... and you have faith that you are right .... this ... astonishingly .... is no less an act of blind faith as any other belief system.


I think the reason that atheists like to claim they don't believe in anything is that they need to construct an ideology that gives them a privileged position on which to claim that their story is better than anyone else's. That privileged position does not exist.




> I say this because both gravity and flying turtles are equally unprovable. Aah you say .. but science .. to which I shall reply ... aah but science is moving toward a new revision of the theory of gravity as there is some evidence to suggest that there is no such thing as gravity .. I can't remember the exact reasoning behind it ... and am too lazy right now to google it ... but go ahead ... look it up ...


I did look up Erik Verlinde's theory that gravity doesn't exist. I don't understand it, but I will have to look at it further.

----------


## Frostball

> So what is that supposed to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> I see atheism as a religious fundamentalism.


What The Atheist is saying is that you can never really pin atheism down as being fundamentalist, or as trying to prove something, because the vast majority of atheists are simply do not believe in god. That isn't saying that they believe there are no gods--that's something different. You see, one is a claim, and one is the rejection of the claim. Theists are the ones coming forward with the claim "A god exists" and atheists are the ones who simply say they are not convinced of that claim. It's up to the theist to prove their claim, the atheist has literally nothing to prove, because they aren't making any single claim.

This might seem unfair, but the thing is atheism isn't a thing, it's the lack of a thing. If you want to go on the offensive against an atheist, you have to find out what they actually DO believe, whether that is materialism, or the scientific method, or subjective morality, or what have you. These are positive beliefs, so they can actually be defended. Nobody does anything in the name of atheism, it's always something else that people act. It may be in the name of secularism, or humanism, or progress, or liberalism, or fascism, or any number of political and philosophical stances. These are the kinds of things that people actually act in the name of, atheism is just a single position.

This is why it's ridiculous to say it takes faith to be an atheist. It's simply absurd to state that it takes faith to _not_ believe in something. It doesn't take faith to not believe in the spaghetti monster, or bigfoot, or loch ness monster. All one must say is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest such things really exist. Likewise, trying to put atheists on the same footing as theists as being "faith based" is equally absurd. Just LOOK at what theists are trying to tell people... That everything was made by magic, in an incredibly short time (10,000 years), that a god sacrificed himself, to himself, to save us from himself. Talking snakes? A whole book full of contradictions with both itself and known science? Ok now let's look an atheist: they say "I don't think a god exists because there I haven't seen enough evidence." There really is such a huge difference between that. Now, in order for the atheist to say something like "I think nothing exists besides matter, and that there is no supernatural" the atheist is stepping outside of what the simple term atheist means. This atheist is taking on materialism, which is a claim that has to be defended (it can be, easily..) but it has nothing to do with atheism inherently. It is compatible with atheism, it is concordant with atheism, and atheists DO often accept materialism, but that does not mean they are in any way inextricably linked.

The atheist/materialist thing is where I think YesNo gets off all the time. When YesNo says "atheist" every time it seems like he or she is really meaning to say "materialist".

Basically ANY time you say that an atheist MUST believe in X, and that X is anything other than "that there isn't enough evidence to believe in a god", you are actually talking about something else besides atheism.

----------


## Poetaster

> 1. if atheism was not a belief system in which you have invested yourself you wouldn't feel the need to defend it :-) people do not defend things they do not believe in.


But atheism isn't a belief system. I am actually a teacher by trade (just qualified) so I care about truth, and if people call atheism a religion or system of belief I have to correct them: they are wrong. 




> 2. It always amuses me how heated people get in their response when you point out that they also have a belief structure which orders their universe just like the people they are so fond of disparaging. Faith and belief are an integral part of being human and I fail to see why it bothers people so much. You exercise faith when you sit down without testing if the chair is sound first. You exercise faith everytime you switch on an electrical appliance and expect one of the least understood phenomenona in the universe aka electricity to work. You believe what you are taught about how the universe works and you have faith that it is true. Often, however it is not, even science.


Nonsense. You do not exercise faith every time you switch an electric light on, you click it on assuming it will work, but it doesn't shatter your faith in electric lights if it doesn't work because of a shorted fuse or something. 




> My example with regard gravity is better than you are allowing because until recently it was assumed gravity was understood - there is neat formula to calculate it, it can be measured and demonstrated etc and everyone not a theoretical phycisist ignored or was unaware of how gravity failed to plug in to both nuclear physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This lack of knowledge and/or questioning did not shake your belief based on high school science lessons that you knew what gravity is and that it is a fixed reality of our world. The fact that it is proving to not be so well understood, does not explain a great many other observable phenonema, and now those scientists willing to throw out 200+ years of scientific 'fact' are discovering we basically know very little.But you and others like you will ignore that and continue to defend your faith in what you believe to be true, unwilling to admit that you are also choosing to buy into a faith/belief system just as much as anyone else is.


More nonsense. People who understand the scientific method know that nothing can really be 'known', and most of what we 'know' could very well be true. There is no fanaticism about the technicalities of gravity, if it works, great, if it doesn't, bummer - try again. 




> The aaddest thing is that science is so closed minded and arrogant about its belief structures that it is blind to the possibility that there are truths embedded in other faith systems that go a long way to better explaing some of the mysteries in the universe. In what is perhaps the greatest irony of all time quantum phycists have named the unknown force that keeps everything together at a sub-atomic level the 'god particle'. Isn't that just too marvellously ironically amusing for words?


If other faiths have mysteries of the universe, why are they not being tested scientifically? What exactly is closed minded about saying 'We don't know something, and so we have to find it out, anything we do not know cannot be trusted, and thus we must assume it doesn't work until we find out it works'? 

I honestly don't understand how anyone can think a process is closed minded or arrogant. It shows me the person saying that doesn't understand what they are talking about.

----------


## YesNo

> Atheism isn't a religion. *We* have already established it is a single philosophical point, so no matter how you see it, if you say this you are wrong by definition.


Who is this "we" you are referring to? As far as having established anything, you have simply stated your opinion. My opinion differs.

I am willing to consider that atheism is not a religion. Perhaps it is only an ideology having all the bad features of a real religion with none of the good ones.

----------


## Poetaster

> Who is this "we" you are referring to? As far as having established anything, you have simply stated your opinion. My opinion differs.
> 
> I am willing to consider that atheism is not a religion. Perhaps it is only an ideology having all the bad features of a real religion with none of the good ones.


I actually meant you and I. You ended up agreeing with me basically too. If you think atheism is an ideology, you must show how atheism is more than what the word literally means, something you have shown time and again you don't know. If you want to claim the kind of New Atheist, Richard Dawkins type of person is following an ideology then you'd be right. An ideology is not a religion, if you don't know that, you don't know anything. 




> I think the reason that atheists like to claim they don't believe in anything is that they need to construct an ideology that gives them a privileged position on which to claim that their story is better than anyone else's. That privileged position does not exist.


What story? As far as I can tell a universal 'atheist' story does not exist. 




> I did look up Erik Verlinde's theory that gravity doesn't exist. I don't understand it, but I will have to look at it further.


Mostly because 'gravity' describes the effect of the curvature of space/time. It's not an invisible hand pulling everything down.

----------


## Frostball

> 1. if atheism was not a belief system in which you have invested yourself you wouldn't feel the need to defend it :-) people do not defend things they do not believe in.
> 
> 2. It always amuses me how heated people get in their response when you point out that they also have a belief structure which orders their universe just like the people they are so fond of disparaging. Faith and belief are an integral part of being human and I fail to see why it bothers people so much. You exercise faith when you sit down without testing if the chair is sound first. You exercise faith everytime you switch on an electrical appliance and expect one of the least understood phenomenona in the universe aka electricity to work. You believe what you are taught about how the universe works and you have faith that it is true. Often, however it is not, even science. 
> 
> My example with regard gravity is better than you are allowing because until recently it was assumed gravity was understood - there is neat formula to calculate it, it can be measured and demonstrated etc and everyone not a theoretical phycisist ignored or was unaware of how gravity failed to plug in to both nuclear physics and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. This lack of knowledge and/or questioning did not shake your belief based on high school science lessons that you knew what gravity is and that it is a fixed reality of our world. The fact that it is proving to not be so well understood, does not explain a great many other observable phenonema, and now those scientists willing to throw out 200+ years of scientific 'fact' are discovering we basically know very little.But you and others like you will ignore that and continue to defend your faith in what you believe to be true, unwilling to admit that you are also choosing to buy into a faith/belief system just as much as anyone else is. 
> 
> The aaddest thing is that science is so closed minded and arrogant about its belief structures that it is blind to the possibility that there are truths embedded in other faith systems that go a long way to better explaing some of the mysteries in the universe. In what is perhaps the greatest irony of all time quantum phycists have named the unknown force that keeps everything together at a sub-atomic level the 'god particle'. Isn't that just too marvellously ironically amusing for words?


Faith is in no way integral to the human experience. Faith is believing things without evidence, and while humans are very prone to doing so, it isn't something we all embrace. The examples you gave were not examples of faith, but example of trust based on evidence. I step on a plane and fly across the country trusting that everything works because I know that planes have been used for years, that they are safer than cars, that the pilots are usually well trained, and that even if they aren't the planes are mostly automated will well designed systems. The main point is just that I know that most planes reach their destination just fine, because that's what the evidence all around me regarding airplanes tells me. Now if it was an article of faith, I would have to have NO information about what planes are, how they work, how often they work, etc.. Then I would just be blindly putting faith in the fact that this thing that I don't understand will take me where I want to go.

You see this is a confusion that is basically the equivocation fallacy. There are multiple definition of faith, and people like to switch the two back and forth. One definition is believing things without evidence. Another is closer to trust or confidence. So while I might have the latter kind of faith, although I prefer not to use the word, I definitely stray away from the former kind of faith.

Oh, the god particle? Come on. That's the Higgs Boson! and no scientists named it the "god particle" that was news media outlets trying to sex it up because most folks don't give a crap about science.

----------


## YesNo

> *I actually meant you and I*. You ended up agreeing with me basically too. If you think atheism is an ideology, you must show how atheism is more than what the word literally means, something you have shown time and again you don't know. If you want to claim the kind of New Atheist, Richard Dawkins type of person is following an ideology then you'd be right. An ideology is not a religion, if you don't know that, you don't know anything.


If you mean you and I then we did not establish anything. I did not end up agreeing with you. 

How do you distinguish yourself from Dawkins?




> What story? As far as I can tell a universal 'atheist' story does not exist.


What are all these posts but the construction of a story trying to justify atheism as you see it? I am not saying that your story is the same as the next story some atheist will come up with. It is still a story. It is still about that word "atheism".

----------


## Frostball

> If you mean you and I then we did not establish anything. I did not end up agreeing with you. 
> 
> How do you distinguish yourself from Dawkins?
> 
> 
> 
> What are all these posts but the construction of a story trying to justify atheism as you see it? I am not saying that your story is the same as the next story some atheist will come up with. It is still a story. It is still about that word "atheism".


You know, I might admit there is something to that. Atheism is just one thing--definitely. But there is a community of atheists, a movement, and people in this movement share a very _very_ general set of beliefs. I might even be overstating it, because atheists tend to be like a herd of cats. But even as a herd of cats, there is a very general way that atheists often tend to be. Certain arguments, certain positions run very common along many atheists. But this is still a far cry from a religion. If there is any consensus among atheists I think it arises from discussions between all of them, and coming to conclusions that certain arguments are better than others, and that certain positions are better than others. But there is certainly no dogma. Anybody who's active in "atheism" has surely met an atheist that disagrees with them on every other issue.

So we have a group that agrees on one thing. This group may also agree on certain other commonly held things, such as a belief in the efficacy of science, or in materialism, or skepticism. This is what the movement of atheism has. Such things does not a religion make. I also wouldn't call it a "story". There is, however, a scientific story of the universe that a lot of atheist ascribe to. But that isn't an atheistic story, again, it's the scientific one. And it is consistent with atheism, but not required or linked to it.

----------


## Poetaster

> If you mean you and I then we did not establish anything. I did not end up agreeing with you.


You ended up saying that atheism may mean no belief in gods, but that other ideas come attached to it. Thus it's not a belief system, not a religion, just a single philosophical point. That's what was established, and you never responded to that point - which usually means you accept my point. 




> How do you distinguish yourself from Dawkins?


Well for one thing I don't have a doctorate in biology. For another thing I've not written a not-very-good book called 'The God Delusion'. That's where I start from anyway.

Anyway, I'm no where near as abrasive to theists as he is, but I share his annoyance when theists don't listen. 




> What are all these posts but the construction of a story trying to justify atheism as you see it? I am not saying that your story is the same as the next story some atheist will come up with. It is still a story. It is still about that word "atheism".


What story? If you can't come up with a story then I'm going to assume you are pulling things out of thin air. My life-philosophy is not one 'about' atheism, far from it. My atheism is just a single point of my thought process, and I barely even tend to think of it unless talking to people who do not share that one single point.

----------


## Pumpkin337

there is no one who believes in God more fervently than an atheist, if they did not believe in god, they wouldn't expend so much time and energy trying to prove god doesn't exist

----------


## Pumpkin337

And PLEASE learn to use Google:

Re the God Particle:

The name was the invention of Leon Lederman, himself a great physicist, who used it as the title of a popular book in 1993.

ie NOT the media, but a scientist coined the phrase. Like to retract any other non-factual statements you have made?

----------


## Frostball

> there is no one who believes in God more fervently than an atheist, if they did not believe in god, they wouldn't expend so much time and energy trying to prove he doesn't exist


There are few things as disrespectful as not taking somebody's word when they tell you what they believe. You're straight up calling all of us liars. I would never, ever, stoop so low as to tell a theist that they don't actually believe in god. When you do this, it means you don't want a conversation. If you aren't going to listen to people explain their beliefs, or lack there of, but instead assume they are lying... Then you are not interested in discussion. Having a conversation with somebody assumes you have at least enough respect to take them at their word.

----------


## Frostball

> And PLEASE learn to use Google:
> 
> Re the God Particle:
> 
> The name was the invention of Leon Lederman, himself a great physicist, who used it as the title of a popular book in 1993.
> 
> ie NOT the media, but a scientist coined the phrase. Like to retract any other non-factual statements you have made?


From Wikipedia

The Higgs boson is named after Peter Higgs, one of six physicists who, in 1964, proposed the mechanism that suggested the existence of such a particle. Although Higgs's name has come to be associated with this theory, several researchers between about 1960 and 1972 each independently developed different parts of it. In mainstream media the Higgs boson has often been called the "God particle", from a 1993 book on the topic; the nickname is strongly disliked by many physicists, including Higgs, who regard it as inappropriate sensationalism.[17][18]

----------


## Poetaster

> There are few things as disrespectful as not taking somebody's word when they tell you what they believe. You're straight up calling all of us liars. I would never, ever, stoop so low as to tell a theist that they don't actually believe in god. When you do this, it means you don't want a conversation. If you aren't going to listen to people explain their beliefs, or lack there of, but instead assume they are lying... Then you are not interested in discussion. Having a conversation with somebody assumes you have at least enough respect to take them at their word.


This. An atheist such as myself do not try to 'prove' a god does not exist. Most of us know that's impossible. We say it's not likely, and we do not believe the claim he does exist. You are never called on to prove a negative, that is a law of logic.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> There are few things as disrespectful as not taking somebody's word when they tell you what they believe. You're straight up calling all of us liars. I would never, ever, stoop so low as to tell a theist that they don't actually believe in god. When you do this, it means you don't want a conversation. If you aren't going to listen to people explain their beliefs, or lack there of, but instead assume they are lying... Then you are not interested in discussion. Having a conversation with somebody assumes you have at least enough respect to take them at their word.


This reaction is exactly what I wanted to elicit with my statement, as it demonstrates the double standard many of you labour under. It is a clear case of pot kettle black .. you might want to remember this next time you go off at some one who believes differently to you.

----------


## Poetaster

> This reaction is exactly what I wanted to elicit with my statement, as it demonstrates the double standard many of you labour under. It is a clear case of pot kettle black .. you might want to remember this next time you go off at some one who believes differently to you.


If you make a statement in a public forum, expect a reaction to it. You don't call the person making the response a liar, that's just bad form. Hardly a case of the proverbial tea pot either.

----------


## Frostball

> This reaction is exactly what I wanted to elicit with my statement, as it demonstrates the double standard many of you labour under. It is a clear case of pot kettle black .. you might want to remember this next time you go off at some one who believes differently to you.


Going off? What are you talking about? I never, ever suggested that you are lying and don't really believe in god. I'm absolutely sure you are an earnest believer who really genuinely thinks they are right and has good reasons for believing. I just happen to think you are wrong about that. But I am NOT saying you are a liar who is only pretending to believe. See the difference? It must be ok to argue about religion in the same way that it must be ok to argue about politics. If you do not want to participate it is entirely voluntary. But do not equate me criticizing Christianity or any other religion with insulting a person directly. That's what you did.

I'm sorry if anything I said offends you. I do feel strongly about this subject, and no it's not because I believe in god, but it's because there are so many people who do believe and I think that religion is a very harmful force in the world. Now I still apologize for any hard feelings. I would appreciate an apology from you for calling me and every atheist in the world a liar.

----------


## Pumpkin337

1. I have in no way given any indication what my beliefs are or are not so please don't make assumptions.

2. I did not call any one a liar, I made a generalised statement - and not even a very original one - regarding atheists (in general)

3. I made the statement deliberately to elicit the strong emotional response I knew it would because I wanted to show that a. you do have a belief system you will defend strongly when attacked (if it wasn't a belief system you wouldn't have reacted so defensively) and b. that you do not like it when the same tactics of non-belief, non-acceptance and nonsensical statements are turned against you. Do to others as you would have done to you. Try reading back over this thread and looking at some of the responses

4. Atheists assume that absence of proof is proof of absence ... this is a logical fallacy.

----------


## Poetaster

> 4. Atheists assume that absence of proof is proof of absence ... this is a logical fallacy.


1. Not all atheists think the same. 

2. Not all (and I would guess most) do not think this. Never mind assume it. That is an example of teapotting.

----------


## Frostball

> 1. I have in no way given any indication what my beliefs are or are not so please don't make assumptions.
> 
> 2. I did not call any one a liar, I made a generalised statement - and not even a very original one - regarding atheists (in general)
> 
> 3. I made the statement deliberately to elicit the strong emotional response I knew it would because I wanted to show that a. you do have a belief system you will defend strongly when attacked (if it wasn't a belief system you wouldn't have reacted so defensively) and b. that you do not like it when the same tactics of non-belief, non-acceptance and nonsensical statements are turned against you. Do to others as you would have done to you. Try reading back over this thread and looking at some of the responses
> 
> 4. Atheists assume that absence of proof is proof of absence ... this is a logical fallacy.


Alright, I'm sorry, I don't know what you believe, you're right. Well whatever it is you believe, if you were to tell me, I'd certainly believe you.

The strong emotional response did not come from you attacking my beliefs. Everyone in this thread has been criticizing and arguing against beliefs over and over, and nobody really got too upset, which is great. What you did was attack me personally, which is an obvious faux pas. You just don't do that. It's called ad hominem. Not only was it ad hominem, but it shows you aren't interested in actually talking about beliefs, you just want to assert things about what we believe.

As to your 4th point, you are right that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Put that way it is, indeed, a fallacy. But what isn't a fallacy is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where you would expect there to be evidence. Here's an example: if somebody said they had a fire breathing dragon in their garage, I might look for some evidence. If I found no claw marks, no scorch marks, no dragon poop, no actual dragon, and literally no signs of a fire breathing dragon being in a garage, then that is good evidence that the person is making it up or something. This isn't PROOF mind you. You can never prove that something doesn't exist, that would be ridiculous to even try. But evidence enough for a reasonable disbelief... yes.

Your general statement was a statement about all atheist in the world, but it was pointed at the atheists in here in particular. The assertion that atheists actually believe in god is a defense mechanism that theists sometimes use when they don't want to talk about it anymore. It's very rude, disrespectful, and as I said indicative of a person's lack of desire to actually have a conversation. A conversation is impossible when one person just won't believe you when you say you believe something. You are presuming to know more about our minds then we do. How presumptuous!!! Once again, I am sorry if you are offended, and I am truly sorry for assuming you are a god believer (really thought you were). But I really would like an apology for calling me a liar.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> 1. Not all atheists think the same. 
> 
> 2. Not all (and I would guess most) do not think this. Never mind assume it. That is an example of teapotting.


Please re-examine the logic of this statement... because you just said that atheists believe in God.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Alright, I'm sorry, I don't know what you believe, you're right. Well whatever it is you believe, if you were to tell me, I'd certainly believe you.
> 
> The strong emotional response did not come from you attacking my beliefs. Everyone in this thread has been criticizing and arguing against beliefs over and over, and nobody really got too upset, which is great. What you did was attack me personally, which is an obvious faux pas. You just don't do that. It's called ad hominem. Not only was it ad hominem, but it shows you aren't interested in actually talking about beliefs, you just want to assert things about what we believe.
> 
> As to your 4th point, you are right that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Put that way it is, indeed, a fallacy. But what isn't a fallacy is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence where you would expect there to be evidence. Here's an example: if somebody said they had a fire breathing dragon in their garage, I might look for some evidence. If I found no claw marks, no scorch marks, no dragon poop, no actual dragon, and literally no signs of a fire breathing dragon being in a garage, then that is good evidence that the person is making it up or something. This isn't PROOF mind you. You can never prove that something doesn't exist, that would be ridiculous to even try. But evidence enough for a reasonable disbelief... yes.
> 
> Your general statement was a statement about all atheist in the world, but it was pointed at the atheists in here in particular. The assertion that atheists actually believe in god is a defense mechanism that theists sometimes use when they don't want to talk about it anymore. It's very rude, disrespectful, and as I said indicative of a person's lack of desire to actually have a conversation. A conversation is impossible when one person just won't believe you when you say you believe something. You are presuming to know more about our minds then we do. How presumptuous!!! Once again, I am sorry if you are offended, and I am truly sorry for assuming you are a god believer (really thought you were). But I really would like an apology for calling me a liar.


I can not apologise for something I didn't do. I'm sorry that you took a highly non-original, often asserted statement so personally. Forgive me for thinking that this would indicate it somehow touched on your personal belief system which you then felt obliged to defend. That was kind of my intention  :Smile:

----------


## Frostball

> I can not apologise for something I didn't do. I'm sorry that you took a highly non-original, often asserted statement so personally. Forgive me for thinking that this would indicate it somehow touched on your personal belief system which you then felt obliged to defend. That was kind of my intention


You mistake my asking for an apology for offense. I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually don't mean to call me a liar, but just disagree with me. So... Which is it? Do you merely disagree with me on the state of god and all that, or are you still asserting that I actually believe in god--thus calling me a liar?

----------


## Frostball

> You mistake my asking for an apology for offense. I was giving you a chance to redeem yourself, because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you actually don't mean to call me a liar, but just disagree with me. So... Which is it? Do you merely disagree with me on the state of god and all that, or are you still asserting that I actually believe in god--thus calling me a liar?


Also keep in mind that I have apologized multiple times for even the chance that I offended you. Apologizing in no way means you lose, or are stupid, or wrong, or anything. It only makes you look better, actually. Cool people apologize when it might make a person feel better, even if they haven't done anything wrong. At least in my opinion

----------


## Poetaster

> Please re-examine the logic of this statement... because you just said that atheists believe in God.


No I didn't. I said most atheists do not think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or even assume it. If you think I said anything more, you do not understand how to use logic.

----------


## Frostball

> No I didn't. I said most atheists do not think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or even assume it. If you think I said anything more, you do not understand how to use logic.


Well.. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you would expect there to be evidence. It's just not proof.

And people say atheists always agree!  :Smile: !

----------


## Poetaster

> Well.. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence when you would expect there to be evidence. It's just not proof.
> 
> And people say atheists always agree! !


I disagree, it might be a suggestion of absence, but not evidence in of itself. :P

Haha! I know right!?  :Smile:

----------


## cacian

> If you make a statement in a public forum, expect a reaction to it. You don't call the person making the response a liar, that's just bad form. Hardly a case of the proverbial tea pot either.


what does a proverbial tea pot mean?

----------


## Poetaster

> what does a proverbial tea pot mean?


Referring to the proverb of the teapot calling the kettle black.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> The problem is that not that you think you can, but that your mind is closed to the possibility that you can't. 
> 
> Lets agree - atheism, evolutionary theory, and any other belief system, requires faith, and faith once set in the human mind is usually fairly unshakable .. so you go your way, and the others will go theirs ... each believing theirs to be right and lets try not to start any more wars over our differences ... whether real ones in the real world ... or virtual ones.



Nah, atheists don't require faith.
Try looking at it in this way... you are a juror in a murder trial, and you must weigh all the given evidence and reach a conclusion as to the question of guilt of the accused. The evidence must meet certain standards and the preponderance of that evidence must either validate a conviction, or a lesser charge, or acquittal. Beyond a reasonable doubt won't guarantee that some innocent people are convicted or the guilty go free, or that the evidence was interpreted properly, or that the judicial system is beyond corruption and prejudice. Such is the case with Science; scientific knowledge should be subjected to specific criticism rather than rejected in toto. Folks who believe in a God and the Supernatural often approach Science as an adversary, either forcing it into their belief system (Intelligent Design), or as I'm finding in this thread... simply ignoring it altogether. 

I can understand gravity as Science presents it. I can believe that it exists, in all the things we can predict and that are proven... I can also appreciate the very serious problems with our current understanding of gravity. Such as the two Voyager Probes that left what NASA Specialists believed was the bounds of our solar system and entered what scientists thought was "Interstellar Space"... but things didn't go as planned. Both Voyager Probes ever so slightly went off their projected courses. This dovetails into the holy grail of physics... a Grand Unification Theory, which the brightest minds have had 100 years to come up with, and have not. We simply do not understand all the forces of the Universe, in fact we don't even know how many forces there are. Physicists are struggling with "dark matter" and now "dark energy", and are at an impasse. The jury is out, as they say. This is how Science works, it's not exact... science is an art.

Thus far, the evidence meets my standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", that Western Religion is nonsense, the bulk of which can be disproved by not one scientific discipline, but by several scientific disciplines and over the course of several centuries. This is not to say there isn't a God or that the Bible may have his/her/its fingerprints on it. But what I can say and believe, is that much of what is in the Bible is nonsense.

----------


## The Atheist

> there is no one who believes in God more fervently than an atheist, if they did not believe in god, they wouldn't expend so much time and energy trying to prove god doesn't exist


Gosh, I feel exactly the same way about priests and pastors who ask their flock for money - they are clearly determined, hardcore atheists.

What kind of real christian would deny the word of his own god in Matthew 19:24 and demand that people worshipping give money, which the priest or pastor then uses to buy cars, build flash houses and eat like a king? They would be risking going straight to Hell, and that's not good, so I hear.

See how easy it is to make silly assertions?

(Tip: as noted, very few atheists would try to prove non-existence of something.)





> No I didn't. I said most atheists do not think absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or even assume it. If you think I said anything more, you do not understand how to use logic.


Oh please FSM, noooooo!!!!

We had that discussion a little while back and I'm sad to say it was an atheist saying that an absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence.

----------


## Marbles

To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.

But still, I don't see what's the beef. A believer isn't more unconvinced of the existence God than an atheist is convinced of its existence. Come to think of it both are two sides of the same coin: You believe in what you see. Heads or tails.

----------


## Frostball

I don't know who this guy is, but this quote is from wikipedia and I like it as it states the evidence of absence bit.



> If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...[5]
> J.P. Moreland and W.L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview


So for example, with a deistic god you wouldn't expect any evidence, since they don't interact with our world. Therefor an absence of evidence for a deistic god would not be evidence of it's absence because you wouldn't expect to see any evidence. But take the christian Yahweh as described in the bible, who purportedly answers prayers, causes miracles, and all that. You would expect evidence of his presence, therefore an absence of evidence for that god would be evidence of absence for that god. Not proof, again, mind you. Just evidence. It may not even be enough evidence to justify not believing, one could argue. But it is still evidence towards Yahweh's nonexistence if things we would expect are not found.

----------


## Frostball

> To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.
> 
> But still, I don't see what's the beef. A believer isn't more unconvinced of the existence God than an atheist is convinced of its existence. Come to think of it both are two sides of the same coin: You believe in what you see. Heads or tails.


I'll agree that it's a matter of non-faith. I also agree that proving and disproving is the wrong way to go. Proofs are something we use in math, not in claims. Evidence to justify a reasonable belief or disbelief, on the other hand, is a good way to go. At least that's what I think.

----------


## The Atheist

> To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.


Glad you see it like that, because most people would agree with you entirely.

On the proving non-existence of god, however, it is a bit of a red herring, because it's quite unusual to see it happening. For instance, this thread now comprises 228 posts and nobody's even come close to doing it.

----------


## Poetaster

> On the proving non-existence of god, however, it is a bit of a red herring, because it's quite unusual to see it happening. For instance, this thread now comprises 228 posts and nobody's even come close to doing it.


I don't think anyone can.

----------


## The Atheist

> I don't think anyone can.


My mistake.

I meant to type "nobody's even come close to trying it".

I think the claim that atheists are out to try to disprove god is mostly strawman. Sure, some atheists do, but David Icke's an atheist as well and I would call him rational.

----------


## Poetaster

> My mistake.
> 
> I meant to type "nobody's even come close to trying it".
> 
> I think the claim that atheists are out to try to disprove god is mostly strawman. Sure, some atheists do, but David Icke's an atheist as well and I would call him rational.


I agree with you completely, like the idea that atheists are all the same is an obvious strawman to me. 

David Icke - I love that man, though I have no idea why.

----------


## YesNo

> You ended up saying that atheism may mean no belief in gods, but that other ideas come attached to it. Thus it's not a belief system, not a religion, just a single philosophical point. That's what was established, and you never responded to that point - *which usually means you accept my point.*


I see the problem. You thought my lack of response meant agreement. It did not. 




> Well for one thing I don't have a doctorate in biology. For another thing I've not written a not-very-good book called 'The God Delusion'. That's where I start from anyway.
> 
> Anyway, I'm no where near as abrasive to theists as he is, but I share his annoyance *when theists don't listen*.


Don't worry, people listen. However, just because they listen that doesn't mean they agree. 





> What story? If you can't come up with a story then I'm going to assume you are pulling things out of thin air. My life-philosophy is not one 'about' atheism, far from it. My atheism is just a single point of my thought process, and I barely even tend to think of it unless talking to people who do not share that one single point.


The story is the string of justifications for that "single point" that expands into an ideology because that point needs to be rationalized otherwise there is cognitive dissonance which is painful. 

You are not alone. I am creating one as well with your help as well as the help of the others who participate in this thread. As I see it, we are making it up as we go along. What is interesting is what we think we can get away with as justification for our individual beliefs.

----------


## mortalterror

> Atheism isn't a religion. We have already established it is a single philosophical point, so no matter how you see it, if you say this you are wrong by definition.


Atheism as a concept is a single truth claim, but in practice it is a worldview. Atheism is a definite subculture which happens to act like a religion.

Just because you don't have a single titular bible doesn't mean that there isn't a developed canon and set of popular beliefs surrounding the idea of atheism.

Often sited influences of atheists include Carl Sagan and Neil Degrasse Tyson for popular scientists. Bill Hicks, George Carlin, and Bill Maher for stand up comedians. Leaders of the New Atheist movement include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Lawrence Krauss, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris. Before that influential leaders include Madalyn Murray O'Hair, TH Huxley. John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White are oft cited for their ideas about the conflict thesis. Voltaire is a touchstone, Bertrand Russell's teapot analogy, sometimes Spinoza or Epicurus are referenced. Darwin is frequently mentioned. The show Cosmos and the Atheist Experience are popular in this counter culture.

You share a lot of common ground. You read the same books.

You commune in atheist mega churches

or in online support groups like r/atheism and threads like this one. You attend atheism conventions and throw reason rallies.

You build secular charities and form secular foundations to lobby the government

You send your kids to secular camps to learn about atheism

You make videos to proselytize and then post them to youtube. You go see movies about atheism.

You make memes mocking Christianity and pass them around to your friends on facebook.

You share injokes and favorite stories.

You vote as a block. 73% of you registered as Democrats and voted for Obama. 

You use a lot of the same arguments as each other when you argue against religion. A lot of you show a fondness for science and logic. But excuse me for thinking you share things in common. You are as unique as snow flakes.

Like it or not, statistically speaking you guys do have a lot in common and fall into some general categories.



> Atheists, in general, are more likely to be male and younger than the overall population; 67% are men, and 38% are ages 18-29 (compared with 22% of all U.S. adults). About four-in-ten atheists (43%) have a college degree, compared with 29% of the general public. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...bout-atheists/





> Exit polls suggest that white Americans without religion vote Democratic at roughly the same rates that white Americans with religion vote Republican. According to exit polls in the 2008 presidential election, 71% of non-religious whites voted for Democratic candidate Barack Obama while 74% of white Evangelical Christians voted for Republican candidate John McCain. This can be compared with the 43–55% share of white votes overall.[30] More than six-in-ten religiously unaffiliated registered voters are Democrats (39%) or lean toward the Democratic Party (24%). They are about twice as likely to describe themselves as political liberals than as conservatives, and solid majorities support legal abortion (72%) and same-sex marriage (73%). In the last five years, the unaffiliated have risen from 17% to 24% of all registered voters who are Democrats or lean Democratic.[31] According to a Pew Research exist poll 70% of those who were religiously unaffiliated voted for Barack Obama. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrelig..._United_States

----------


## mortalterror

On another note, I'd like to address some flaws, as I see them, in Bertrand Russell's Teapot analogy.

1)A hypothetical teapot floating in space is completely made up with no evidence to support it, whereas there is other observable corroborating evidence for the existence of God.
1a) Texts documenting times in the past it has been observed by human beings.
1b) Continuing first hand testimony from a variety of sources who have encountered God.
1c) Physical traces from which God's existence can be observed. 
1ci) The universe and it's origin
1cii) Fine tuned universe
1ciii) Life
1civ) Consciousness
2) A teapot orbiting the sun is inconsistent with the rest of the observed data and what we know of the universe.
3) A physical object's existence can be verified by current observational tools, but a supernatural object's existence cannot.

The case of Santa Clause is sometimes asserted in place of a teapot. Here we can scientifically prove that there is no toy shop at the North Pole and reindeer do not fly, but we have not yet disproven the existence of Santa Clause, only several properties ascribed to him anecdotally since the nineteenth century. In a similar manner, it is possible to disprove several claims about the nature of God without actually disproving his existence. Furthermore, we can prove a historical Saint Nicolas with a fondness for secret gift giving actually existed in the fourth century, was Bishop of Myra, and signed the Nicene Creed. So the story has some basis in fact, and such a figure once existed, much like the Biblical Jesus corroborated in Josephus and Tacitus. Whether he exists still is another matter. Since Santa Clause is considered a physical being, we can look around and say that he is not present at this moment, but unless we have looked everywhere we cannot yet prove that he does not exist somewhere we are not looking. The only way to prove that the physical being known colloquially as Santa Clause no longer exists is to observe his bones where they lay interred in Venice. Then we can admit that the man is deceased and does not physically travel to every child's house leaving toys on Christmas night. However, if we consider him the spirit of gift giving, and gift giving is practiced in a household, then he may still be said to have a symbolic presence.

Scientific things which are not observed but inferred from the existence of other things:




> Even if they were orbiting one of the nearest stars, planets would be too faint to be seen directly with present-day telescopes. A planet would appear fainter than its parent star by a huge factor--roughly the same factor, in fact, by which Venus and Jupiter appear to us fainter than our sun. But in the last few years, planets have been revealed indirectly through their effect on their parent star. Some stars have been found to be wobbling slightly in their positions, just as would be expected if planets were orbiting around them. A planet tugs the star around in a small counterorbit, rather like a small dog pulling its owner on a leash.
> -Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat, p. 10





> In addition, ΛCDM has no explicit physical theory for the origin or physical nature of dark matter or dark energy; the nearly scale-invariant spectrum of the CMB perturbations, and their image across the celestial sphere, are believed to result from very small thermal and acoustic irregularities at the point of recombination.
> ...
> Extensive searches for dark matter particles have so far shown no well-agreed detection; the dark energy may be almost impossible to detect in a laboratory, and its value is unnaturally small compared to naive theoretical predictions.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model





> Dark matter is a type of matter in astronomy and cosmology hypothesized to account for effects that appear to be the result of mass where such mass cannot be seen. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. It is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[1] Instead, the existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter


We also know that Hannibal invaded Italy by going over the Alps. We have several contemporary reports that he did this. We have reports of sightings on either side of the Alps, and we have his destruction in Italy, but the actual path he took is highly debated to this day in scholarly circles, since all traces of his army's passing have been worn away with snow, wind, landslides, and age. Thus we have an example of a great historical event which can be asserted with confidence, but for which the exact details are still hazy.

----------


## Frostball

> snip


I agree that there is a subculture and movement. There are common arguments, and positions that are held by many atheists. At the same time, atheists often vary widely in what they actually believe and there is no dogma. If anything the atheism movement is more similar to political parties, which have all the things you listed. The things that make religion a religion aren't the things you listed, those are common to many things. What makes religions different are things like holy books, dogma, supernatural beliefs.

But ok, even if you were to insist that atheism is a religion. That's really a moot point because none of those things that you listed as reasons for why atheism is a religion are bad things in and of themselves. So if books, movies, large social gatherings, in-jokes, and common political beliefs make something a religion, then religion is not a bad thing. What is bad is accepting claims that have no evidence or bad evidence, and that is where I think the true harm lies.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> To believe in the existence of God is a function of faith, to not believe in Her existence is a matter of non-faith. Anyone, theist or an atheist, who attempts to respectively 'prove' or 'disprove' the existence of God is operating from a wrong premise, an impossibility, and this is the bone of all contention.
> 
> But still, I don't see what's the beef. A believer isn't more unconvinced of the existence God than an atheist is convinced of its existence. Come to think of it both are two sides of the same coin: You believe in what you see. Heads or tails.


I couldn't agree more, only I would argue that the flip side of the coin is 'you believe in what you don't see'... that both sides of the coin require 'faith' and 'belief' just one is in something and the other is in the absence.

----------


## Poetaster

> I see the problem. You thought my lack of response meant agreement. It did not. 
> 
> Don't worry, people listen. However, just because they listen that doesn't mean they agree.


Right - imagine I said that being a Christian just means eating cake. And no matter how much you told me about Jesus and the bible and the Holy Trinity, I said 'Oh, that's all lovely, but being a Christian has nothing to do with Jesus, it is just about cake. That is my opinion.' Do you not see anything wrong here?

The point is meaningful discourse. If you can't take what the other person is saying on board about their own position, and just go off your opinion, the discourse is not very meaningful. 




> The story is the string of justifications for that "single point" that expands into an ideology because that point needs to be rationalized otherwise there is cognitive dissonance which is painful. 
> 
> You are not alone. I am creating one as well with your help as well as the help of the others who participate in this thread. As I see it, we are making it up as we go along. What is interesting is what we think we can get away with as justification for our individual beliefs.


Except I don't have a story, or my 'story' is unknown to me, because although I come from believing parents, I've never had the ability to believe. I don't know why, I just haven't. Atheism to me is not an ideology, it's a starting point - and I don't have an explanation for it. I am by my own admitting an existentialist, and that is my story if anything.

@mortalterror: That is what might be called New Atheism, which is a philosophical movement. Not all atheists are like that, such as myself - I'm an Existentialist. A completely different position, I in some ways admire people who can believe, I want to know what it's like to be honest. But that is closed to me.

Personally, I find the idea of 'Atheist Churches' a bit pathetic, and I have no time for them. I don't much care for Dawkins outside of his scientific writings (I think he's a bit of an arsehole in all honesty) or Hitchens outside of his LitCrit writings. The others you named I've only just heard about from your post. Also I don't like the joke of the Flying Spaghetti monster - I find that rather juvenile. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK the 'atheist movement' isn't apparently so 'in your face'. 

Science to me is just a process - I don't have much of a fondness for it. And sure, I like logic, I'll hold my hands up there. I'm by profession a teacher. Show me a teacher who doesn't know how to use and respect logic and I'll show you someone who shouldn't have a job. Also, is there much point to an illogical argument? 

So no, you are wrong. There might be the New Atheist subculture, where all of what you said is completely true and applicable. But to say that is representative of everyone who calls them self an atheist is just a fantasy - it's not true.

----------


## Pumpkin337

the atheist position can be boiled down ... god(s) can not be proved rationally or scientifically therefore god(s) does(do) not exist - right?

but what about all the other things that can not be proved rationally or scientifically? 

things like ... where does your consciousness reside?

"I think therefore I am" can not be proven, therefore no matter how much you think, you do not exist. (IF the above argument was true and applied beyond the theist / atheist stance). 


or how about something we all rely utterly on its existence and yet proving it is more than a little problematic scientifically speaking - matter.

(and you lazy so-n-so's can look up all the science on that yourselves - that is why god invented google :P )

----------


## Poetaster

> the atheist position can be boiled down ... god(s) can not be proved rationally or scientifically therefore god(s) does not exist - right?


Not quite. Merely the rejection of the claim they do. If some god(s) cannot be proved rationally then that might be a suggestion, but not proof. No one can say they 'know' unless they are an idiot or crazy. That is agnosticism, being an atheist or not is up to opinion. Being a theist requires faith. 




> but what about all the other things that can not be proved rationally or scientifically? 
> 
> things like ... where does your consciousness reside?


Allow me to take you to the House of Commons and the mystery would only deepen.  :Smilewinkgrin: 




> or how about something we all rely utterly on its existence and yet proving it is more than a little problematic scientifically speaking - matter.
> 
> (and you lazy so-n-so's can look up all the science on that yourselves - that is why god invented google :P )


Serious question: why is something unknown a point against a rejection of a claim? That doesn't make much sense I don't think.

----------


## cacian

> Referring to the proverb of the teapot calling the kettle black.


ah OK. 
I asked because i have never heard it before.  :Smile:

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Serious question: why is something unknown a point against a rejection of a claim? That doesn't make much sense I don't think.


well at some point a person would need to be able justify their rejection otherwise you just look a contrary idiot. Sort of like walking rejecting the notion of the sun .... whilst all around you say 'but there it is' you insist 'but there it isn't' and unless you want to look like a complete idiot you have to offer some rational explanation for your b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶ assertion.

I think at best one could make a logical argument that the issue of god(s) is unknowable because logic must conclude that if there are many unknowable and unprovable things in the universe heck even just here on earth within our own bodies .... we can not assert with any assurance that there is nothing that might exist beyond our current ability to prove its existence without shadow of doubt.

In fact I would suggest that the basis of all scientific discovery is assuming that there is something unknown to discover and know and unless you want to assert (as did scientists in the early 1900's) that we now know all there is to know (which is still as patently absurd as it was when first coined) then logically you can at best say 'at this present time we can not prove or disprove the existence of beings known as god(s) which exist in a reality / dimension / level of energy beyond our current means of measurement'.

Theists assert that the existence of god(s) can not be proved, but can be deduced from evidence of their interaction in the universe. Atheists / agnostics / pick your label choose to deem that evidence as inconclusive. 

But logically because of a. our limitations b. lack of evidence one way or another one must logically conclude that as far as scientific evidence goes the jury, is at best, out on the issue.

However the original topic of this discussion was 'why do we NEED god'

I still say ... whether god(s) exist as a separate, unknowable, unmeasurable, but distinct entity / entities or whether we invent them ... we need them as a concept of absolute morality because on our own we can only ever have a relative morality which ultimately makes all actions acceptable when clearly they should not be.

----------


## Poetaster

> well at some point a person would need to be able justify their rejection otherwise you just look a contrary idiot. Sort of like walking rejecting the notion of the sun .... whilst all around you say 'but there it is' you insist 'but there it isn't' and unless you want to look like a complete idiot you have to offer some rational explanation for your b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶ assertion.
> 
> I think at best one could make a logical argument that the issue of god(s) is unknowable because logic must conclude that if there are many unknowable and unprovable things in the universe heck even just here on earth within our own bodies .... we can not assert with any assurance that there is nothing that might exist beyond our current ability to prove its existence without shadow of doubt.
> 
> In fact I would suggest that the basis of all scientific discovery is assuming that there is something unknown to discover and know and unless you want to assert (as did scientists in the early 1900's) that we now know all there is to know (which is still as patently absurd as it was when first coined) then logically you can at best say 'at this present time we can not prove or disprove the existence of beings known as god(s) which exist in a reality / dimension / level of energy beyond our current means of measurement'.
> 
> Theists assert that the existence of god(s) can not be proved, but can be deduced from evidence of their interaction in the universe. Atheists / agnostics / pick your label choose to deem that evidence as inconclusive.


Well, I've been called many worse things than a 'contrarian idiot' by people of the theist persuasion, so I'd call that an improvement. 

Tell me, if you saw the rise of the Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg but never bought into the whole thing and warned people it might not be a good alternative to Tzarism or Capitalism, and lived long enough to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, at what point do you stop becoming a 'contrarian idiot'? When you were proved right? So we should all accept without question whatever we hear until we finally learn the truth - that we somehow find without looking for it. Sorry, you might be able to do that, but I can't. I can't not question things, and settle for what might be a lie. 

By the way, if you've bothered to read my posts you'll see I call myself an atheist, but I admit (am happy to admit) that the actual existence of a god or gods is unknown and maybe unknowable. I feel I can give my reasons for making me think that there isn't, but ultimately I don't know. 




> I still say ... whether god(s) exist as a separate, unknowable, unmeasurable, but distinct entity / entities or whether we invent them ... we need them as a concept of absolute morality because on our own we can only ever have a relative morality which ultimately makes all actions acceptable when clearly they should not be.


Not acceptable by whose standards? Yours? Is murder ok? What about war, when murder is encouraged? Or is it not murder when it's called something else? Are primitive tribes who use ritualistic sacrifices wrong despite the fact that it is part of their belief system? Does the universe really care if one human kills another?

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Well, I've been called many worse things than a 'contrarian idiot' by people of the theist persuasion, so I'd call that an improvement. 
> 
> Tell me, if you saw the rise of the Bolsheviks in St. Petersburg but never bought into the whole thing and warned people it might not be a good alternative to Tzarism or Capitalism, and lived long enough to see the collapse of the Soviet Union, at what point do you stop becoming a 'contrarian idiot'? When you were proved right? So we should all accept without question whatever we hear until we finally learn the truth - that we somehow find without looking for it. Sorry, you might be able to do that, but I can't. I can't not question things, and settle for what might be a lie. 
> 
> By the way, if you've bothered to read my posts you'll see I call myself an atheist, but I admit (am happy to admit) that the actual existence of a god or gods is unknown and maybe unknowable. I feel I can give my reasons for making me think that there isn't, but ultimately I don't know. 
> 
> 
> 
> Not acceptable by whose standards? Yours? Is murder ok? What about war, when murder is encouraged? Or is it not murder when it's called something else? Are primitive tribes who use ritualistic sacrifices wrong despite the fact that it is part of their belief system? Does the universe really care if one human kills another?


One assumes that even in your hypothetical example that there would be some reasoning behind your disagreement otherwise, yes, you are simply an argumentative contrary idiot who disagrees simply because they can. 

And I didn't say that one couldn't disagree, just that disagreeing without being able to offer some reasoning for why other than 'it just isn't' isn't good enough. Many times in this thread it has been stated that the burden of proof is on those who say a thing is, adroitly dodging the need to defend their own position ... this isn't good enough. It might work in a pure logic debate but in reality you can't just say 'well I don't' ... at some point you need to defend why you don't otherwise ... 

As for 'by whose standards' well that is the exact core of the problem. If by human standards then we end up where you do .. every thing is acceptable to some one for some reason which is internally consistent with their beliefs ... however ... the logical conclusion of this is that there is no morality and everyone is free to do anything they like to anyone else. 

Surely one could see how this is not acceptable, that there have to be some rules about what one can and can't justifiably do to others. However given the nature of man ... and the contrariness of some who argue just because without reason :P .... it is better if we refer to some force larger than ourselves with regard some basic absolute 'thou shalt not's'.

----------


## Marbles

> however ... the logical conclusion of this is that there is no morality and everyone is free to do anything they like to anyone else. 
> 
> Surely one could see how this is not acceptable, that there have to be some rules about what one can and can't justifiably do to others.


Basic morality comes naturally to humans, it's intrinsic to our human makeup. Such as stealing, lying, unjustifiable killing, cheating etc are wrong and must be avoided. Being kind and caring to others, helping the needy, and holding justice between people etc...none of this comes exclusively from the scriptures. 

However, for advanced morality, for grey areas, for where there are disagreements, one might say that we need help but the presumption that this help must be from God rests on shaky foundations. We hardly refer to scripture when we are confronted with grey areas in morality. Not because we want to be independent in our decisions but because the old scriptures are, let's face it, incapable of offering any meaningful advice in those grey areas.

Bad argument, I'm afraid.

----------


## Poetaster

> One assumes that even in your hypothetical example that there would be some reasoning behind your disagreement otherwise, yes, you are simply an argumentative contrary idiot who disagrees simply because they can. 
> 
> And I didn't say that one couldn't disagree, just that disagreeing without being able to offer some reasoning for why other than 'it just isn't' isn't good enough. Many times in this thread it has been stated that the burden of proof is on those who say a thing is, adroitly dodging the need to defend their own position ... this isn't good enough. It might work in a pure logic debate but in reality you can't just say 'well I don't' ... at some point you need to defend why you don't otherwise ...


Well, it might be an often used argument, but it's true to say that would you believe I am sitting with the Philosopher's Stone next to my laptop as I write this? I think you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'Nah, I think that's horse **** until you show me a picture at least', and I think you'd have every right to be annoyed if I said 'Well, why don't you believe I have the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop? Can't you just take it on faith?' So people are being 'contrary idiots' if they are disagreeing without giving any reason? Well, I agree, thanks for admitting you are not listening to the other side. Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason. 

By the way, Contrarian Idiot isn't a bad coinage. 

It's a good rule that you never need to justify a negative, since it is merely the rejection of a positive claim. 'God exists' is a positive claim, since it is actually saying something that is at least in theory unknown, so me saying 'No, he doesn't' is a negative claim - a rejection, requiring no need to justify it if you cannot convincingly argue that a god exists. The words 'convincingly argue' is important there, and I never found theist's arguments convincing, that's why I'm an atheist. 




> As for 'by whose standards' well that is the exact core of the problem. If by human standards then we end up where you do .. every thing is acceptable to some one for some reason which is internally consistent with their beliefs ... however ... the logical conclusion of this is that there is no morality and everyone is free to do anything they like to anyone else. 
> 
> Surely one could see how this is not acceptable, that there have to be some rules about what one can and can't justifiably do to others. However given the nature of man ... and the contrariness of some who argue just because without reason :P .... it is better if we refer to some force larger than ourselves with regard some basic absolute 'thou shalt not's'.


Why is it not acceptable? You have not gave a reason, so you are now being the Contrarian Idiot.  :Wink: 

Again, I don't see a universal morality because everyone's morality is slightly different. I don't see the idea as acceptable that all living things live by the same code. You are imagining your subjective morality as universal by assuming there is an objective morality, and that's just not logical. This isn't 'without reason', if the Ancient Greeks found ritualistic sacrifices acceptable, who is to say they were wrong and we are right? What makes our perspective special? These are questions you haven't answered, and I don't think you can.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Well, it might be an often used argument, but it's true to say that would you believe I am sitting with the Philosopher's Stone next to my laptop as I write this? I think you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'Nah, I think that's horse **** until you show me a picture at least', and I think you'd have every right to be annoyed if I said 'Well, why don't you believe I have the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop? Can't you just take it on faith?' So people are being 'contrary idiots' if they are disagreeing without giving any reason? Well, I agree, thanks for admitting you are not listening to the other side. Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.


well yes and no ... there is a point at which your insistence on my faith in your assertion becomes an issue of trust and there is a point at which my continued failure to provide justification for my lack of trust / faith becomes simply nonsensical and problematical. 

Logical constructs of argument don't hold well in the real world where most of us operate. Its all very well to throw around neat philosophical constructs and use them as the basis for this kind of debate, but at the end of the day, it isn't enough to say 'because I don't'. Even to pooh pooh every proof offered by those who do believe simply devolves into an unresolvable brick wall unless you can offer a solid reason for why what they believe is wrong. ESPECIALLY if you wish to convince them to your way of thinking.

This applies equally in the opposite direction. It is futile to offer your proofs to some one who isn't, at very least, prepared to entertain the possibility of their validity. It is even more useless and futile to attempt to discuss anything with some one who offers their disbelief as their 'proof' of the invalidity of your proof and who then have the audacity to turn around and say that they don't have to justify or defend why they think your proof is invalid - the simple fact of their disbelief is enough. 

No, sorry not good enough. 

If I present a theorem for review it isn't enough for people to say 'oh no that isn't true' they have to actively prove why it isn't so. Disbelief in and of itself is a choice, but it holds no water as proof of anything nor does it support any kind of debate. If there is no logical proof for your belief, then it is, as I have said all along, just your belief system not a fact and as such is no different from those who believe the opposite.

----------


## Poetaster

> well yes and no ... there is a point at which your insistence on my faith in your assertion becomes an issue of trust and there is a point at which my continued failure to provide justification for my lack of trust / faith becomes simply nonsensical and problematical.


Funnily, this is exactly what I'm saying in a sense. 




> Logical constructs of argument don't hold well in the real world where most of us operate. Its all very well to throw around neat philosophical constructs and use them as the basis for this kind of debate, but at the end of the day, it isn't enough to say 'because I don't'. Even to pooh pooh every proof offered by those who do believe simply devolves into an unresolvable brick wall unless you can offer a solid reason for why what they believe is wrong. ESPECIALLY if you wish to convince them to your way of thinking.


1) I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I know I can't, what I am trying to do by posting is clear up obvious misconceptions people have about atheism - not to convince them they should be atheists. 

2) I haven't offered any 'proofs', I've merely critiqued people who presume they know something I don't think they do. More on this later. 




> This applies equally in the opposite direction. It is futile to offer your proofs to some one who isn't, at very least, prepared to entertain the possibility of their validity. It is even more useless and futile to attempt to discuss anything with some one who offers their disbelief as their 'proof' of the invalidity of your proof and who then have the audacity to turn around and say that they don't have to justify or defend why they think your proof is invalid - the simple fact of their disbelief is enough. 
> 
> No, sorry not good enough.


Again, I have offered no proofs. The most in the way of proof that I have said you have quoted from: 'Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.' This is not proof of anything, this is merely a consideration given the lack of proof as to why I don't personally think there is a god given the positive claim they do. If the positive claim is not satisfactorily supported with proof it can be rejected without proof. If I were to tell you I had the Philosophers Stone beside my laptop, I wouldn't have any right to say when you doubted it 'Well, you can't prove I don't have it!' because things do not work that way. God is no different, it's an idea that people have said exists without proof, and people have dismissed without proof, of the two, because there is no proof, I hold with those who dismiss the claim. 

If that's not good enough then nothing is, and there is no point continuing this conversation. 




> If I present a theorem for review it isn't enough for people to say 'oh no that isn't true' they have to actively prove why it isn't so.


You keep saying this, like no reasons have been given. I've given one reason why I think gods do not exist above, now you can ignore it all you want, but it's there. 




> Disbelief in and of itself is a choice, but it holds no water as proof of anything nor does it support any kind of debate.


Exactly. It doesn't need to 'hold water' or offer any kind of argument, but it can provide an argument to justify itself if it must. Mostly by pointing out that you (I'm addressing you yourself now) are not being pressured into proving I don't have the Philosophers Stone beside my laptop. Unless you believe that I do. Do you? 




> If there is no logical proof for your belief, then it is, as I have said all along, just your belief system not a fact and as such is no different from those who believe the opposite.


I dare you to look through this thread and show me an example of where I have said otherwise. In fact, I'll even be so kind as to remind you of my 'belief system' or rather 'Philosophy', I'm an Existentialist. I've never hidden this fact at all.

----------


## Pumpkin337

@Poetaster I think that at least one of the points which you and I have a fundamental miscommunication, is that I am not speaking to you directly on a personal level. I use your responses to direct general replies to every one and I mistakenly thought that was self-evident from the language I use. So let's be clear, unless I directly address you, as I have now ( and this applies to others who have taken my broad statements personally) I am making more generalised and sweeping statements directed at a wider audience than one individual, even if I quote you, it is because something you said is illustrative of, or can be used to address, a wider point.

----------


## Poetaster

@Pumpkin337: I had guessed that to be honest, but I like to engage and discuss directly.  :Smile:

----------


## Frostball

> well at some point a person would need to be able justify their rejection otherwise you just look a contrary idiot. Sort of like walking rejecting the notion of the sun .... whilst all around you say 'but there it is' you insist 'but there it isn't' and unless you want to look like a complete idiot you have to offer some rational explanation for your b̶e̶l̶i̶e̶f̶ assertion.
> 
> ...
> 
> But logically because of a. our limitations b. lack of evidence one way or another one must logically conclude that as far as scientific evidence goes the jury, is at best, out on the issue.
> 
> ...


Justify rejection? You're looking at it the entirely wrong way. You have to justify believing _in_ something not disbelieving something. Just like Poetaster said with his philosopher's stone example, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of the sun is laughable because if there was as much evidence for god as there was of the sun we wouldn't be even discussing this; god would be an obvious reality. The the fact is that there isn't as much evidence for god as we have for anything else we know to be real; even things like dark matter and dark energy at least have some measurable effect even if we don't know what they are and how they are doing it.

This isn't to say that one should just decide there are no gods and never think about it again. As you say, the jury is still out. But what this means is one might as well not believe it until there IS evidence. Since a thing cannot be disproved, ever, this means that the jury is still out on everything. The jury is still out on ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, santa, faeries, and god. But one doesn't just live their life as though these things DO exist just because it hasn't been proved that they don't. That's exactly the way atheists are with god. He might be out there, but there's no reason to assume he is unless there is good evidence.

I don't mind the contrarian title either, but I don't see how this is in any way contrarian. It's just logical.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Justify rejection? You're looking at it the entirely wrong way. You have to justify believing _in_ something not disbelieving something. Just like Poetaster said with his philosopher's stone example, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of the sun is laughable because if there was as much evidence for god as there was of the sun we wouldn't be even discussing this; god would be an obvious reality. The the fact is that there isn't as much evidence for god as we have for anything else we know to be real; even things like dark matter and dark energy at least have some measurable effect even if we don't know what they are and how they are doing it.
> 
> This isn't to say that one should just decide there are no gods and never think about it again. As you say, the jury is still out. But what this means is one might as well not believe it until there IS evidence. Since a thing cannot be disproved, ever, this means that the jury is still out on everything. The jury is still out on ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, santa, faeries, and god. But one doesn't just live their life as though these things DO exist just because it hasn't been proved that they don't. That's exactly the way atheists are with god. He might be out there, but there's no reason to assume he is unless there is good evidence.
> 
> I don't mind the contrarian title either, but I don't see how this is in any way contrarian. It's just logical.


Actually no its not just logical because to theists the evidence for god is as self-evident as the sun is. You just choose to dismiss their evidence. Choosing to dismiss the evidence by saying 'I don't believe that' when it is presented is not a refutation of the evidence no matter how much some would like it to be.

----------


## Frostball

> Actually no its not just logical because to theists the evidence for god is as self-evident as the sun is. You just choose to dismiss their evidence. Choosing to dismiss the evidence when presented is not a refutation of the evidence no matter how much some would like it to be.


This is at least where I think the main argument lies. That is in examining the actual evidence. It is merely that theists believe they have good reasons for believing in god, and atheists do not. But logic like saying you have to justify rejection is clearly wrong either way. So you think god's evidence is as evident as the sun? Could you possibly tell me what this evidence is? Because I love to learn and if I've really missed something as obvious as the sun this long, I should love to know about it.

----------


## YesNo

> Right - imagine I said that being a Christian just means eating cake. And no matter how much you told me about Jesus and the bible and the Holy Trinity, I said 'Oh, that's all lovely, but being a Christian has nothing to do with Jesus, it is just about cake. That is my opinion.' *Do you not see anything wrong here?*
> 
> The point is meaningful discourse. If you can't take what the other person is saying on board about their own position, and just go off your opinion, the discourse is not very meaningful.


Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. Is there something wrong with someone having an opinion about Jesus and cake? 




> Except I don't have a story, or *my 'story' is unknown to me*, because although I come from believing parents, I've never had the ability to believe. I don't know why, I just haven't. Atheism to me is not an ideology, it's a starting point - and I don't have an explanation for it. I am by my own admitting an existentialist, and that is my story if anything.


Most of the story you believe in is likely unknown to you. The same is true with me. I want to find out what it is and change it more consciously or verify it. That's why I enjoy these threads. 




> Personally, *I find the idea of 'Atheist Churches' a bit pathetic*, and I have no time for them. I don't much care for Dawkins outside of his scientific writings (*I think he's a bit of an arsehole in all honesty*) or Hitchens outside of his LitCrit writings. The others you named I've only just heard about from your post. Also *I don't like the joke of the Flying Spaghetti monster* - *I find that rather juvenile*. Maybe things are different in the US, but here in the UK the 'atheist movement' isn't apparently so 'in your face'.


Although I know you are addressing this to mortalterror, I agree with you on the points I highlighted. 

I also don't trust Dawkins from a scientific perspective. My most recent authority on why would be Thomas Nagel, but after looking at the link that Melanie provided earlier on, I think there is evidence that the E. coli bacteria, that you referred to earlier in the Lenski experiment, generate mutations in a non-random manner when confronted with stress. This would be "adaptive mutations" and that would falsify the neo-Darwinist belief in chance being the cause of the mutations as much as the mathematical arguments do.

Should you want to challenge my theism, you would need to challenge consciousness as fundamental. If consciousness is fundamental then I can empirically point to God by pointing to the universe as some form of creation or manifestation of that Consciousness. I need no further argument. The various theistic (or even pseudo-atheistic, consciousness religions such as Buddhism) could be built upon that.

Some atheists deliberately attempt to undermine consciousness by using science which by default only looks at the material aspect of the universe. This is why you hear "chance" and "determinism" thrown around so much. This is also why the discoveries of indeterminacy in quantum physics undermined atheism by removing both chance and determinism from quantum physics. 

The same thing goes in neuroscience. Atheism has to show that we ultimately do not have any free will, that is, that our consciousness is trivial, because if it is not, if consciousness is fundamental, then this can be generalized to the whole universe. I don't think that effort has been successful. What we do have is more knowledge about the brain being itself changeable through our own intentions. In other words mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter.

The same thing goes in cosmology. Atheism needs something eternal to explain the universe. If that cannot be found to be solely dependent on matter, then they fail to remove consciousness and essentially legitimate theistic attempts to relate to that higher consciousness.

I think today, given modern science, all that atheism has to cling to are monistic views such as those that Nagel is presenting. Consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. To me Nagel's views look like a desperate last ditch attempt to save atheism, but other attempts to scientifically justify atheism through further materialistic reductionism seem to me unlikely to succeed.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> This is at least where I think the main argument lies. That is in examining the actual evidence. It is merely that theists believe they have good reasons for believing in god, and atheists do not. But logic like saying you have to justify rejection is clearly wrong either way. So you think god's evidence is as evident as the sun? Could you possibly tell me what this evidence is? Because I love to learn and if I've really missed something as obvious as the sun this long, I should love to know about it.


a. I am not so stupid as to fall into that trap, if I even could argue that point sufficiently well.

b. I said that the theist position is that the evidence is there, and that the atheist position is that it is not.... further more I said that the anti-position tends to be of the opinion that they do not need to refute the evidence presented by theists but can get away with dismissing it as nonsense. My point was that if this was any kind of real life position where some one posited a theory it would not be sufficient to merely say it was nonsense, you would have to prove it was nonsense, with real proofs for your position. 

c. I would argue that in the absence of firm provable evidence one way or the other, what the entire thing devolves down to is belief with one side believing as fervently in the thing as the other side equally fervently does not. Neither side are particularly good at debating the issue and neither side are very good at listening with an open mind to the other.

d. None of this is what the thread is about  :Smile:  To which I would add (but forgot to earlier) that while some of the worst evils perpetuated by man against man have been done in the name of god (pick your deity to fit) the very very very worst evils have been done by men without god .... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... so I still feel that despite the considerable evidence for thinking god is bad, man on his own is far worse.

----------


## Poetaster

> Actually, I don't know what you are talking about. Is there something wrong with someone having an opinion about Jesus and cake?


This clearly wasn't what I was saying. What I said was, if I said to you 'Christianity is just about eating cake, Jesus has nothing to do with it, it's all cake'. And you said, 'Well, no, you have the bible, you have Jesus being the son of god, you have god, Cake doesn't even come in to it', and I said 'No, I disagree, Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity, it's just about cake' would you see something wrong there?

Of course you would. Any sane person would. So why are you trying to do the same and not listen to the other side? 




> Most of the story you believe in is likely unknown to you. The same is true with me. I want to find out what it is and change it more consciously or verify it. That's why I enjoy these threads.


If my story is unknown to me then how is it a story? I don't get it. 




> Although I know you are addressing this to mortalterror, I agree with you on the points I highlighted. 
> 
> I also don't trust Dawkins from a scientific perspective. My most recent authority on why would be Thomas Nagel, but after looking at the link that Melanie provided earlier on, I think there is evidence that the E. coli bacteria, that you referred to earlier in the Lenski experiment, generate mutations in a non-random manner when confronted with stress. This would be "adaptive mutations" and that would falsify the neo-Darwinist belief in chance being the cause of the mutations as much as the mathematical arguments do.


There is that term 'neo-Darwinist' again. How would materialistic evolution be disproved by the Lenski experiment. As far as I'm aware, and as far as I even care, evolution (or neo-Darwinism if you must does not place chance as the driving force behind mutation and adaption, but is instead chemistry and biology. I feel myself repeating. If you can point to a reputable scientist that has said it is, though, care to share a quote? 




> Should you want to challenge my theism, you would need to challenge consciousness as fundamental. If consciousness is fundamental then I can empirically point to God by pointing to the universe as some form of creation or manifestation of that Consciousness. I need no further argument. The various theistic (or even pseudo-atheistic, consciousness religions such as Buddhism) could be built upon that.


I do not see the universe as part of the Consiousness - to me it is a place, purely a materialistic construction. I see no reason to think otherwise, so unless you want to convince me you do need further argument, because that argument you give is not one that is going to be accepted by I would suspect most people. So in simple terms you think the universe shows evidence of design or consciousness, fine. What do you see that suggests design or consciousness? 




> Some atheists deliberately attempt to undermine consciousness by using science which by default only looks at the material aspect of the universe. This is why you hear "chance" and "determinism" thrown around so much. This is also why the discoveries of indeterminacy in quantum physics undermined atheism by removing both chance and determinism from quantum physics.


I must admit, the only time I hear the words 'chance' and 'determinism' in these sorts of discussions is when theists are describing what atheists apparently say. Two questions anyway: 1) if quantum physics shows evidence for theism, why are not all quantum physicists theists? 2) How has quantum physics 'undermined' atheism? That video you showed me? I did provide a video making a counter claim, did you watch it? 




> The same thing goes in neuroscience. Atheism has to show that we ultimately do not have any free will, that is, that our consciousness is trivial


How is the idea our consciousness is 'trivia' meaning we do not have free will? Care to explain? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard. 




> because if it is not, if consciousness is fundamental, then this can be generalized to the whole universe.


... how? You make some pretty bombastic claims and do not show your reasoning, no wonder I'm frankly not impressed. 




> I don't think that effort has been successful. What we do have is more knowledge about the brain being itself changeable through our own intentions. In other words mind is not an epiphenomenon of matter.
> 
> The same thing goes in cosmology. Atheism needs something eternal to explain the universe. If that cannot be found to be solely dependent on matter, then they fail to remove consciousness and essentially legitimate theistic attempts to relate to that higher consciousness.


Why does it need something eternal to explain the universe? You do realize that before the big bang there was no time, right? Why can't it depend solely on matter? I really wish you would explain yourself.

What consciousness would lead to the idea of higher consciousness other than primates who want to believe in one? 




> I think today, given modern science, all that atheism has to cling to are monistic views such as those that Nagel is presenting. Consciousness cannot be reduced to matter. To me Nagel's views look like a desperate last ditch attempt to save atheism, but other attempts to scientifically justify atheism through further materialistic reductionism seem to me unlikely to succeed.


Did you look at an earlier post critiquing Nagel's writing and reputation? Why do you think atheism has to cling to monism? I can think of many people who do not think this. Also, you are not really in a position to declare you opinions on what atheism will succeed in doing if you don't seem to really understand what atheism is.




> d. None of this is what the thread is about  To which I would add (but forgot to earlier) that while some of the worst evils perpetuated by man against man have been done in the name of god (pick your deity to fit) the very very very worst evils have been done by men without god .... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... so I still feel that despite the considerable evidence for thinking god is bad, man on his own is far worse.


Hitler was a Roman Catholic. 

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

"Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children." 

- Adolf Hitler reflecting on World War I, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Chapter 7

----------


## Frostball

> a. I am not so stupid as to fall into that trap, if I even could argue that point sufficiently well.
> 
> b. I said that the theist position is that the evidence is there, and that the atheist position is that it is not.... further more I said that the anti-position tends to be of the opinion that they do not need to refute the evidence presented by theists but can get away with dismissing it as nonsense. My point was that if this was any kind of real life position where some one posited a theory it would not be sufficient to merely say it was nonsense, you would have to prove it was nonsense, with real proofs for your position. 
> 
> c. I would argue that in the absence of firm provable evidence one way or the other, what the entire thing devolves down to is belief with one side believing as fervently in the thing as the other side equally fervently does not. Neither side are particularly good at debating the issue and neither side are very good at listening with an open mind to the other.
> 
> d. None of this is what the thread is about  To which I would add (but forgot to earlier) that while some of the worst evils perpetuated by man against man have been done in the name of god (pick your deity to fit) the very very very worst evils have been done by men without god .... Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... so I still feel that despite the considerable evidence for thinking god is bad, man on his own is far worse.


Fall into a trap? What trap is there to ask you to explain the evidence that is apparently as much evidence as we have of the sun. Think about if a person asked for evidence of the sun, what might one say? You could point to it, you could point out the heat you feel from it, you could mention the facts of day and night, and our knowledge about stars, and the evidence we've gotten from telescopes and satellites.. You could literally go on and on giving evidence for the existence of the sun. The fact that people treat god differently than any other thing is special pleading. Atheists do not, as you say, simply dismiss evidence for god as nonsense, we merely treat the claims of god the same as any other claim. It's not our fault that a lot of the things people state as evidence for god really _are_ nonsense. Not all of them, mind you. I haven't heard every argument for the existence for god, so maybe there are some good ones I have yet to hear. But most of them are not very good in my opinion, and that's exactly why I'm an atheist.

And it's not like people just have their beliefs and can't ever change because of argument. I was a christian once, and very active in my church and even went on mission trips, one of which was in Nicaragua. But I was convinced by arguments, even though I didn't really want to be convinced. I don't think it's pointless to argue about. Your whole "C" point seems to be fatalistic and hopeless. Well, I have hope.

And ah, your 'D' point.. The nazi regime was entirely christian, and was backed by the pope and consequently catholic church. Stalin, mao, and pol pot were not, however their whole regimes used methods and practices that were practically religious just without god and supernatural beliefs. I've already said before that it's not being a "religion" that's bad, but rather accepting claims with no or with bad evidence. People who followed these kinds of regimes were blindly following orders, holding up and almost deifying their leaders and the state. But even with that said, this is just more evidence that atheism is just one thing, and doesn't tell anybody what to do. You can be atheist and be terrible, or you can be atheist and be a great person. Same thing with religious people. But what atheism does not have is a holy book that outlines clearly backwards and evil beliefs and practices. You need some other kind of ideology to actually get you to believe _in_ something. I for example advocate reason, free thinking, humanism, equality, and things like that. The regimes you listed clearly do not, but that has nothing to do with atheism.

----------


## The Atheist

Excellent, yet another theist explaining what atheism is and being wrong.




> Atheism as a concept is a single truth claim, but in practice it is a worldview. Atheism is a definite subculture which happens to act like a religion.


Nice try, but wrong in every respect. It is not a worldview, as neatly evinced by the fact that several hundred million Buddhists are atheists who have a diametrically different worldview to me.

Atheism acts nothing like a religion. Despite your attempts to paint leaders, there are none. No central doctrine, nothing. The idea that atheism is anything like religion is absurd.




> Just because you don't have a single titular bible doesn't mean that there isn't a developed canon and set of popular beliefs surrounding the idea of atheism.


Nonsense.

A typical strawman attack that has been tried thousands of times and failed.




> the atheist position can be boiled down ... god(s) can not be proved rationally or scientifically therefore god(s) does(do) not exist - right?


No. Unsurprisingly, you are completely wrong.

A= without. Theos = god. Without god. Nothing about evidence, science or rationalism.




> ...(and you lazy so-n-so's can look up all the science on that yourselves - that is why god invented google :P )


The paucity and weakness of your arguments are a sure sign that you actually haven't even thought the subject through, let alone having a clue.

This, however, is priceless!





> I still say ... whether god(s) exist as a separate, unknowable, unmeasurable, but distinct entity / entities or whether we invent them ... we need them as a concept of absolute morality because on our own we can only ever have a relative morality which ultimately makes all actions acceptable when clearly they should not be.


"Clearly they should not be." A classic example of religious thinking. 

Why? Because.

Outstanding; thanks for that gem.

----------


## Marbles

I remember a friend of mine who so wanted to be an atheist but couldn't bring himself to accept with sound reason the non-existence of God. So after much reflection he maintained that God does exist, in one way or the other, but that he's a very unpleasant character of the novel of humankind. I think he was angry with God, or with the idea of God.

The amusing bit of his story, or the sad part if you will, was that neither theists nor atheists took him seriously.

----------


## Pumpkin337

As afraid as I am of a man with a gun in one hand and religious text of his choice in the other, I am more afraid of a man with a manifesto he made up himself. The former is dangerously deluded about the rightness of his cause, but the latter is entirely convinced of his own personal rightness ... and that is far more dangerous.

FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.

----------


## Poetaster

> FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.


FYI, the Buddha was an atheist. Look it up.

Edit: in fact, I'll do it for you: 

'Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity'

Buddhism also rejects personal deities. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I remember a friend of mine who so wanted to be an atheist but couldn't bring himself to accept with sound reason the non-existence of God. So after much reflection he maintained that God does exist, in one way or the other, but that he's a very unpleasant character of the novel of humankind. I think he was angry with God, or with the idea of God.
> 
> The amusing bit of his story, or the sad part if you will, was that neither theists nor atheists took him seriously.



I neither take seriously, nor have respect for those types of people... the fence sitters, the agnostics, the gutless.

----------


## Poetaster

What is with the misunderstanding of common words?




> I neither take seriously, nor have respect for those types of people... the fence sitters, the agnostics, the gutless.


If the guy believes that god, but that god is unpleasant, he is by definition a theist, not agnostic.

----------


## The Atheist

> FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.


Wow. That is a depth of ignorance I'm not used to.

You clearly know nothing about neither Buddhism nor Pantheism. I see you've been given a link to Buddhism - here's Pantheism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

I'm guessing you got Hinduism and Buddhism mixed up. Easy mistake to make, eh? Asians all look the same and think the same in your book?

----------


## Pumpkin337

> FYI, the Buddha was an atheist. Look it up.
> 
> Edit: in fact, I'll do it for you: 
> 
> 'Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity'
> 
> Buddhism also rejects personal deities. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism



Again ... check both definitions and facts .... 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


THE GOD-CONCEPTION OF BUDDHISM:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

which discusses why Buddhism is neither as atheistic as some would have it, and why it is at least in part pantheistic, mostly attempts to outline the concepts of God that are in fact in Buddhism but very technical. 

A new form of Buddhism called Secular Buddhism is determinedly atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism




> Asians all look the same and think the same in your book?


Please take your ridiculous prejudices and shove them where the sun don't shine. You know nothing about me!




> I'm guessing you got Hinduism and Buddhism mixed up.


ROFLMAO oh I just love it when people make complete tits of themselves when attempting to do a put down. PLEASE PLEASE check your facts before you start throwing 'insults'. 

Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism and both religions still share many similarities.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/h_buddhism.asp

----------


## The Atheist

> What is with the misunderstanding of common words?
> 
> If the guy believes that god, but that god is unpleasant, he is by definition a theist, not agnostic.


Even better, all agnostics are atheist, but not all atheists are agnostic.

----------


## The Atheist

> Again ... check both definitions and facts .... 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


You know repeating an error doesn't make it right, but just means you've made the same mistake twice.

If you doubt me, PM some of the Buddhists here and ask. You will find out first hand why Buddhism isn't listed among the adherents to pantheism.

Hint: it's because Buddhists aren't pantheists.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> What is with the misunderstanding of common words?
> 
> 
> 
> If the guy believes that god, but that god is unpleasant, he is by definition a theist, not agnostic.



Where the rubber meets to road, he believes in nothing at all.
I understand the full meaning of the words I used in my previous post as they apply to people who make up things as they go along in life. Waiting for God to tap them on the shoulder.

----------


## Poetaster

> Even better, all agnostics are atheist, but not all atheists are agnostic.


Yeah, this I've generally found to be the case. 

@Pumkin337: If the Buddha was an atheist, rejecting a creator god, and Buddhism rejects the idea of a personal god, then it is by definition atheistic. Plenty of Buddhists also call themselves atheists too, so who am I to believe? You who is clearly not a Buddhist talking about what you think Buddhism is? Or a Buddhist telling me what they think Buddhism is?

@Iain Sparrow: if he made a decision, who are you to assume he's just sitting on a fence when you don't even know the guy? I don't get it.

----------


## Frostball

> As afraid as I am of a man with a gun in one hand and religious text of his choice in the other, I am more afraid of a man with a manifesto he made up himself. The former is dangerously deluded about the rightness of his cause, but the latter is entirely convinced of his own personal rightness ... and that is far more dangerous.
> 
> FYI Buddhists are pantheists ... try fact checking before making assertions.


Without a holy book one doesn't just make up morality out of whole cloth. You actually have to work together and agree with other humans to find out what seems right and wrong. You actually have to do a little work instead of having all of life's answers handed to you on a silver platter. Without citing from a holy book if you're shown to be wrong, you can just admit it, instead of holding fast because god said it so he must be right. Religious moral systems aren't even moral systems, they are just a list of rules without any regard for _why_ the rules should be followed. 

The bible, for example, never touches on why killing or theft is wrong, it merely proclaims that they are wrong. This causes people to just follow rules blindly instead of thinking for themselves, which leads to people committing atrocities while thinking they are doing the right thing. Picture an old woman who is perfectly nice to everybody, like really the nicest old lady you've ever seen. This old woman could be driven to bigotry against gays because the bible says so, and she would feel like she's doing the right thing, and nobody could ever convince her otherwise because that would be asking her to admit god was wrong. This is the failure of so called "objective" moral systems based on holy books. It destroys people's natural tendency to actually think about their actions and the consequences of them, instead allowing them to just follow a list of rules.

----------


## Frostball

> I remember a friend of mine who so wanted to be an atheist but couldn't bring himself to accept with sound reason the non-existence of God. So after much reflection he maintained that God does exist, in one way or the other, but that he's a very unpleasant character of the novel of humankind. I think he was angry with God, or with the idea of God.
> 
> The amusing bit of his story, or the sad part if you will, was that neither theists nor atheists took him seriously.


I'm confused on how one would "want" to become an atheist. One should rather want to find the truth, and the outcome of that would be either theism or atheism. Theism and atheism are conclusions, not starting points.

I could perfectly understand hating god if you believed Yahweh existed, though. I don't believe he does exist, so I certainly don't hate him, except in the way I might hate voldemort for example. But this guy's situation sounds like a really sad state. That is he believes in god, but he hates him. It sounds like he's been indoctrinated so much into belief that he can't countenance disbelief, even though he has problems with religion and the bible. I don't know him, so I can't truly know, but still it sounds like an unhappy place to be with regards to his beliefs concerning god.

----------


## Paulclem

> Again ... check both definitions and facts .... 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
> 
> 
> THE GOD-CONCEPTION OF BUDDHISM:
> 
> ...


The Atheist is correct - Buddhists are neither pantheists nor just a branch of Hinduism. The website you've linked to claiming Buddhists are theists seems to have a Christian agenda. The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul and the conception of a creator God. His claim that the ultimate nature of reality or emptiness is another word for God has no basis in the teachings. 

The problem with the Hindu website is that Hindus claim The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva. This is a largely political claim. The Buddha expressly rejected key tenets of Hinduism - particularly the caste system as an expression of Karma. This is potentially damaging for Hinduism as lower caste people are often drawn to Buddhism as an essentially caste and classless system. It has caused tension in India. 

Interestingly, the original Hindu claim had The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva whose purpose was to tempt Hindus from the true path. Later - presumably when it didn't work - it tried to co-op Buddhism on the basis that you cannot reject Hinduism if you are born into it.

----------


## Frostball

> Even better, all agnostics are atheist, but not all atheists are agnostic.


Well, I have heard of agnostic theists. One who believes in god but understands that it can't be proven, and that they can't be certain that he does in fact exist. Just because you aren't sure about something doesn't mean you can't have an opinion. So an agnostic theist doesn't know for sure, but still in the end believes.

----------


## mortalterror

> Well, it might be an often used argument, but it's true to say that would you believe I am sitting with the Philosopher's Stone next to my laptop as I write this? I think you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'Nah, I think that's horse **** until you show me a picture at least', and I think you'd have every right to be annoyed if I said 'Well, why don't you believe I have the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop? Can't you just take it on faith?' So people are being 'contrary idiots' if they are disagreeing without giving any reason? Well, I agree, thanks for admitting you are not listening to the other side. Plenty of reasons can be given for disbelief, and I'm sure they already have been given on this very thread. For one I have never experienced the consciousness of God directly, nor has anyone else as far as I can see. There one reason.


See my earlier post on page 16? about Russell's teapot. In your example it is just one person making the claim that you have the Philosopher's Stone by your laptop. But in the case of a god there are literally thousands, possibly millions, of eye witness sightings and historical documents. Then there are the other reasons for believing in a god which I mentioned may be inferred from verifiable phenomena. If a thousand people told me that you had a Philosopher's Stone, and there were historical evidence to prove that one actually existed in the distant past, I'd say we'd be justified to believe it.

----------


## mortalterror

> Justify rejection? You're looking at it the entirely wrong way. You have to justify believing _in_ something not disbelieving something. Just like Poetaster said with his philosopher's stone example, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your example of the sun is laughable because if there was as much evidence for god as there was of the sun we wouldn't be even discussing this; god would be an obvious reality. The the fact is that there isn't as much evidence for god as we have for anything else we know to be real; even things like dark matter and dark energy at least have some measurable effect even if we don't know what they are and how they are doing it.
> 
> This isn't to say that one should just decide there are no gods and never think about it again. As you say, the jury is still out. But what this means is one might as well not believe it until there IS evidence. Since a thing cannot be disproved, ever, this means that the jury is still out on everything. The jury is still out on ghosts, bigfoot, loch ness, santa, faeries, and god. But one doesn't just live their life as though these things DO exist just because it hasn't been proved that they don't. That's exactly the way atheists are with god. He might be out there, but there's no reason to assume he is unless there is good evidence.
> 
> I don't mind the contrarian title either, but I don't see how this is in any way contrarian. It's just logical.


In what school of logic did you learn that the burden of proof is always on the side making a claim, or that atheism makes no claims? That doesn't sound like logic to me. That sounds like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it doesn't sound like Aristotle or Descartes. What rule of logic are we actually discussing? Who came up with it? And is it a law or just a custom? I think it's a custom, and a crutch for those who feel the need to always be on offense but never play defense. It's like expecting to always play white and go first in Chess and your opponent must always be black. It feels dishonest and hypocritical, as does the notion that atheism makes no truth claims or is a single logical point without a whole range of associated ideas.

I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence. You cannot find anything which is not evidence for God in the universe. That is natural theology and was once the foundation for all the sciences. If you think there is no evidence of God perhaps it's because you are looking in the wrong places. Atheists are like men with their backs to the sun denying it's existence, or like Plato's allegory of the cave where men are chained looking at a wall. Either way, they live in darkness and fear the truth.

The contrarian title now, hmmm. I've known logical people who weren't contrarian. It's sort of like how there are people who are rude who say that they are just being honest. Perhaps, the problem with contrarians isn't that they are using logic so much as they have a habit of using logic only for their own personal hobbyhorse and when it suits them. Or they will deny that a majority point of view which conflicts with their personal beliefs can also be reached and defended through logical premises. So you can be logical, but wielding logic in a peevish and illogical fashion, which makes it offensive, idiosyncratic, or contrarian. I suggest that it isn't logic which finds you at odds with the rest of society time after time, it's a personality disorder which you defend with logic.

----------


## mortalterror

YesNo, this may be influenced by how often I find myself agreeing with your opinions, but I'm always surprised and impressed by the content of your ideas in these threads. I hadn't even considered the free will and consciousness aspects of this debate.

And Poetaster, you're a sharp cookie too, and as far as I can tell, not like the typical New Atheists I so often run into in the States.

It's a pleasure to read both of your comments in this conversation.

----------


## YesNo

> If my story is unknown to me then how is it a story? I don't get it.


Your responses are your story. I am providing you prompts with my posts. Once you compose the post, you understand better what you know, perhaps for the first time.




> There is that term 'neo-Darwinist' again. How would materialistic evolution be disproved by the Lenski experiment. As far as I'm aware, and as far as I even care, evolution (or neo-Darwinism if you must does not place chance as the driving force behind mutation and adaption, but is instead chemistry and biology. I feel myself repeating. If you can point to a reputable scientist that has said it is, though, care to share a quote?


Do the chemistry and biology rely upon either determinism or chance? Can the species as a whole or individuals make choices in your view even at the E. coli level?




> I do not see the universe as part of the Consiousness - to me it is a place, purely a materialistic construction. I see no reason to think otherwise, so unless you want to convince me you do need further argument, because that argument you give is not one that is going to be accepted by I would suspect most people. So in simple terms you think the universe shows evidence of design or consciousness, fine. What do you see that suggests design or consciousness?


I do see it as a manifestation of Consciousness. I see no reason to think otherwise. If you want to convince me that it is not, you will need to provide further arguments preferably based on modern science. 

As far as my convincing you, I mentioned early on that I am not interested in convincing you of anything. 




> I must admit, the only time I hear the words 'chance' and 'determinism' in these sorts of discussions is when theists are describing what atheists apparently say. Two questions anyway: 1) if quantum physics shows evidence for theism, why are not all quantum physicists theists? 2) How has quantum physics 'undermined' atheism? That video you showed me? I did provide a video making a counter claim, did you watch it?


Look at the video again and point to something in it you disagree with. I would be interested to know what it is.

Physicists, like anyone else, will believe whatever they want about God. It not part of their specialty. 




> How is the idea our consciousness is 'trivia' meaning we do not have free will? Care to explain? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.


Do you think you have any sort of free will? On what do you base that belief? I would say you do because your consciousness is not reducible to matter. Otherwise you do not because then you are determined. 

So, if consciousness is trivial, if it can be explained as an epiphenomenon of our chemistry and physics, then we do not have free will. I don't think that is the case. Have you read Sam Harris's _Free Will_? He would be an example of an atheist who doesn't believe in free will. Do you agree with him or not?





> ... how? You make some pretty bombastic claims and do not show your reasoning, no wonder I'm frankly not impressed.


Here's a tip: When I make a claim that you think is wrong, use it to state something new that moves the discussion in the direction you are interested in seeing it go. 




> Why does it need something eternal to explain the universe? You do realize that before the big bang there was no time, right? Why can't it depend solely on matter? I really wish you would explain yourself.


Show me that it can depend upon only matter. It did have a beginning. That's what raises the doubt. Where did it come from?




> Did you look at an earlier post critiquing Nagel's writing and reputation? Why do you think atheism has to cling to monism? I can think of many people who do not think this. Also, you are not really in a position to declare you opinions on what atheism will succeed in doing if you don't seem to really understand what atheism is.


Sure. I've read all your posts as well as those of others in this thread. I want to see the scope of the argument. It doesn't matter if "many" think something. Only their arguments matter if they have any. If I can compose the sentence and post it I am in a position to declare my opinions on whatever I choose.

I also believe in a sort of monism. Basically, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around as in materialism. Nagel has a different sort of monism. He thinks consciousness and matter work together and can't be separated. This allows him to justify reductionism by giving up on materialism. A dualism would be what Descartes promoted, but then the question of how mind interacts with matter raises additional questions.

----------


## mortalterror

> If my story is unknown to me then how is it a story? I don't get it.


Because we don't pick our beliefs by reason. We form our opinions and then build reasons around them for being true. Basic psychology. The logic of a claim also has little baring on it's persuasiveness, and most belief is driven by personality and biological differences in the brain. Hence those with naturally negative, melancholy, or skeptical dispositions tend to gravitate toward one end of the bubble and those with positive, cheerful, and trusting dispositions end up on the other. Some of the basic ability to believe in other minds outside our own, teleological thinking, or the ability to see cause and effect or meaning in actions is also ingrained into personality. It's not logical, it's biological.

Besides, I've never met a person who had a systematic and self-coherent philosophy. People's beliefs are a mishmash of facts and opinions, things they've reasoned for themselves, things they were told by others, vague yearnings, artifacts of youth, delusions, wishes, and half figured out ideas they are still struggling with. You might say that most of your belief system is subconscious. 




> I do not see the universe as part of the Consiousness - to me it is a place, purely a materialistic construction. I see no reason to think otherwise, so unless you want to convince me you do need further argument, because that argument you give is not one that is going to be accepted by I would suspect most people.


Here we are not debating the truth value of a claim but rather it's persuasive value. The threshold for belief varies among the population from not requiring much evidence to not being persuaded no matter how much evidence is presented. I find that to be a key distinction between believers and skeptics. It's not so much a matter of proof or no proof as some have suggested. The debate runs more along the lines of enough proof versus not enough evidence.




> So in simple terms you think the universe shows evidence of design or consciousness, fine. What do you see that suggests design or consciousness?


Fine tuned universe for one thing. Evolution for another. The order, the fact that things follow rational laws instead of being completely chaotic and random, etc.




> 1) if quantum physics shows evidence for theism, why are not all quantum physicists theists?


Social conditioning in the subculture peer group of scientists, materialistic nature of their studies and the philosophy thereof, monetary and honorary incentives toward skepticism in their profession, psychological leanings which predisposed them toward a life of scientific pursuit, pervasiveness of liberal ideology among academic institutions where the majority of research is conducted, the over representation of western affluent white males in the sample, etc.




> How is the idea our consciousness is 'trivia' meaning we do not have free will? Care to explain? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard.


I have heard atheists argue in the past that since we are purely material creatures, our brains are a series of chemical reactions, and our bodies are just genes reacting to instincts and outside stimula, that everything is predictable. If everything is the biological nature of an animal plus it's environment then we are just automata without free will of our own.

----------


## mortalterror

> But even with that said, this is just more evidence that atheism is just one thing, and doesn't tell anybody what to do. You can be atheist and be terrible, or you can be atheist and be a great person. Same thing with religious people. But what atheism does not have is a holy book that outlines clearly backwards and evil beliefs and practices. You need some other kind of ideology to actually get you to believe _in_ something. I for example advocate reason, free thinking, humanism, equality, and things like that. The regimes you listed clearly do not, but that has nothing to do with atheism.


I don't know about that. I don't think the dogma comes just from having a book. I've met too many atheists with too many common beliefs for it to just be chance, or for them to come to the same conclusions all on their own. The way atheists act you'd think they were the first atheists ever and all of their ideas are entirely original, but anthropology, and sociology should teach us that no man is an island. 

It's also an oversimplification to say that all of Christian beliefs are ancient or derived from just one book. There's so many other sources to consider from the institutions, to the theologians Augustine, Aquinus, Calvin, Luther, Tillich, Barth, Newman, Niebhur, Whitehead, Swedenborg, Kierkegaard, Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, traditions, and diverse cultural influences, ecumenical councils, creeds, etc.

----------


## mortalterror

> Excellent, yet another theist explaining what atheism is and being wrong.


Considering I was an atheist for several years, I feel I have as much right to define it as you. Besides, you are hardly an unbiased source yourself. And finally, if a theist can't possibly hope to plumb the endlessly unique depths of atheism which a whole 2% of the world subscribes to, how can an atheist hope to conceive of every religious person's point of view, beliefs, and philosophy? And don't say, "Cause you got a book." That's a cop out and an oversimplification. We have many books and philosophers the same as you. If it were all based on one book there would be only one denomination/interpretation instead of hundreds.




> Nice try, but wrong in every respect. It is not a worldview, as neatly evinced by the fact that several hundred million Buddhists are atheists who have a diametrically different worldview to me.


I don't consider Buddhists atheists. Besides, I have a worldview which is different from Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, but we are all theists. You need to try harder.




> Atheism acts nothing like a religion. Despite your attempts to paint leaders, there are none. No central doctrine, nothing. The idea that atheism is anything like religion is absurd.


Atheism acts exactly like an emerging religion. The sociology, psychology, and anthropology studies all confirm it. 




> Nonsense.
> 
> A typical strawman attack that has been tried thousands of times and failed.


Or, you know, common sense and I'm completely right. 




> No. Unsurprisingly, you are completely wrong.
> 
> A= without. Theos = god. Without god. Nothing about evidence, science or rationalism.


That's just etymology. It's not a definition of the concept and doesn't show the context with which the word is used in our society. Again you are oversimplifying a complex subject.

----------


## mortalterror

> FYI, the Buddha was an atheist. Look it up.
> 
> Edit: in fact, I'll do it for you: 
> 
> 'Gautama Buddha rejected the existence of a creator deity'
> 
> Buddhism also rejects personal deities. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism


Whether Buddhism is atheist or theistic is somewhat ambiguous, and I'm not enough of an eastern religious scholar to sort it out, but from what I've gathered it's a little bit of both and depends on which sect and which period of history you are looking at. Buddhism is just way to big and old to be any one thing. Just look at their expansive pantheon of deities, their buddhas, bodhisattvas, wisdom kings, heavenly deities, gongen, arhats, devas, nagas, yakshas, gandharva, asura, Guanyin. That's all pretty explicitly theistic.




> Yeah, this I've generally found to be the case. 
> 
> @Pumkin337: If the Buddha was an atheist, rejecting a creator god, and Buddhism rejects the idea of a personal god, then it is by definition atheistic. Plenty of Buddhists also call themselves atheists too, so who am I to believe? You who is clearly not a Buddhist talking about what you think Buddhism is? Or a Buddhist telling me what they think Buddhism is?
> 
> @Iain Sparrow: if he made a decision, who are you to assume he's just sitting on a fence when you don't even know the guy? I don't get it.


Unless you met them in the East I wouldn't put too much stock in what a western Buddhist believes. I've had some Buddhist friends in my day that understood next to nothing about the religion. My friend just adopted some eastern affectations because he liked martial arts movies, had some white guilt, a love for the exotic, and no firm upbringing in his own culture. My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. Religion, when it comes down to it is culture, and when I see people trying to adopt practices alien to their culture, it's like watching them wear clothes that don't fit. They are just flailing, trying to be different. When we explore our own culture, it generally fits us better. Whatever appealing feature you may find in another culture, there is usually an analog in your native culture, if you'd only bothered to look.

My Tibetan roommate in college, I'm pretty sure was a Buddhist well steeped in it's traditions, ways of acting, and thought. He wouldn't eat meat and used to catch our rooms spiders on a paper and set them alive outside.

----------


## mortalterror

> Without a holy book one doesn't just make up morality out of whole cloth. You actually have to work together and agree with other humans to find out what seems right and wrong. You actually have to do a little work instead of having all of life's answers handed to you on a silver platter. Without citing from a holy book if you're shown to be wrong, you can just admit it, instead of holding fast because god said it so he must be right. Religious moral systems aren't even moral systems, they are just a list of rules without any regard for _why_ the rules should be followed. 
> 
> The bible, for example, never touches on why killing or theft is wrong, it merely proclaims that they are wrong. This causes people to just follow rules blindly instead of thinking for themselves, which leads to people committing atrocities while thinking they are doing the right thing. Picture an old woman who is perfectly nice to everybody, like really the nicest old lady you've ever seen. This old woman could be driven to bigotry against gays because the bible says so, and she would feel like she's doing the right thing, and nobody could ever convince her otherwise because that would be asking her to admit god was wrong. This is the failure of so called "objective" moral systems based on holy books. It destroys people's natural tendency to actually think about their actions and the consequences of them, instead allowing them to just follow a list of rules.


Without the "holy books" you pretty much are starting from zero and making it up as you go along. The non-aggression principle, which is natural to human biology will work as a basic guide to moral behavior, to average level moral behavior, but to be better than that you need an external philosophy. Religion is essentially 5 thousand years of ethical philosophy. Christian Theology offers many reasons for why we should behave as Christians. It's not just a set of rules as you claim.

Then again, think of the same old woman, thinking for herself, but committing atrocities because no one ever told her not to and still thinking she was doing the right thing. Picture that old woman who is driven to bigotry because she read something James Watson said about black people not being as smart as white people, books on phrenology, or scientific racism which were used as pretexts for slavery, or the holocaust. Imagine she was told that a fetus has no right to life, that we don't have souls, that we're entirely material, that it's okay to do what we want to living organisms so long as they aren't big and fully developed, and she had no problem aborting millions of babies. Imagine a scientist driven by a technological necessity for progress creating weapons which could destroy the world, or torturing monkeys because there is no law against it and it's for the good of science, or performing immoral experiments on humans and children. People do a lot of things out of self-interest, for fame, for money, but they don't do it as much when they are regularly reminded by external institutions that it would be wrong. The church is a counter balance against the pressures of the material world, and one of the only educators in ethics and philosophy we have. Personally, I'm pro-education.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Whether Buddhism is atheist or theistic is somewhat ambiguous, and I'm not enough of an eastern religious scholar to sort it out, but from what I've gathered it's a little bit of both and depends on which sect and which period of history you are looking at. Buddhism is just way to big and old to be any one thing. Just look at their expansive pantheon of deities, their buddhas, bodhisattvas, wisdom kings, heavenly deities, gongen, arhats, devas, nagas, yakshas, gandharva, asura, Guanyin. That's all pretty explicitly theistic.


that was pretty much the knowledge base I was coming from  :Smile:  




> Unless you met them in the East I wouldn't put too much stock in what a western Buddhist believes. I've had some Buddhist friends in my day that understood next to nothing about the religion. My friend just adopted some eastern affectations because he liked martial arts movies, had some white guilt, a love for the exotic, and no firm upbringing in his own culture. My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. Religion, when it comes down to it is culture, and when I see people trying to adopt practices alien to their culture, it's like watching them wear clothes that don't fit. They are just flailing, trying to be different. When we explore our own culture, it generally fits us better. Whatever appealing feature you may find in another culture, there is usually an analog in your native culture, if you'd only bothered to look.
> 
> My Tibetan roommate in college, I'm pretty sure was a Buddhist well steeped in it's traditions, ways of acting, and thought. He wouldn't eat meat and used to catch our rooms spiders on a paper and set them alive outside.


Well I wouldn't have put it that harshly but I agree.

PS I also catch spiders and put them out, although mostly I leave them alone ... I have one permanent resident in my bathroom  :Biggrin:  ..but I'm not a Buddhist.




> The non-aggression principle, which is natural to human biology will work as a basic guide to moral behavior, to average level moral behavior, but to be better than that you need an external philosophy.


Oh please don't make me laugh ... non-aggression principle? Yup that explains perfectly why men have been going to war with other men for just about all of human history ... pray tell please explain how your mythical non-aggression principle explains the basic aggressive and martial tendencies of mankind?

----------


## Pumpkin337

> In what school of logic did you learn that the burden of proof is always on the side making a claim, or that atheism makes no claims? That doesn't sound like logic to me. That sounds like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it doesn't sound like Aristotle or Descartes. What rule of logic are we actually discussing? Who came up with it? And is it a law or just a custom? I think it's a custom, and a crutch for those who feel the need to always be on offense but never play defense. It's like expecting to always play white and go first in Chess and your opponent must always be black. It feels dishonest and hypocritical, as does the notion that atheism makes no truth claims or is a single logical point without a whole range of associated ideas.
> 
> I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence. You cannot find anything which is not evidence for God in the universe. That is natural theology and was once the foundation for all the sciences. If you think there is no evidence of God perhaps it's because you are looking in the wrong places. Atheists are like men with their backs to the sun denying it's existence, or like Plato's allegory of the cave where men are chained looking at a wall. Either way, they live in darkness and fear the truth.
> 
> The contrarian title now, hmmm. I've known logical people who weren't contrarian. It's sort of like how there are people who are rude who say that they are just being honest. Perhaps, the problem with contrarians isn't that they are using logic so much as they have a habit of using logic only for their own personal hobbyhorse and when it suits them. Or they will deny that a majority point of view which conflicts with their personal beliefs can also be reached and defended through logical premises. So you can be logical, but wielding logic in a peevish and illogical fashion, which makes it offensive, idiosyncratic, or contrarian. I suggest that it isn't logic which finds you at odds with the rest of society time after time, it's a personality disorder which you defend with logic.


Thank you! And it would be great if some of the atheists in this thread actually answered the point instead of always just pooh-poohing it. Saying that some one's else argument is weak, stupid, invalid, wrong doesn't make yours any stronger. As I said ... it just makes you look an argumentative contrary idiot who has no defense for what you think you believe, but who just likes to attack people of an opposite opinion ... perhaps to vent some of the anger they feel towards a god they claim not to believe in because god has disappointed them in some way or failed to live up to their expectations. Ultimately the accusations leveled against god which lead to a rejection of god come down to a few basic things:

1. the person grew up in a rigid home / church community which was restrictive, hurtful and rejection of the narrowness of that view has led to a rejection of god.

2. the person has looked at the state of the world and concluded that no loving god would let the world get into this state therefore there is no loving god to believe in. Sometimes the slightly watered down version is 'therefore I do not want to believe in such a god if such a god exists'.

3. the person has looked at various bits of the OT taken out of context and gotten hot under the collar about what they think it says and (usually also argues these random bits of scripture in online forums with vast amounts of heat and anger behind their words) comes to the conclusion that god is unfair, misogynistic, unenlightened, and cruel and .... comes to the conclusion that they do not wish to believe in such a god.

4. There was some situation in the person's life where they turned to god / thought god should intervene and they think god didn't and as result have turned against god.

I am yet to hear anyone on any of these forums who claims to be an atheistic Jew, former follower of Islam or any one of the many other theistic religions who have decided that god does not exist and feels the need to vent their anger against those religions which is why I said earlier that the way in which these conversations go always devolves into an anti-Christian rant which seems to me to be more than a little biased. 

(I specify "on forums" because there are examples like Marx who was an atheistic Jew and Salman Rushdie who is an atheistic Muslim and I'm sure many others less famous. They just don't seem to feel the need to vent their feelings online.)

If you truly do not believe in god then your argument is against ALL theistic beliefs just not one in particular, and you should then also be able to defend your position against anyone who comes with any POV about god(s) they believe in rather than just simply whipping out your invective against Christianity. 

If your only argument is against christianity and the bible ... then are you really an atheist or just some one who has rejected the faith you were exposed to / grew up in?

Whatever your position is, you should be able to defend it, .... the word is 'apologetics' which means to have a ready defense for your beliefs.

Again, as I said, earlier, it is not enough to just say that others arguments are invalid / wrong you must actually be able to show why they are wrong, as well as defend your own.


(whilst I am not going to elaborate deeply on my own personal position I will say that my basic beliefs lean towards theism simply because I think the world is up the proverbial creek without a paddle if we have to rely on ourselves to pull ourselves up by the bootstraps but I am not big fan of organised religion of any flavour. And I most certainly do not place a great deal of faith in some innate higher quality of mankind that if we all just sat around a campfire and sang Kumbaya and thought happy thoughts it would come out and we would enjoy world peace. I do enjoy a good debate though  :Smile:  )

----------


## Poetaster

> YesNo, this may be influenced by how often I find myself agreeing with your opinions, but I'm always surprised and impressed by the content of your ideas in these threads. I hadn't even considered the free will and consciousness aspects of this debate.
> 
> And Poetaster, you're a sharp cookie too, and as far as I can tell, not like the typical New Atheists I so often run into in the States.
> 
> It's a pleasure to read both of your comments in this conversation.


First of all I have to say: thank you. This was actually a nice thing to read, it made me smile. So thanks.  :Smile: 

There is quite a lot to get through and to respond to, so forgive me if my response might take a while.




> See my earlier post on page 16? about Russell's teapot. In your example it is just one person making the claim that you have the Philosopher's Stone by your laptop. But in the case of a god there are literally thousands, possibly millions, of eye witness sightings and historical documents. Then there are the other reasons for believing in a god which I mentioned may be inferred from verifiable phenomena. If a thousand people told me that you had a Philosopher's Stone, and there were historical evidence to prove that one actually existed in the distant past, I'd say we'd be justified to believe it.


This isn't a bad argument I must admit - having an agreed conscientious is the point of peer revision, however, say there were a thousand people saying that I had the Philosopher's Stone beside my laptop, with a picture of a stone beside a laptop. What kind of process has that thousand people used to come to that conclusion? Have they heard me saying it, and just taken it on faith or have they actually seen the stone, and seen it really is the Philosophers Stone through demonstration? 

With regards to the Teapot/Santa Clause post, yes, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God, however, it seems to be equally impossible to prove the existence of God. I'm sure no one in this thread arguing the atheist case would deny this. The typical argument is while this might be the case, it goes back to the thing Pumkin337 and I were discussing about the rejection of a positive claim. This was Russell's point with the teapot. Yes, records in history can be debated, and the existence of things can be inferred without observations - like Dark Matter. However, those things are not consciousness entities with the power to create universes. Logic might actually fall apart when it comes to more technical scientific fields, like Quantum Mechanics say, or Relativity (I don't think it's logical that Time itself can bend, but it appears to do so) but those are laws - a deity that can bend natural laws is so utterly unknown, logic is all we really have.




> Your responses are your story. I am providing you prompts with my posts. Once you compose the post, you understand better what you know, perhaps for the first time.


I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this point, but fair enough. 




> Do the chemistry and biology rely upon either determinism or chance? Can the species as a whole or individuals make choices in your view even at the E. coli level?


E. Coli doesn't, as far as we know, have a decision making process or consciousness. I do believe in free will (in some ways I think that's all we have) so chemistry is just deterministic, biology it becomes more complex when more complex animals starts needing to make decisions. Consider a snail, a snail 'knows' to eat leafs and how to move, but it's not a process that a snail could put into language, language is the construction of more intelligent animals - and even decisions more impressive than the basic drives for life come with more intelligent animals. They may not have a language, but apes still play with things, and entertain themselves, and understand the basics of society. These certainly are not about the fulfillment of basic life needs, leading me to think that free will comes with genius (at least in terms of the animal kingdom). 




> I do see it as a manifestation of Consciousness. I see no reason to think otherwise. If you want to convince me that it is not, you will need to provide further arguments preferably based on modern science. 
> 
> As far as my convincing you, I mentioned early on that I am not interested in convincing you of anything.


Well, exactly for the reason above. The universe seems to only abide by the laws of physics, and does not seem to do anything that suggests it entertains itself or even intakes any form of sustenance. It doesn't show any signs of life, instead it shows me all the signs of waves lashing against the shore. It just seems to follow the laws of physics, and that's all. 




> Look at the video again and point to something in it you disagree with. I would be interested to know what it is.
> 
> Physicists, like anyone else, will believe whatever they want about God. It not part of their specialty.


Physicists believing in god is not the point I was making - obviously, but have you ever heard the quotation (I forget who said it) 'one experiment is worth a thousand expert opinions'? This is something many theists do not seem to understand about the scientific method (and to be fair, so do a lot of New Atheists) that unless you actually know something beyond reasonable doubt your opinion is worthless. We have both admitted we do not know very much about Quantum Mechanics, and are complete amateurs, I'll even say I'm not a very good, or even interested amateur in the subject, so like it or not, my opinion is worthless on the subject. And so, I'm sorry to say, is yours. 




> Do you think you have any sort of free will? On what do you base that belief?


Yes I think I do, and because I've just sang to myself the song 'Total Eclipse of the Heart' replacing the word 'heart' with 'fart'. I wanted to do it, and could have decided not to do it. I could have also decided to do that and not done it anyway. Determinism puts it's trust in either math (in which case you are an existentialist too because everything is utterly meaningless, you even go one step further than I do because I at least believe in subjective meaning whereas that wouldn't) or a god, which I do not believe exists. It might be a leap of faith to believe in free will, but it's the one that doesn't assume anymore than I am a living thing that can think and make independent decisions - and what I see of the universe it justifies this at least. 




> I would say you do because your consciousness is not reducible to matter. Otherwise you do not because then you are determined.


Well, 'matter'? Thinking is apparently electrical signals in the brain, communication between cells. You may think consciousness is not just matter, but I don't see why not. Some living things are not conscious, like viruses. 




> So, if consciousness is trivial, if it can be explained as an epiphenomenon of our chemistry and physics, then we do not have free will. I don't think that is the case.


Rubbish, and completely unsupported by anything more than your opinion. If consciousness is chemistry then why can't that chemistry mutate into intelligence? What is the difference between a virus (which is alive) and a fish (which is obviously alive)? That to be honest is more of a rhetorical question, a philosophical point to consider.




> Have you read Sam Harris's _Free Will_? He would be an example of an atheist who doesn't believe in free will. Do you agree with him or not?


No, I don't agree with him at all - and allow me to be vulgar for a moment, I think he's a dick. But I tend to think that about people who try to justify torture, as Harris has with torturing Islamic extremists. 




> Here's a tip: When I make a claim that you think is wrong, use it to state something new that moves the discussion in the direction you are interested in seeing it go.


Seems a bit of a sneaky tactic, have I honestly been doing this? 




> Show me that it can depend upon only matter. It did have a beginning. That's what raises the doubt. Where did it come from?


Negative claim since you are talking about the universe having a consciousness - I've actually explained my reason above to be honest, but really - the pressure is on you to explain your positive claim which you haven't actually done, despite me asking at least twice. 




> Sure. I've read all your posts as well as those of others in this thread. I want to see the scope of the argument. It doesn't matter if "many" think something. Only their arguments matter if they have any. If I can compose the sentence and post it I am in a position to declare my opinions on whatever I choose.


I agree.




> I also believe in a sort of monism. Basically, matter is an epiphenomenon of consciousness, not the other way around as in materialism. Nagel has a different sort of monism. He thinks consciousness and matter work together and can't be separated. This allows him to justify reductionism by giving up on materialism. A dualism would be what Descartes promoted, but then the question of how mind interacts with matter raises additional questions.


Fair enough.




> Whether Buddhism is atheist or theistic is somewhat ambiguous, and I'm not enough of an eastern religious scholar to sort it out, but from what I've gathered it's a little bit of both and depends on which sect and which period of history you are looking at. Buddhism is just way to big and old to be any one thing. Just look at their expansive pantheon of deities, their buddhas, bodhisattvas, wisdom kings, heavenly deities, gongen, arhats, devas, nagas, yakshas, gandharva, asura, Guanyin. That's all pretty explicitly theistic.


This is exactly why I didn't say Buddhism is officially atheist, only that the Buddha was an atheist (which he seems to have been given the writings and traditions) and can be practiced in an atheistic way. I'm aware of the grey area, and was being careful to avoid it. 




> Unless you met them in the East I wouldn't put too much stock in what a western Buddhist believes. I've had some Buddhist friends in my day that understood next to nothing about the religion. My friend just adopted some eastern affectations because he liked martial arts movies, had some white guilt, a love for the exotic, and no firm upbringing in his own culture. My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. Religion, when it comes down to it is culture, and when I see people trying to adopt practices alien to their culture, it's like watching them wear clothes that don't fit. They are just flailing, trying to be different. When we explore our own culture, it generally fits us better. Whatever appealing feature you may find in another culture, there is usually an analog in your native culture, if you'd only bothered to look.
> 
> My Tibetan roommate in college, I'm pretty sure was a Buddhist well steeped in it's traditions, ways of acting, and thought. He wouldn't eat meat and used to catch our rooms spiders on a paper and set them alive outside.


Some undergrad who is really into Buddhism and mysticism as a way of appearing deep and intellectual to get laid is not the same as someone like my uncle who is a spiritually ordained Buddhist monk, and who has traveled to Tibet to study under the Lama. When it comes to Buddhism I tend to know what I'm talking about.




> Because we don't pick our beliefs by reason. We form our opinions and then build reasons around them for being true. Basic psychology. The logic of a claim also has little baring on it's persuasiveness, and most belief is driven by personality and biological differences in the brain. Hence those with naturally negative, melancholy, or skeptical dispositions tend to gravitate toward one end of the bubble and those with positive, cheerful, and trusting dispositions end up on the other. Some of the basic ability to believe in other minds outside our own, teleological thinking, or the ability to see cause and effect or meaning in actions is also ingrained into personality. It's not logical, it's biological.


Well, logical? The willingness of people to believe in a fantasy is very clearly attested to. I'm going to make an obscure example but one well known to a reader of Orwell. During the 1930s and 1940s the western intelligentsia believed that there was a Socialist utopia being slowly created in the USSR, and the great action and battle was to work to make this utopia grow - sure Stalin was using drastic actions, but it was all for a good cause, for paradise on earth and the end of history. Was this true? No, it took the end of the second world war for these people to finally realize the USSR was being led by a psychopathic murderer. 

This was an ideology, sure, but it was still a belief not based on reason but the illusion that Socialism could really end history and create a paradise on earth - seeming to ignore most of the lessons of history that Socialism was claiming to be ending. 




> Besides, I've never met a person who had a systematic and self-coherent philosophy. People's beliefs are a mishmash of facts and opinions, things they've reasoned for themselves, things they were told by others, vague yearnings, artifacts of youth, delusions, wishes, and half figured out ideas they are still struggling with. You might say that most of your belief system is subconscious.


You could certainly say that too. I often suspect it is. 




> Here we are not debating the truth value of a claim but rather it's persuasive value. The threshold for belief varies among the population from not requiring much evidence to not being persuaded no matter how much evidence is presented. I find that to be a key distinction between believers and skeptics. It's not so much a matter of proof or no proof as some have suggested. The debate runs more along the lines of enough proof versus not enough evidence.


The distinction to me is not much of a one, but that might be a meaningless point to you - I don't know.




> Fine tuned universe for one thing. Evolution for another. The order, the fact that things follow rational laws instead of being completely chaotic and random, etc.


Really? Rational? Just because the laws of physics seem to suit us, does that mean they are rational? If they were different then we wouldn't be here to talk about it, so the question is, what is really special about humanity? What is special about earth? Sure physics has seemingly decided earth is our home, but why must we exist? Why must the earth exist, or be able to support life? Why wasn't it Mars? I do not understand the claim that the laws of physics show intelligence, many different universes might exist, so in that respect there is no chance or need for intelligence, it's the infinity principle. 

... that might have been a tangent, haha. 




> Social conditioning in the subculture peer group of scientists, materialistic nature of their studies and the philosophy thereof, monetary and honorary incentives toward skepticism in their profession, psychological leanings which predisposed them toward a life of scientific pursuit, pervasiveness of liberal ideology among academic institutions where the majority of research is conducted, the over representation of western affluent white males in the sample, etc.


Except from the working scientists I've met at university (I'm an A-level teacher, but I'm about to start an MA and I am aiming to do PhD, so I keep close to the staff of two universities on a personal level) this apparent social conditioning does not really happen. Especially among theoretical science like Quantum Mechanics. Any strange theory might find justification, from the idea of one universe, to the idea of multiple universes and dimensions, to the idea that the multiverse is another dimension. Academic institutions are often claimed to be 'liberal breeding grounds', but the number of professors that I know of who still call themselves Marxists make this problematic. 

In an organization and community like a university Science Department, you can say and think whatever you please, what matters is if you can back up the claim - in my own field of English this also holds true. If I make the claim I think Victor Frankenstein is a bad protagonist and a pillock (and to be honest, I do) if I said that to a professor I'd expect this feeling toward that character to be probed and challenged. If scientists, and any academic for that matter, has came to a consensus about something then there is (not even must be - is) a very good reason for that. 

That's just how the game is played. It is not something you can dismiss on the grounds of mere opinion, the only other alternative is that there is some kind of vast scientific conspiracy. 




> I have heard atheists argue in the past that since we are purely material creatures, our brains are a series of chemical reactions, and our bodies are just genes reacting to instincts and outside stimula, that everything is predictable. If everything is the biological nature of an animal plus it's environment then we are just automata without free will of our own.


Not necessarily. Just because we do not currently understand what intelligence is, exactly, does not mean that we must then jump to the assumption that there is no free will. It's a work in progress, and while you might have your opinion (I personally think free will exists) until we as a species actually knows, an opinion is not worth the bandwidth used to store this forum post.

Side note: hope you fellows appreciate this effort, because it took an hour to write this post out.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> @Iain Sparrow: if he made a decision, who are you to assume he's just sitting on a fence when you don't even know the guy?


I'm God, I know everything.
He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. (Matthew 12:30)

There is a high road, and a low... but there is no middle road. :Smile:

----------


## Poetaster

> I'm God, I know everything.
> “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)
> 
> There is a high road, and a low... but there is no middle road.


Haha, fair enough.  :Smile:

----------


## Ecurb

> My experience has been that if you are a westerner and you get into Eastern mysticism, you are probably just some sort of lightweight hippy douchebag. 
> 
> .


MY EXPERIENCE has been that if you call large groups of people, "lightweight hippy douchebag(s)", qualifying the statement with "my experience has been" does not obviate your bigotry. It is good to see that bigotry is not limited to one side of the atheist vs. theist debate, however. 

It is true that both Western Buddhists and hippys (members of the "counter culture", as they used to be called) reject at least some aspects of Western culture, and that, in a sense, in doing so they reject themselves. My limited knowledge of Buddhism suggests this might be appropriate for Buddhists. However, that doesn't make them "lightweights", let alone "douchebags". Most Westerners who practice Christianity and Judaism are "lightweights"(as are most atheists). We can't all be Acquinases or Augustines (or Buddhas). But "douchebags"? Come on now!

----------


## mona amon

This was way back in page 12 or something but better late than never -




> Jesus also said, in Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." 
> 
> And just a bit later in Mathew 5:19 "Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
> 
> Regardless, the real point for me is that Jesus himself embraced the old testament, and he spoke of moses and Isaac as real people. So according to Jesus the old testament was real. Now deciding to forsake the old testament and just follow Jesus is well and good. I am very glad that almost everybody has chosen to stop following those silly laws in the old testament, because they're mostly crap laws.


Absurd as it sounds, Jesus was a Jew but his followers are Christians, so Christians do not follow the same religion that Jesus did. This has to be kept in mind when trying to interpret the New Testament. 

Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law *until everything is accomplished*." Jesus is not saying that the Law will not change. He's saying it will happen, but only when "everything is accomplished."

I'm not suggesting that Jesus did not revere the Law. By all accounts he did respect it and was so thoroughly familiar with it that he could quote it at the drop of a hat and debate it with authority. Anyway, it's not about what he believed or what he was supposed to believe, but what he taught and what he did, and regardless of what he said or believed, we find him just a little later modifying these very laws, and out and out rejecting the "eye for an eye" law found in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, replacing it with its diametrical opposite, "turn the other cheek." He broke the Sabbath on several occasions, and challenged the existing divorce law. There are many other examples of Jesus subverting the Law but my favourite is the story of the woman caught in adultery - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...ch=John+8:1-11 Here we have a blatantly evil law, and what's more everyone there, from Jesus to the Pharisees, (and with the possible exception of the zealots who caught her in the act and dragged her to the temple court) knows it is evil. I'd like to know what Christians who bend over backwards trying to defend every word of the Bible (not you of course, Frostball), have to say about this.

----------


## Frostball

> In what school of logic did you learn that the burden of proof is always on the side making a claim, or that atheism makes no claims? That doesn't sound like logic to me. That sounds like Dawkins or Hitchens, but it doesn't sound like Aristotle or Descartes. What rule of logic are we actually discussing? Who came up with it? And is it a law or just a custom? I think it's a custom, and a crutch for those who feel the need to always be on offense but never play defense. It's like expecting to always play white and go first in Chess and your opponent must always be black. It feels dishonest and hypocritical, as does the notion that atheism makes no truth claims or is a single logical point without a whole range of associated ideas.
> 
> I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence. You cannot find anything which is not evidence for God in the universe. That is natural theology and was once the foundation for all the sciences. If you think there is no evidence of God perhaps it's because you are looking in the wrong places. Atheists are like men with their backs to the sun denying it's existence, or like Plato's allegory of the cave where men are chained looking at a wall. Either way, they live in darkness and fear the truth.
> 
> The contrarian title now, hmmm. I've known logical people who weren't contrarian. It's sort of like how there are people who are rude who say that they are just being honest. Perhaps, the problem with contrarians isn't that they are using logic so much as they have a habit of using logic only for their own personal hobbyhorse and when it suits them. Or they will deny that a majority point of view which conflicts with their personal beliefs can also be reached and defended through logical premises. So you can be logical, but wielding logic in a peevish and illogical fashion, which makes it offensive, idiosyncratic, or contrarian. I suggest that it isn't logic which finds you at odds with the rest of society time after time, it's a personality disorder which you defend with logic.


Well I didn't mean to suggest I was using aristotelian logic or modal logic or anything. Perhaps I should have use the word rational. I was pretty sure I explained it well enough, but the whole teapot thing, the whole burden of evidence thing, all that is to show why we don't sit here and try to disprove faeries, leprechauns, ghosts, santa, what have you. We simply don't just accept claims right off the bat, but instead wait until somebody or something provides evidence for it. God is exactly the same way. If you say god is different then that's special pleading. It doesn't matter how many people believe in god either, that's the ad populum fallacy.

But I actually agree slightly here. Many atheists are very afraid of the burden of proof, though I don't know why. It honestly does not make sense to defend a negative, such as that one simply does not believe in a god. But most atheists do, in fact, think it's the case that there are no gods, as I do. I have no problem defending the case that there are no gods. Such a thing can obviously not be proven, but this is never about proof but about evidence to justify a reasonable belief or disbelief. The reason I don't think atheists should be afraid of the burden of proof is because the burden is much much lighter on our end. If theists and atheist both put all their points on the table the atheist will, in my opinion, come out ahead every time. It's simply much easier to be sure that this world exists without adding extra unnecessary things, than it is to argue that a super intelligent, all powerful, all good consciousness exists and created everything. It's just such a wild claim compared the the claim that such a thing doesn't exist.






> I find the fellow's analogy of the sun to be quite apt. In fact we have more evidence for God than we do for the sun, because the sun and everything that is is our evidence.


Come on... This is classical begging the question, which is assuming the conclusion of an argument inside your very argument. Obviously if you were a theist you would believe the sun was made by god, and if you weren't you would believe the sun is made by natural means. Just looking at the sun can't be taken as evidence for god unless we actually establish that god is the one who made the sun. So I live in the darkness and fear the truth.. Ok... Can you please tell me where the evidence for god is that I'm missing? Paul got a road to damascus vision, what do I get? Does god care more about paul than me?

I didn't put the contrarian title on myself, in fact I don't think I'm being contrarian but just saying what I believe and why I believe it. If you find me peevish and offensive, then all I can say is that I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't mean to be like that, I'm just trying to explain what I think.

----------


## Frostball

> I don't know about that. I don't think the dogma comes just from having a book. I've met too many atheists with too many common beliefs for it to just be chance, or for them to come to the same conclusions all on their own. The way atheists act you'd think they were the first atheists ever and all of their ideas are entirely original, but anthropology, and sociology should teach us that no man is an island. 
> 
> It's also an oversimplification to say that all of Christian beliefs are ancient or derived from just one book. There's so many other sources to consider from the institutions, to the theologians Augustine, Aquinus, Calvin, Luther, Tillich, Barth, Newman, Niebhur, Whitehead, Swedenborg, Kierkegaard, Plantinga, Bonhoeffer, traditions, and diverse cultural influences, ecumenical councils, creeds, etc.


I've already talked about atheism as a subculture, or as a movement, which is different from atheism as the single position that one doesn't believe in gods. It's not just chance that atheists have common beliefs, it is a product of conversation and these atheists figuring out the arguments that work best, and the positions that are most sound. Good ideas, good arguments, and good positions tend to stick longer than bad ones, naturally, just like good traits with evolution. So good arguments and positions are selected in this way, and so only the better ones are left over. Just like evolution there is nobody watching the selection, so sometimes bad arguments get popular, but what are you going to do?

It may be an oversimplification to say that all Christian beliefs are derived from one book, and I acknowledge that all the people you mentioned had many things to add to christianity. But weren't all those guys pretty much going back to the same collection of books called the bible as well? This isn't even just me claiming this, but Christians almost ubiquitously say that the bible is at the core of their beliefs.

----------


## Frostball

> Without the "holy books" you pretty much are starting from zero and making it up as you go along. The non-aggression principle, which is natural to human biology will work as a basic guide to moral behavior, to average level moral behavior, but to be better than that you need an external philosophy. Religion is essentially 5 thousand years of ethical philosophy. Christian Theology offers many reasons for why we should behave as Christians. It's not just a set of rules as you claim.
> 
> Then again, think of the same old woman, thinking for herself, but committing atrocities because no one ever told her not to and still thinking she was doing the right thing. Picture that old woman who is driven to bigotry because she read something James Watson said about black people not being as smart as white people, books on phrenology, or scientific racism which were used as pretexts for slavery, or the holocaust. Imagine she was told that a fetus has no right to life, that we don't have souls, that we're entirely material, that it's okay to do what we want to living organisms so long as they aren't big and fully developed, and she had no problem aborting millions of babies. Imagine a scientist driven by a technological necessity for progress creating weapons which could destroy the world, or torturing monkeys because there is no law against it and it's for the good of science, or performing immoral experiments on humans and children. People do a lot of things out of self-interest, for fame, for money, but they don't do it as much when they are regularly reminded by external institutions that it would be wrong. The church is a counter balance against the pressures of the material world, and one of the only educators in ethics and philosophy we have. Personally, I'm pro-education.


Starting at zero would be much better than where the bible starts us. But we quite obviously don't start at zero, anyway. We are a social species with evolved social behaviors, and so have a pretty automatic feeling of right and wrong. This is definitely not enough, and I agree that one needs some other philosophy to actually have a good system of morality. You certainly can't get any morality from atheism since it's just a single position. Morality instead needs to come from rational thought and hard work figuring out how we should live together.

Your version of my old woman example is different because she is either preposterously ignorant of everything (impossible), or reading some books that advocate immoral things and probably incorrect things. I find it funny that your defense is to bring of an apparently racist writer's book and say "Look, that would be just as bad". But the thing is nobody is shelling this guy's book as a book written by god and the ultimate answer to all of life's questions. This is the real problem with the bible as a moral guide. A person who got racist ideas from James Watson's book could at least be convinced that maybe the author was wrong. Not so with the bible, since people firmly believe it was inspired by god. To say something is incorrect makes all the rest crumble to some people. Not to everybody, of course, as many Christians are great people who follow only the good parts of the bible.

You continue on to state some moral dilemmas which, yes, are dilemmas and need to be worked out. All of these things should be discussed and figured out fervently. These are hard issues with no clear cut answer. One certainly isn't going to find a satisfactory answer in a holy book, and even if you claim to do so, it will undoubtedly contradict answers other people have gotten from the same book.

You say religion is 5000 years of ethical philosophy, and that may be. But it is ethical philosophy based on ridiculous notions of what "good" is and what "bad" is, with good being what god wants, and bad being what god doesn't want. Whatever ethical philosophy that comes from Christianity must also be working under the assumption that this life is only temporary, and thus unimportant, compared with the ultimate afterlife, so I would expect a _great_ emphasis on how to get into heaven from this philosophy. Since if one believed in heaven, getting others to heaven would be the best thing you could do for a person, and so prosthelytizing people or even manipulating people into belief would be a good action. This is just an example of how having false premises at the beginning can ruin an entire moral philosophy.

I am by no means an expert in philosophy or ethics, but I know there are non-religious ethical philosophies, and I would bet they are superior for it.

----------


## Frostball

> This was way back in page 12 or something but better late than never -
> 
> 
> 
> Absurd as it sounds, Jesus was a Jew but his followers are Christians, so Christians do not follow the same religion that Jesus did. This has to be kept in mind when trying to interpret the New Testament. 
> 
> Mathew 5:8 "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law *until everything is accomplished*." Jesus is not saying that the Law will not change. He's saying it will happen, but only when "everything is accomplished."
> 
> I'm not suggesting that Jesus did not revere the Law. By all accounts he did respect it and was so thoroughly familiar with it that he could quote it at the drop of a hat and debate it with authority. Anyway, it's not about what he believed or what he was supposed to believe, but what he taught and what he did, and regardless of what he said or believed, we find him just a little later modifying these very laws, and out and out rejecting the "eye for an eye" law found in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, replacing it with its diametrical opposite, "turn the other cheek." He broke the Sabbath on several occasions, and challenged the existing divorce law. There are many other examples of Jesus subverting the Law but my favourite is the story of the woman caught in adultery - https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...ch=John+8:1-11 Here we have a blatantly evil law, and what's more everyone there, from Jesus to the Pharisees, (and with the possible exception of the zealots who caught her in the act and dragged her to the temple court) knows it is evil. I'd like to know what Christians who bend over backwards trying to defend every word of the Bible (not you of course, Frostball), have to say about this.


Jesus was a great guy for his time, and had many very cool things to say. He did indeed change the laws, somewhat contradicting what he says in other places. Mathew 5:8 "until everything is accomplished" does not address how those laws were _ever_ ok.

But like I said, Jesus said a lot of great things, and I think one can follow his best things and probably be a better person for it. But what I don't think is good is when people actually believe he was god, and also that the old testament really happened as it states it, and that the god as the bible describes exists.

The Jesus and the woman taken in adultery story is often seen to be a forgery that was added in later, and not by the author of John. The story isn't in the original manuscripts, and is apparently in an atypical style for John. You can look up this for yourself, and I would suggest you try both christian and non christian sources so you can figure it out for yourself.

----------


## Frostball

> YesNo, this may be influenced by how often I find myself agreeing with your opinions, but I'm always surprised and impressed by the content of your ideas in these threads. I hadn't even considered the free will and consciousness aspects of this debate.
> 
> And Poetaster, you're a sharp cookie too, and as far as I can tell, not like the typical New Atheists I so often run into in the States.
> 
> It's a pleasure to read both of your comments in this conversation.


Ooh... Snubbed. 

Mortalterror I appreciate your comments in this conversation anyway, as well as those of Poetaster, YesNo, Mona Amon, Ecurb, Pumpkin337 and others.

----------


## mortalterror

> Well I didn't mean to suggest I was using aristotelian logic or modal logic or anything. Perhaps I should have use the word rational. I was pretty sure I explained it well enough, but the whole teapot thing, the whole burden of evidence thing, all that is to show why we don't sit here and try to disprove faeries, leprechauns, ghosts, santa, what have you. We simply don't just accept claims right off the bat, but instead wait until somebody or something provides evidence for it. God is exactly the same way. If you say god is different then that's special pleading.


It's not special pleading if you have it in the wrong category. Your hypothesis only works for things for which there is absolutely no evidence, and there is clearly a vast storehouse of evidence for God, therefore you cannot treat his existence the same way you would treat Russell's teapot. And I've also explained that Saint Nicolas has a basis in fact, was a historical person, who's bones you can visit in Italy, so he obviously doesn't belong in that category either. If I stated that he has flying reindeer, that would need additional evidence to justify. Miracles are harder to substantiate, although they are not necessarily unprovable either.




> It doesn't matter how many people believe in god either, that's the ad populum fallacy.


I didn't say that the number of people who believe in god means he exists. I said that he has been sighted and left numerous documents, and other proofs of his existence, that there is a corpus or large body of available evidence and sworn witness testimony. This may not amount to absolute unshakeable mathematical proof, but it should raise the probability that something is possible. The fallacy is in thinking it amounts to proof, not in thinking that something with a lot of evidence is more likely true than something with no evidence. But in strictly mathematical terms, no amount of evidence ever amounts to proof, hence skeptics can deny anything, even reality itself.




> But I actually agree slightly here. Many atheists are very afraid of the burden of proof, though I don't know why. It honestly does not make sense to defend a negative, such as that one simply does not believe in a god. But most atheists do, in fact, think it's the case that there are no gods, as I do. I have no problem defending the case that there are no gods. Such a thing can obviously not be proven, but this is never about proof but about evidence to justify a reasonable belief or disbelief.


There we go, proof vs justification for belief, that's a good way of putting it. As for the burden of proof, when I took debate in high school we had to compile a case to plead for both sides of an argument. You had to plead for and against abortion, god, taxes, universal health care. Oh, here we go, found this under wikipedias philosophic burden of proof (proving a negative):



> When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different to the explicit denial "I believe that X is false" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...urden_of_proof





> The reason I don't think atheists should be afraid of the burden of proof is because the burden is much much lighter on our end. If theists and atheist both put all their points on the table the atheist will, in my opinion, come out ahead every time. It's simply much easier to be sure that this world exists without adding extra unnecessary things, than it is to argue that a super intelligent, all powerful, all good consciousness exists and created everything. It's just such a wild claim compared the the claim that such a thing doesn't exist.


It was probably once hard to prove eclipses in years they didn't happen too. Rare occurrences are harder to prove than common ones. Still, proving the existence of a god is different from proving the nature of a god, and a lot of those objections seem to be with the particular characterization of the Christian God.




> Come on... This is classical begging the question, which is assuming the conclusion of an argument inside your very argument. Obviously if you were a theist you would believe the sun was made by god, and if you weren't you would believe the sun is made by natural means. Just looking at the sun can't be taken as evidence for god unless we actually establish that god is the one who made the sun.


I think it makes as much sense as implying the existence of Michelangelo from his David and Sistine Chapel paintings. It makes as much sense as fingerprints at a crime scene. We have physical artifacts left behind by a creator. Then as I said the evidence of design in the universe, the rational laws instead of chaos, the finely tuned universe, the evolution of life and consciousness, all point to the fact that the universe is God's child being taken to term. 




> So I live in the darkness and fear the truth.. Ok... Can you please tell me where the evidence for god is that I'm missing? Paul got a road to damascus vision, what do I get? Does god care more about paul than me?


I think God is mostly a hands off kind of guy, who doesn't intervene that much, and when he does it's through the rules he set down already. I figure he doesn't need to appear to everyone, just like Obama doesn't need to shake hands with every single person in the country. He talked to Paul because Paul was a good messenger and would communicate his message so well that he wouldn't have to appear to everyone individually. It's sort of an efficiency of effort kind of thing. Don't move a mountain when a molehill will do. Besides, I also think that he is probably personally accessible to anyone who believes in him. You just have to be in the proper frame of mind and there are all sorts of ways to do that. After all, human beings are prone to Peak Experiences as Abraham Maslow called them, it's hard wired into our biology, like we are radio antennas for God.




> I didn't put the contrarian title on myself, in fact I don't think I'm being contrarian but just saying what I believe and why I believe it. If you find me peevish and offensive, then all I can say is that I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't mean to be like that, I'm just trying to explain what I think.


I don't personally find you peevish or offensive. I was just explaining why some people are labeled contrarians, and I think that it's a common category for atheists to fall into, a prime example being Christopher Hitchens.

----------


## mortalterror

> I've already talked about atheism as a subculture, or as a movement, which is different from atheism as the single position that one doesn't believe in gods. It's not just chance that atheists have common beliefs, it is a product of conversation and these atheists figuring out the arguments that work best, and the positions that are most sound. Good ideas, good arguments, and good positions tend to stick longer than bad ones, naturally, just like good traits with evolution. So good arguments and positions are selected in this way, and so only the better ones are left over. Just like evolution there is nobody watching the selection, so sometimes bad arguments get popular, but what are you going to do?
> 
> It may be an oversimplification to say that all Christian beliefs are derived from one book, and I acknowledge that all the people you mentioned had many things to add to christianity. But weren't all those guys pretty much going back to the same collection of books called the bible as well? This isn't even just me claiming this, but Christians almost ubiquitously say that the bible is at the core of their beliefs.


Sort of, but that's like saying that the Torah is central to Judaism, which while true ignores the influence of the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Midrash, and it doesn't emphasize which parts of the Torah are more important than others. It leaves out the philosophy of Maimonides and all sorts of cultural stuff. Emphasis and interpretation of key passages are pretty important and can mean the difference between being a member of the Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Karaite, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Hasidic. Here check out these diagrams of Christian denominations. Some sects reject parts and some sects include extra texts.

----------


## The Atheist

> Considering I was an atheist for several years, I feel I have as much right to define it as you. Besides, you are hardly an unbiased source yourself.


That's why I have referenced many sources to show that atheism is exactly as stated: without god/s.




> And finally, if a theist can't possibly hope to plumb the endlessly unique depths of atheism which a whole 2% of the world subscribes to, how can an atheist hope to conceive of every religious person's point of view, beliefs, and philosophy?


Nah, I look at actions - books are irrelevant, even though they may be the original driver.




> I don't consider Buddhists atheists.


Luckily, we have actual Buddhists who agree that they are, so your consideration is both wrong and irrelevant.




> Besides, I have a worldview which is different from Jews, Muslims, or Hindus, but we are all theists. You need to try harder.


Can you find a single example of me (or anyone else) saying that there is any common worldview among theists?

Your statement is all straw.




> Atheism acts exactly like an emerging religion. The sociology, psychology, and anthropology studies all confirm it.


Yes indeed. Just as religions that have sprung up, atheism has a leader and council of leaders.

You'll have to refresh my memory on who they are, because I must have missed that information. 

I do like the comment about studies confirming it. Which studies are these?




> That's just etymology. It's not a definition of the concept and doesn't show the context with which the word is used in our society. Again you are oversimplifying a complex subject.


Given that whatever you might have been, you are now a theist, I'm not convinced you aren't a touch biased.

Just as your consideration of Buddhism is demonstrably incorrect, so is your consideration of what atheism is.

----------


## YesNo

> It's simply much easier to be sure that this world exists without adding extra unnecessary things, than it is to argue that a super intelligent, all powerful, all good consciousness exists and created everything. It's just such a wild claim compared the the claim that such a thing doesn't exist.


If the problem of the existence of God were adding some thing, then you might have a point. But adding in God's existence is not pointing to some _thing_. It is acknowledging the consciousness that perceives the universe so that the universe can manifest itself to us as part of the universe and be reasonably consistent. 

Now, if culturally you are like myself, you probably think there isn't much to consciousness. It seems flimsy and easily lost. You might think, if that is all God is, then God is irrelevant. But then along comes quantum physics and one finds that the awareness (consciousness) of the experimenter affects the outcome of a double-slit experiment or, even worse, that a particle has neither position nor momentum until at the moment its position or moment is measured. Once that sinks in, one wonders how the universe could be there without some transcendent Consciousness. 

The only way that atheism has any chance of being correct is for it to come up with an interpretation for quantum physics in which matter is really there without some consciousness perceiving it.

----------


## The Atheist

> The only way that atheism has any chance of being correct is for it to come up with an interpretation for quantum physics in which matter is really there without some consciousness perceiving it.


I'm saving that - another masterpiece of unintentional humour.

----------


## Frostball

> It's not special pleading if you have it in the wrong category. Your hypothesis only works for things for which there is absolutely no evidence, and there is clearly a vast storehouse of evidence for God, therefore you cannot treat his existence the same way you would treat Russell's teapot. And I've also explained that Saint Nicolas has a basis in fact, was a historical person, who's bones you can visit in Italy, so he obviously doesn't belong in that category either. If I stated that he has flying reindeer, that would need additional evidence to justify. Miracles are harder to substantiate, although they are not necessarily unprovable either.


I maintain that it is special pleading. Miracles could be very easily shown to be real, but the reality is that they never are. People who are cured are always cured of things that could get better on their own anyway, it's never things like amputees.





> I didn't say that the number of people who believe in god means he exists. I said that he has been sighted and left numerous documents, and other proofs of his existence, that there is a corpus or large body of available evidence and sworn witness testimony. This may not amount to absolute unshakeable mathematical proof, but it should raise the probability that something is possible. The fallacy is in thinking it amounts to proof, not in thinking that something with a lot of evidence is more likely true than something with no evidence. But in strictly mathematical terms, no amount of evidence ever amounts to proof, hence skeptics can deny anything, even reality itself.


I think you're mistaking evidence of a religion, and of religious people for evidence for god. Yes, we have tons of evidence for people who really believe in a god. There are so many testimonies of all different kinds, for different gods, of magic, of ghosts, or even testimonies of the same god that are contradictory. Who are we suppose to believe? This is evidence that religious claims, and even religious experiences are things that happen to humans, but it remains to be shown that the actual cause is a god. I think there is far more evidence that these things have origins within our own mind, personally.




> I think it makes as much sense as implying the existence of Michelangelo from his David and Sistine Chapel paintings. It makes as much sense as fingerprints at a crime scene. We have physical artifacts left behind by a creator. Then as I said the evidence of design in the universe, the rational laws instead of chaos, the finely tuned universe, the evolution of life and consciousness, all point to the fact that the universe is God's child being taken to term.


The reason your examples are different is because we know that artists exist, we know humans exist, we know criminals exist, we know humans leave fingerprints. These are all things things that we know, so in the case of Michelangelo we know that the pieces of art exist, we know artists make art, we probably even have, I assume, sources that mention michelangelo's name (I'm not versed in art history), and even if we didn't we could safely assume somebody made them because that's how art comes about. In the case of the crime scene, we know crimes happen, and that fingerprints have proven to be a reliable method of finding the culprit

In the case of god, on the other hand, we don't have any examples to compare to, or any reason to believe that universes are created by gods. You simply can't use "the universe" as evidence that god created the universe, that is precisely what begging the question is. The very thing that I'm saying didn't happen was god creating the universe, so you can't use the universe as evidence that god created the universe. It's like when people say "creation needs a creator" but you have to prove that it's a creation first. It's an unfounded assumption. It's also similar to when people say if you see a watch floating up on a beach, you would automatically know it was designed by somebody. This isn't because it's complex (simplicity is actually a hallmark of design), but because we know people make watches.





> I think God is mostly a hands off kind of guy, who doesn't intervene that much, and when he does it's through the rules he set down already. I figure he doesn't need to appear to everyone, just like Obama doesn't need to shake hands with every single person in the country. He talked to Paul because Paul was a good messenger and would communicate his message so well that he wouldn't have to appear to everyone individually. It's sort of an efficiency of effort kind of thing. Don't move a mountain when a molehill will do. Besides, I also think that he is probably personally accessible to anyone who believes in him. You just have to be in the proper frame of mind and there are all sorts of ways to do that. After all, human beings are prone to Peak Experiences as Abraham Maslow called them, it's hard wired into our biology, like we are radio antennas for God.


That sounds perfectly reasonable. It's entirely possible that god exists, and simply hasn't shown himself to me. I don't see why god needs to be efficient with all his power, but ok. This is perfectly fine as long as he isn't angry at me for not believing him when I die. I don't know if you believe in hell, but many theists do. If god sees fit to send me to hell for not believing him (something I can't control) then he's simply evil. I won't argue with the fact that some humans seem to have a biological disposition towards religion, or even maybe believing in god. But it's, again, begging the question to assume this is the case because a god made it that way. All we have is a phenomenon, you can't just assert the cause, it actually has to be shown to be the cause.[/quote]



> I don't personally find you peevish or offensive. I was just explaining why some people are labeled contrarians, and I think that it's a common category for atheists to fall into, a prime example being Christopher Hitchens.


I love Christopher Hitchens.  I don't agree with him on everything, but he was a very interesting person.

----------


## Frostball

> Sort of, but that's like saying that the Torah is central to Judaism, which while true ignores the influence of the Tanakh, the Talmud, the Midrash, and it doesn't emphasize which parts of the Torah are more important than others. It leaves out the philosophy of Maimonides and all sorts of cultural stuff. Emphasis and interpretation of key passages are pretty important and can mean the difference between being a member of the Saducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots, Karaite, Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Hasidic. Here check out these diagrams of Christian denominations. Some sects reject parts and some sects include extra texts.


I found those timelines very interesting. I still don't see how that changes the fact that it's all built upon the bible, which is literally the only source we have for what god supposedly wants for and from us. Speaking for Christianity only, of course.

One does wonder, though, if all these people are following the same god, the same original text, and are getting inspiration from god, why there continues to be so many splinters. In science, for example, usually when there is a new mystery there are many competing hypotheses at first, but they get whittled down the the one that explains everything the best and makes the best predictions, and this one becomes a theory or something. With religion, as time passes it only splinters off more and more, with more conflicting opinions all the time.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Miracles could be very easily shown to be real, but the reality is that they never are. People who are cured are always cured of things that could get better on their own anyway, it's never things like amputees.


Actually ... this is not true, there is a lot of medical evidence (and indeed an entire group of doctors who meet every year to present their evidence) (google to the rescue
- http://www.charismanews.com/us/34002...prove-miracles) but the problem is that none of this evidence is ever accepted because people do not want to be convinced.

I could google more specific examples but something along the lines of this gem: 


> I'm saving that - another masterpiece of unintentional humour.


 will be the answer to whatever I can find. 

Instead of actually saying WHY these people did not experience some kind of miraculous healing, why their belief that something out of the ordinary occurred to them is wrong, you just say 'not true, don't believe it' and once again ... that isn't good enough!! 




> This is perfectly fine as long as he isn't angry at me for not believing him when I die. I don't know if you believe in hell, but many theists do. If god sees fit to send me to hell for not believing him (something I can't control) then he's simply evil.


WHY??? It IS something you can control - belief is ALWAYS a choice therefore what you choose to believe is perfectly within your control.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Actually ... this is not true, there is a lot of medical evidence (and indeed an entire group of doctors who meet every year to present their evidence) (google to the rescue
> - http://www.charismanews.com/us/34002...prove-miracles) but the problem is that none of this evidence is ever accepted because people do not want to be convinced.


Are you out of your mind?.. you give us your views on miracles and proceed to back those views up with information found on a goofy religious site?

Hey everyone, I just found out that Global Warming and Climate Change isn't real... yeah that's right, I read all about it on Exxon's website. :Smile:

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Are you out of your mind?.. you give us your views on miracles and proceed to back those views up with information found on a goofy religious site?
> 
> Hey everyone, I just found out that Global Warming and Climate Change isn't real... yeah that's right, I read all about it on Exxon's website.


what was that I said about the expected response? Thank you for being so utterly predictable. 

Regardless of your feelings about the site, that does not change the fact that it reports on a group of medical doctors who meet specifically to present cases of unexplained healings they have encountered. You didn't address that in your ludicrous response. Your response only proves a. how biased you are b. how lacking in anything approaching a rational response you have. Instead of relying so heavily on putdowns and mockery why don't you try addressing the facts with reasonable facts of your own?

PS My VIEW on miracles, which I did not give earlier (so dissing it is really ridiculous) is that I am not so arrogant as to believe that inexplicable things do not happen all the time all around us and these things are often called miracles. After all every day we use one miraculous and inexplicable thing ... electricity. Now you can choose to believe or not, but the people to whom these things happen, call them miracles and have their lives for ever changed by the experience, and to take that away from them because of your bias and prejudice against the possibility is not only unfair but positively malicious.

----------


## Frostball

> WHY??? It IS something you can control - belief is ALWAYS a choice therefore what you choose to believe is perfectly within your control.


Belief is actually not something you can control. If you don't believe me, try to believe that you are of the opposite sex. Try it, right now. Can you do it? Or here's a good one, try to believe that your house is on fire. If you don't run out of your house screaming, you didn't do it right.

Beliefs are a product, an end result, a conclusion the brain comes to when thinking about something. A person can no more control their beliefs than they can control their preference for certain foods. You could try many different foods and eventually that can have an effect on your taste, similarly you can do research on certain subjects or engage in conversation that can eventually end up changing your beliefs, but the actual change of beliefs isn't something you can just dictate to your brain.

----------


## Frostball

> what was that I said about the expected response? Thank you for being so utterly predictable. 
> 
> Regardless of your feelings about the site, that does not change the fact that it reports on a group of medical doctors who meet specifically to present cases of unexplained healings they have encountered. You didn't address that in your ludicrous response. Your response only proves a. how biased you are b. how lacking in anything approaching a rational response you have. Instead of relying so heavily on putdowns and mockery why don't you try addressing the facts with reasonable facts of your own?
> 
> PS My VIEW on miracles, which I did not give earlier (so dissing it is really ridiculous) is that I am not so arrogant as to believe that inexplicable things do not happen all the time all around us and these things are often called miracles. After all every day we use one miraculous and inexplicable thing ... electricity. Now you can choose to believe or not, but the people to whom these things happen, call them miracles and have their lives for ever changed by the experience, and to take that away from them because of your bias and prejudice against the possibility is not only unfair but positively malicious.


You can't just supply a bad piece of evidence, while saying you don't expect us to accept it, then criticize us for not accepting it. A group of Christian doctors who believe in miracles doesn't mean anything, nor even the fact that the majority of doctors believe in miracles. The majority of cosmologists do not believe in god, but that doesn't make it true either.

But even with that said, the very best thing they have here is, as you say, "unexplained healings". If they are unexplained, then why are those doctors, and you, assuming they are miracles from god? Somebody who is sick--but then gets better--is not a miracle! it's something that happens all the time. Again, why doesn't god heal amputees? He never does.

If your definition of miracle includes simply things that are unexplained, or even things like electricity, then I might have to say I believe in miracles by your definition. But I personally would call neither of these things miracles.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Belief is actually not something you can control. If you don't believe me, try to believe that you are of the opposite sex. Try it, right now. Can you do it? Or here's a good one, try to believe that your house is on fire. If you don't run out of your house screaming, you didn't do it right.
> 
> Beliefs are a product, an end result, a conclusion the brain comes to when thinking about something. A person can no more control their beliefs than they can control their preference for certain foods. You could try many different foods and eventually that can have an effect on your taste, similarly you can do research on certain subjects or engage in conversation that can eventually end up changing your beliefs, but the actual change of beliefs isn't something you can just dictate to your brain.


You can CHOOSE to believe anything you like including all those things you mentioned. Your belief may not be based on reality or on facts, but you can still choose to believe it. Ask any lunatic in many a mental home about choosing to believe any number of crazy things not based in reality.

----------


## Frostball

> You can CHOOSE to believe anything you like including all those things you mentioned. Your belief may not be based on reality or on facts, but you can still choose to believe it. Ask any lunatic in many a mental home about choosing to believe any number of crazy things not based in reality.


No, you really can't. If you really believed your house was on fire, what would you do? You would probably rush up and tell anybody in the house, check on your pets maybe, try to put it out perhaps, or just run out immediately. So unless you did any of these things, you didn't really believe your house was on fire. I challenge you to try it again, and if you just sit calmly in your chair, you did not succeed in convincing yourself that your house is on fire. All you have done is imagined it.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> You can CHOOSE to believe anything you like including all those things you mentioned. Your belief may not be based on reality or on facts, but you can still choose to believe it. Ask any lunatic in many a mental home about choosing to believe any number of crazy things not based in reality.


You are actually... wrong.
Though my opinion is that Frostball is overstating the concept a bit (as even the most recent research ends with scientists scratching their collective heads over Free Will), we humans have precious little say in what we believe and how we arrive at those beliefs.

Try this little experiment on yourself... next time you're drinking a hot cup of coffee, think about it; why did you reach for the cup and take a drink at that exact time?.. you put the cup down, you watch some tv or read a paragraph in a book... you again reach for the coffee and take a drink. Now extrapolate that connection to "choosing" and free will to everything that you believe, every action you take or don't take... there are some scientists that think we have very little free will.

Some medications don't work on a patient, or are inert unless the patient knows they are taking the medication... such are miracles.

----------


## YesNo

> Some medications don't work on a patient, or are inert unless the patient knows they are taking the medication... such are miracles.


The interesting cases are when the medication is inert and the patient consciously believes it is effective in one way or the other and they get cured or sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

----------


## YesNo

> The Atheist is correct - Buddhists are neither pantheists nor just a branch of Hinduism. The website you've linked to claiming Buddhists are theists seems to have a Christian agenda. The Buddha rejected the idea of a soul and the conception of a creator God. His claim that the ultimate nature of reality or emptiness is another word for God has no basis in the teachings. 
> 
> The problem with the Hindu website is that Hindus claim The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva. This is a largely political claim. The Buddha expressly rejected key tenets of Hinduism - particularly the caste system as an expression of Karma. This is potentially damaging for Hinduism as lower caste people are often drawn to Buddhism as an essentially caste and classless system. It has caused tension in India. 
> 
> Interestingly, the original Hindu claim had The Buddha as an incarnation of Siva whose purpose was to tempt Hindus from the true path. Later - presumably when it didn't work - it tried to co-op Buddhism on the basis that you cannot reject Hinduism if you are born into it.


I think Pumpkin337 is right about Buddhism in general mainly based on the article he cited "The Teachings of Soyen Shaku" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm

However, there are many Buddhist variations as mortalterror mentioned and some could be atheistic such as the Secular Buddhism cults that Pumpkin337 mentioned.

What really interests me is why did I ever think that Buddhism was atheistic? I think the reason for that is because the Christian culture generally views it as atheistic. This is a way to discredit it. Also the atheistic, anti-Christian culture views it as atheistic. They want to manipulate its presence ideologically to help legitimate their own position.

Is Christianity is any less atheistic than Buddhism? I don't think so. Christians don't believe in the Hindu set of Gods and Goddesses either. Buddhism just isn't interested in avatars and stories of deities. So it doesn't focus on creating another God or Goddess to believe in but concentrates more on dharma. This separates it from Hinduism.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> The interesting cases are when the medication is inert and the patient consciously believes it is effective in one way or the other and they get cured or sick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo



Exactly right, and even more worrisome to the medical community is that as we understand more about how our brains function, they're finding that the Placebo Effect has a far broader and more direct influence on what we believe, and how we build our individual realities.

Does anybody here believe in the "science" of Homeopathy?.. yeah, me neither.
But I read a book recently that covered scientific anomalies and I was surprised to find homeopathy had its own chapter. It most definitely does not cure ailments, but after scientists completed tests the results were baffling. The base water had a substance added, went through an insane amount of dissolution and other homeopathic nonsense, was rendered back to pure water with not one molecule of the added substance being detected... yet the water had changed, it retained a sort of 'signature' of the entire process, including the substance that was no longer there.

----------


## Paulclem

> I think Pumpkin337 is right about Buddhism in general mainly based on the article he cited "The Teachings of Soyen Shaku" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm
> 
> However, there are many Buddhist variations as mortalterror mentioned and some could be atheistic such as the Secular Buddhism cults that Pumpkin337 mentioned.
> 
> What really interests me is why did I ever think that Buddhism was atheistic? I think the reason for that is because the Christian culture generally views it as atheistic. This is a way to discredit it. Also the atheistic, anti-Christian culture views it as atheistic. They want to manipulate its presence ideologically to help legitimate their own position.
> 
> Is Christianity is any less atheistic than Buddhism? I don't think so. Christians don't believe in the Hindu set of Gods and Goddesses either. Buddhism just isn't interested in avatars and stories of deities. So it doesn't focus on creating another God or Goddess to believe in but concentrates more on dharma. This separates it from Hinduism.


After looking for a minute I came up with the Wikipedia page God in Buddhism, and more authoritatively,

http:budsas.org/ebud/ebdha068.htm

Buddhism does not endorse a creator God. Your quoted website is from a noted Zen teacher who travelled to the USA and interpreted the highest nature of reality - Emptiness or the Dharmakaya. He's saying that this ultimate nature is equivalent to God, but this is denied in most schools of Buddhism. Do you not think he might have been bridge building between Western Christians and Buddhists? He doesn't actually say anything very controversial - it's just an interpretation of Emptiness. I could probably find a website that says Buddhism originated in Neanderthals. 

You probably thought Buddhism was atheistic because it is. 

As for Hinduism, the Gods and Goddesses are to be found in Buddhist stories and teachings. There is a God realm in the Wheel of Life, but this is merely a part of Samsara, that is a state which will end with the death of the God. 

Buddhism rejects a creator God and as such is nothing like either Christianity or more importantly Hinduism. As has been pointed out, The Buddha was born a Hindu. He rejected many of the tenets of Hinduism including the Hindu concept of Karma and reincarnation for a radically different interpretation of these. Ideas like these are what separates Buddhism and Hinduism.

----------


## YesNo

Soyen Shaku does seem like he was trying to make a bridge between Buddhism and Christianity. That also implies his school of Buddhism, at least, was theistic.

I can see how Buddhism can be separated from Hinduism, but now I wonder, if you are right, how can Buddhism be separated from western "new atheism".

----------


## YesNo

> Exactly right, and even more worrisome to the medical community is that as we understand more about how our brains function, they're finding that the Placebo Effect has a far broader and more direct influence on what we believe, and how we build our individual realities.


It looks to me that the connection goes the other way. Our consciousness has an effect on our bodies more than the medicine. I have heard that the placebo effect is worrisome to the pharmaceutical industry because the new drug has got to do better than a placebo would.




> Does anybody here believe in the "science" of Homeopathy?.. yeah, me neither.
> But I read a book recently that covered scientific anomalies and I was surprised to find homeopathy had its own chapter. It most definitely does not cure ailments, but after scientists completed tests the results were baffling. The base water had a substance added, went through an insane amount of dissolution and other homeopathic nonsense, was rendered back to pure water with not one molecule of the added substance being detected... yet the water had changed, it retained a sort of 'signature' of the entire process, including the substance that was no longer there.


This could be an example of the placebo effect. Then again, if the results are better than what a placebo could explain the data needs to be taken seriously.

----------


## mortalterror

> I think Pumpkin337 is right about Buddhism in general mainly based on the article he cited "The Teachings of Soyen Shaku" http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/zfa/zfa04.htm
> 
> However, there are many Buddhist variations as mortalterror mentioned and some could be atheistic such as the Secular Buddhism cults that Pumpkin337 mentioned.
> 
> What really interests me is why did I ever think that Buddhism was atheistic? I think the reason for that is because the Christian culture generally views it as atheistic. This is a way to discredit it. Also the atheistic, anti-Christian culture views it as atheistic. They want to manipulate its presence ideologically to help legitimate their own position.
> 
> Is Christianity is any less atheistic than Buddhism? I don't think so. Christians don't believe in the Hindu set of Gods and Goddesses either. Buddhism just isn't interested in avatars and stories of deities. So it doesn't focus on creating another God or Goddess to believe in but concentrates more on dharma. This separates it from Hinduism.


Whenever I read the old Chinese books like Journey To the West or Dream of the Red Chamber the interpretation of Buddhism seems to have a lot of recognizable theistic elements. The gods, demi-gods, and demons in Journey to the West are written like they are real people sort of like in the Iliad. Did anybody here ever read The Tale of Genji? It's supposed to be heavy on the Buddhism. How atheistic or theistic was Japanese court life in the middle ages?

----------


## YesNo

> Whenever I read the old Chinese books like Journey To the West or Dream of the Red Chamber the interpretation of Buddhism seems to have a lot of recognizable theistic elements. The gods, demi-gods, and demons in Journey to the West are written like they are real people sort of like in the Iliad. Did anybody here ever read The Tale of Genji? It's supposed to be heavy on the Buddhism. How atheistic or theistic was Japanese court life in the middle ages?


I agree. I've enjoyed _Journey to the West_ as well. It certainly seemed theistic to me. I remember telling my wife when we were in China visiting her relatives that I thought a jade statue of a monkey (Sun WuKong) in a large hand (God's hand) was quite lovely and I suggested we buy it. She's quite anti-Buddhist and told me the statue represented a common tale everyone knew: it was nothing special. Of course, I never heard the story (and we didn't get the statue). 

The story goes like this. The monkey, Sun Wukong, thought he could escape from the hand of God and God told him to try. He flew away and when the monkey thought he was far enough away he stopped and took a piss on a pillar to prove he was there. Then he came back to brag. After his boasting was finished, God asked Sun Wukong why he pissed on his fingers.

My suspicions at the moment is that Buddhism is basically theistic with the Buddha being the God along with a whole pantheon of Others. At least some Buddhists do have Gods and Goddesses based on this information: http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia..._and_Goddesses I suspect most of them do.

Frankly, I don't trust western Buddhism any more than I trust western Hinduism although I have enjoyed Sally Kempton's books on Hinduism (_Awakening Shakti_ and _Meditation for the Love of It_) which I found enchanting.

----------


## 108 fountains

Im finding your discussions on whether Buddhism is theistic or non-theistic (or atheistic) to be very interesting. It depends much, I think, on what you define as theism - or even how you define God. And then of course Buddhism itself is so amorphous - and so adaptable - that its really difficult to talk about it at all in general terms. Buddhism as practiced on a day-to-day basis is quite different from how Westerners think about Buddhist thought, and even among Buddhist practitioners, there is quite a bit of difference between popular practice, monastic practice, and philosophical thinking, and even wider differences between Buddhism as practiced in geographical areas. Ive lived 15 years in four Buddhist countries, have visited several more, and have tried to learn something about Buddhism, but Ill be the first to admit I am not an expert. Still, Ill share my thoughts below. 

There are as many sects of Buddhism as there are of Christianity, and they differ from each other as much as Catholicism differs from Pentecostalism. Buddhism tends to incorporate beliefs, as well as gods and goddesses, from the geographical areas to which it has spread. My own opinion for the reason for this is that it does not have a universal set of scriptures (similar to the Bible in Christianity or the Quran in Islam) or a well-established hierarchy of leaders (aside from the Dalai Lama) who are considered authoritative on Buddhist doctrine. Vietnamese Buddhists incorporate an entire pantheon of Chinese Taoist/folk beliefs and gods and goddesses well as a good number of traditional Vietnamese gods and goddesses; Tibetan Buddhism has its own pantheon of gods and goddesses and bodhisattvas and demons, along with elaborate rituals (Tibetan Buddhism itself is divided into four main schools, each with its own traditions); the Theravada Buddhists of Sri Lanka, Thailand and Cambodia, tend not to have all these gods and goddesses, but they do retain belief in some Hindu legends, especially that of the Ramayana, including some of the Hindu gods, goddesses and demons. Some of these Buddhist sects even have their own versions of heaven and hell. In this sense, you could say that Buddhism is theistic.

On the other hand, none of the Buddhist sects believes in a creator god, nor do Buddhists believe in an omniscient being who exists separately from the rest of the universe and who judges human behavior based on some moral standards of its own making. In that sense, you can say that Buddhism is non-theistic. (There are some Buddhist creation myths, mostly borrowed from ancient Hindu folklore, but they are not really central to how Buddhists perceive the universe and their place in it.) 

One of the basic differences between Buddhism/Hinduism and Western religions is that the God of western religions created the universe, and as a result, He exists separately from the universe (including humanity). In Hindu philosophy, the universe (including humanity) is a manifestation of the supreme spirit Brahman. The concept of Brahman is hard to describe - he is being itself and all that accompanies being, including time, space, the material world, and human existence. Buddhism retains the concept of Brahma; the search for nirvana is, in fact, the search for oneness with Brahma, the merging of the self with the Self, the realization that the supreme spirit is within everything and that everything exists within the supreme spirit. In a sense, this could be called theism, but it is certainly not the same type of theism that one associates with Western religions.

All the discussions in this post are interesting, and it is fascinating for me (as an atheist) to see how people become so passionate when they feel their own belief system threatened by others who do not share their views. Ive refrained from adding to that discussion, but I did want to jump in and contribute to the side discussion that has developed about Buddhism. Ill look forward to hearing others thoughts.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> All the discussions in this post are interesting, and it is fascinating for me (as an atheist) to see how people become so passionate when they feel their own belief system threatened by others who do not share their views.


including quite a few of the atheists despite their adamant refusal to believe their atheism IS a personal belief system  :Smile:  but as soon as your 'defense' is to deride, mock or belittle what is presented to you then you are defending your beliefs which you believe to be threatened.

----------


## Paulclem

No Buddhist Creator Gods

This is a quote from the website you've cited- it has it's own paragraph - the ninth.

://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist_Gods_and_Goddesses

The reason for the confusion is exactly as 108 Fountains has said - the definition of theism. In Christianity, Islam etc, you have a creator God who perhaps has a plan and can respond in human affairs and to prayer. The God is also a personal God and can be defined as the one in whom the image of man is made. (Apologies to any Christians, Muslims if this does not do justice or is inaccurate - it can be modified.) The closest definition of God from a Christian scholar - though I forget his name but I think he is associated with the death of God theology - is God as the "ground of being".

The ground of being description is closest to the emptiness that Soyen Shaku is describing, but is that the accepted definition and conception of God in Christianity etc?

As I and 108 fountains said earlier, the Gods and Goddesses described in Buddhism are another form of being still subject to the laws of Karma and the Wheel of Life

http://ntbf.groupsite.com/post/the-w...l-of-existence

which has the fortunate realms at the top of the wheel, with Gods and Goddesses within that top realm. This is different from the Christian etc conception. 

As for the Chinese novels, there may be translation issues, but if you consider how HH The Dalai Lama is referred to by UK and possibly western media as a God-King, you can see where the confusion of meanings arises. He is neither a king nor a God, it is simplified term for western audiences who have no knowledge of Buddhism. And there is very likely references to Gods demons etc without it implying that the religion is theistic. 

Journey to the West or Monkey is described thus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journey_to_the_West


Journey to the West is a Chinese novel published in the 16th century during the Ming Dynasty and attributed to Wu Cheng'en. It is one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Chinese literature. In English-speaking countries, the work is widely known as Monkey, the title of Arthur Waley's popular abridged translation.

The novel is an extended account of the legendary pilgrimage of the Tang dynasty Buddhist monk Xuanzang who traveled to the "Western Regions", that is, India, to obtain sacred texts (sūtras) and returned after many trials and much suffering. It retains the broad outline of Xuanzang's own account, Great Tang Records on the Western Regions but the Ming dynasty novel adds elements from folk tales and the author's invention, that is, that the Buddha gave this task to the monk and provided him with three protectors who agree to help him as an atonement for their sins. These disciples are Sun Wukong, Zhu Bajie, and Sha Wujing, together with a dragon prince who acts as Xuanzang's steed, a white horse.

Journey to the West has strong roots in Chinese folk religion, Chinese mythology, Taoist and Buddhist philosophy, and the pantheon of Taoist immortals and Buddhist bodhisattvas are still reflective of some Chinese religious attitudes today. Enduringly popular, the tale is at once a comic adventure story, a spring of spiritual insight, and an extended allegory in which the group of pilgrims journeys towards enlightenment which each of them can achieve only with the help of all of the others.

----------


## Pumpkin337

I think that some of the above answers have hit the nail on the head with regard defining 'theism' and I think a further part of the difficulty in defining something as theistic or not is in the practice. Many people do bow before statues of Buddha and light candles and pray before him (as well as the countless other divinities that have been borrowed, kept, absorbed etc)... which is a form of deification ... and worship of a perceived higher being or deity (even if Buddha was a human, but then so was Jesus, and Mohammad) is a form of theism.

Just to add another variation to the mix ... Japanese Buddhism is also partly animist where it has absorbed traditional Japanese (Shintoism) views on spirits residing in rocks, trees etc.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/200...igious-medley/

----------


## Poetaster

Awww. :'( No one is responding to the comments I made in that long post, I feel ejected from the conversation. 

Would it be better if I broke it up?

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Well, 'matter'? Thinking is apparently electrical signals in the brain, communication between cells. You may think consciousness is not just matter, but I don't see why not. Some living things are not conscious, like viruses.


viruses are not alive by any definition of the word.

Lets first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.

Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.

When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive, that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses dont actually do anything. Often scientists and non-scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment.

http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/





> Rubbish, and completely unsupported by anything more than your opinion. If consciousness is chemistry then why can't that chemistry mutate into intelligence? What is the difference between a virus (which is alive) and a fish (which is obviously alive)? That to be honest is more of a rhetorical question, a philosophical point to consider.


The point is that consciousness can not be solely defined mechanically. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

And it is an ongoing thorny issue in research.

----------


## Poetaster

> viruses are not alive by any definition of the word.
> 
> Let’s first define life. According to the online Merriam-Webster Dictionary, life is “an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction.”
> 
> Viruses are not living things. Viruses are complicated assemblies of molecules, including proteins, nucleic acids, lipids, and carbohydrates, but on their own they can do nothing until they enter a living cell. Without cells, viruses would not be able to multiply. Therefore, viruses are not living things.
> 
> When a virus encounters a cell, a series of chemical reactions occur that lead to the production of new viruses. These steps are completely passive, that is, they are predefined by the nature of the molecules that comprise the virus particle. Viruses don’t actually ‘do’ anything. Often scientists and non-scientists alike ascribe actions to viruses such as employing, displaying, destroying, evading, exploiting, and so on. These terms are incorrect because viruses are passive, completely at the mercy of their environment.
> 
> http://www.virology.ws/2004/06/09/are-viruses-living/
> ...


It might be true that viruses are not 'alive' - I'm happy to admit I might be wrong about that. But the point remains that some forms of life do not show as much consciousness as others. Say a worm - is a worm as fully conscious as a human being, say? It's really more of a philosophical question I think, but my point is as you say we do not really understand intelligence, so to say it is evidence of God is nonsensical.

(Side note: happy to be back, I missed this conversation)

----------


## Paulclem

> I think that some of the above answers have hit the nail on the head with regard defining 'theism' and I think a further part of the difficulty in defining something as theistic or not is in the practice. Many people do bow before statues of Buddha and light candles and pray before him (as well as the countless other divinities that have been borrowed, kept, absorbed etc)... which is a form of deification ... and worship of a perceived higher being or deity (even if Buddha was a human, but then so was Jesus, and Mohammad) is a form of theism.
> 
> Just to add another variation to the mix ... Japanese Buddhism is also partly animist where it has absorbed traditional Japanese (Shintoism) views on spirits residing in rocks, trees etc.
> 
> http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/200...igious-medley/


It is a common misconception but is also not true. It's another example of interpretation from peopke's own standpoint and experience. It is merely respect for the Buddha and the teachings. Teachers are similarly treated with respect but no one regards them as Gods either. 

There are prayers - sutras- but these have various purposes including requesting blessings from Buddhas and the achievement of certain goals. No Buddhist considers them to be creator Gods.

----------


## mona amon

> Jesus was a great guy for his time, and had many very cool things to say. He did indeed change the laws, somewhat contradicting what he says in other places. Mathew 5:8 "until everything is accomplished" does not address how those laws were _ever_ ok.
> 
> But like I said, Jesus said a lot of great things, and I think one can follow his best things and probably be a better person for it. But what I don't think is good is when people actually believe he was god, and also that the old testament really happened as it states it, and that the god as the bible describes exists.
> 
> The Jesus and the woman taken in adultery story is often seen to be a forgery that was added in later, and not by the author of John. The story isn't in the original manuscripts, and is apparently in an atypical style for John. You can look up this for yourself, and I would suggest you try both christian and non christian sources so you can figure it out for yourself.


Some of the old testament laws were _never_ ok, and Jesus never tried to justify any of those. He never preached the Law, but preached his own gospel. Christianity, like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism etc., is a breakaway religion, so it obviously cannot be held accountable for the bad aspects of the religion it broke away from.

As for the adultery story, I've only gone through this Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...en_in_adultery which was very informative, giving evidence for both points of view. Anyway it really doesn't matter if it was not originally written by the author of John, for as this author tells us, _"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."_ (John 21:25) The main thing is whether it is consistent with other things that Jesus said and did, and it is, totally. It is just so like Jesus. Also, there's the pattern of the Pharisees and teachers of the law trying to trap him into contradicting the law, and Jesus using a certain amount of subterfuge or gamesmanship even, to evade the trap. Examples - the answer he gives the Pharisees when his disciples are caught gleaning the fields on the Sabbath, when he heals a man's hand on the Sabbath, or when he is asked if it is ok for a man to kick his wife out, as long as he gives her a certificate of divorce (Moses said it was fine), or when he was asked whether it was right to pay taxes to Caesar (Mark 12:17).

This was in the beginning of his ministry. Later he seems to have abandoned the subterfuge and started openly declaring he was Lord of the Sabbath, Son of Man and so on.

----------


## Pumpkin337

what has the notion of 'creator' gods got to do with a religion being theistic which just means that there are god(s) of some kind.

Theism:

1. a belief in the existence of a god or gods. 

Monotheism is the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable. According to the philosopher William L. Rowe, in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.

So can A. all the atheists who agreed with me that there is exists no proof either for or against god(s) existence in an empirical measurable sense ... please immediately change their self-labeling from atheist to agnostic. B. can all those who say atheism is NOT a belief system please change their unsupportable stance on that too. (note to self ... look things up more often).

----------


## YesNo

> No Buddhist Creator Gods
> 
> This is a quote from the website you've cited- it has it's own paragraph - the ninth.
> 
> ://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Buddhist_Gods_and_Goddesses


I agree. I don't think Buddhism has creator Gods either. If the universe is eternal there is no need for a creator God. Also the emphasis on escaping suffering and the world has even an anti-universe feel about it. All that does not mean there aren't other Gods, no matter how long they live. Those are the Gods and Goddesses that make Buddhism theistic. 




> The reason for the confusion is exactly as 108 Fountains has said - the definition of theism. In Christianity, Islam etc, you have a creator God who perhaps has a plan and can respond in human affairs and to prayer. The God is also a personal God and can be defined as the one in whom the image of man is made. (Apologies to any Christians, Muslims if this does not do justice or is inaccurate - it can be modified.) The closest definition of God from a Christian scholar - though I forget his name but I think he is associated with the death of God theology - is God as the "ground of being".
> 
> The ground of being description is closest to the emptiness that Soyen Shaku is describing, but is that the accepted definition and conception of God in Christianity etc?


When I claim that Buddhism is theistic in general (which I think it is), I am not saying it has any God or Goddess like the western monotheisms do.




> As I and 108 fountains said earlier, the Gods and Goddesses described in Buddhism are another form of being still subject to the laws of Karma and the Wheel of Life
> 
> http://ntbf.groupsite.com/post/the-w...l-of-existence
> 
> which has the fortunate realms at the top of the wheel, with Gods and Goddesses within that top realm. This is different from the Christian etc conception.


In terms of having a God or not, does it really matter how long they live?




> As for the Chinese novels, there may be translation issues, but if you consider how HH The Dalai Lama is referred to by UK and possibly western media as a God-King, you can see where the confusion of meanings arises. He is neither a king nor a God, it is simplified term for western audiences who have no knowledge of Buddhism. And there is very likely references to Gods demons etc without it implying that the religion is theistic.


What _Journey to the West_ shows is popular culture. One of the Goddesses that figures prominently in that book is Guanyin. 

What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins.

----------


## Pumpkin337

But don't you get it yet... there is an anti-Christian bias here. Buddhism can't be theistic because it is not monotheistic like Christianity. 

The syncretism of various Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc etc etc traditional gods and goddesses and animism in varying degrees into Buddhism is not theism .. again because it does not measure up to the measurement of Christianity as the yardstick. 

Most specifically because Buddha rejected the notion of a creator-god (which probably had sweet fanny adams to do with any notion of Christianity other than the anti-Christian bias the current atheist brings to the table) which is fundamental to any monotheistic religion (of which surprise surprise) there are several:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...stic_religions

and there are pantheistic religions (everything is god and god is everything)

http://religions.findthebest.com/d/d/Pantheistic

and polytheistic religions (there are many gods)

http://religions.findthebest.com/d/d/Polytheistic

but no ... the only validation for why Buddhism can't possibly be a form of theism, if not in its purest philosophical sense, at least in its daily practice for millions of people, especially where it has liberally absorbed existing beliefs from the local people, is because it isn't like Christian notions of God.

How biased and stupid is that?

Actually given the complete lack of any rants against any of the other theistic religions in the world I am very tempted to say ... is it possible that the reason that Christianity and Christianity alone gets up people's noses so much ... is because there is something in it, that isn't in any other religion in the same way? What other rational explanation do you have for the reason that these threads go on and on and on and on about the Bible and Christianity and not say .. Zoroastrianism? Just thinking aloud and looking logically at these threads for some time, not just here, but in many places on the net. Find any forum, with any similar discussion and it will be the same endless rants against the Bible and Christianity and never any other religions ... one has to wonder why.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> So can A. all the atheists who agreed with me *that there is exists no proof either for or against god(s)* existence in an empirical measurable sense ... please immediately change their self-labeling from atheist to agnostic. B. can all those who say atheism is NOT a belief system please change their unsupportable stance on that too. (note to self ... look things up more often).



You're setting up an argument that no atheist who is mature in their atheism even considers... by using the word "proof" you've stacked the deck, as they say. An atheist does not require 100% proof to come to certain conclusions regarding God & Religion. That's why I used the analogy of a court trial to illustrate how we make a choice to not believe in a God, not that a God cannot exist on appeal. Remember, it's "beyond a reasonable doubt", not "100% proof". Huge difference, both philosophically and in practice.

Let us take the three primary religions of Western Culture; there is considerable evidence that much of the scriptures these three mainstream religions hold to be true and of God, are nothing more than the musings of human imagination... you follow the evidence and at some point it becomes convincing enough to stick a fork in it. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
It is reasonably common for religious persons and others to class Atheists as those that have a belief system. It is taken for granted that the Atheists belief system is somewhat different from a belief in the supernatural and sundry. Proponents of such loose use of the language would wish to bring Atheists down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma.

Another way to illustrate what "belief" is, and is not... is since we do not fully understand how electricity works, we somehow have a belief in the workings of electricity. It may not be fully understood but it is accepted that if a toaster is connected to it, the bread will cook. Again and so on and so forth, belief has naught to do with it. If religions and such could do likewise and show by previous experience or experiment that some part of future action could be predicted, it would then no longer be a belief system. If belief in the supernatural had some kind of quantifiable substance to it, then it would escape the realms of our acceptance of ignorance as a way of explaining the world.
Think of God as a Toaster, just a common toaster that most of us have in our kitchens at home. You put your bread in and you are about 99.9% certain it will toast that bread, and being God it will toast it perfectly every time... unless you've sinned recently and perhaps it will burn your toast on one side while leaving the other side nicely toasted, as my crappy toaster does. :Smile: 

The religious and others have a belief that ignorance is superior to empirical knowledge.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Jesus was a great guy for his time, and had many very cool things to say. He did indeed change the laws, somewhat contradicting what he says in other places. Mathew 5:8 "until everything is accomplished" does not address how those laws were _ever_ ok.
> 
> But like I said, Jesus said a lot of great things, and I think one can follow his best things and probably be a better person for it. But what I don't think is good is when people actually believe he was god, and also that the old testament really happened as it states it, and that the god as the bible describes exists.



uhm... I'm surprised at this coming from an atheist?.. do you actually believe this Jesus person existed?

----------


## Paulclem

How biased and stupid is that?

Actually given the complete lack of any rants against any of the other theistic religions in the world I am very tempted to say ... is it possible that the reason that Christianity and Christianity alone gets up people's noses so much ... is because there is something in it, that isn't in any other religion in the same way? What other rational explanation do you have for the reason that these threads go on and on and on and on about the Bible and Christianity and not say .. Zoroastrianism? Just thinking aloud and looking logically at these threads for some time, not just here, but in many places on the net. Find any forum, with any similar discussion and it will be the same endless rants against the Bible and Christianity and never any other religions ... one has to wonder why. 

I'm merely refuting you assertion that Buddhism is a theistic religion. So here we go again.

But don't you get it yet... there is an anti-Christian bias here. Buddhism can't be theistic because it is not monotheistic like Christianity. 

The syncretism of various Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc etc etc traditional gods and goddesses and animism in varying degrees into Buddhism is not theism .. again because it does not measure up to the measurement of Christianity as the yardstick. 


This is one of the features of Buddhism - that it is able to adapt to and adopt local customs. It does not force people to believe in Buddhism, but is rather accommodating. Hence in Japan you do have Shinto practiced alongside Buddhism. In fact my son reported that Japanese people often use the two religions for different rites of passage. 

It was the same in Tibet where local deities were converted to Buddhist beliefs and often became adopted into Buddhism as Dharma protectors. The spirit oracle Neching was instrumental in advising HH The Dalai Lama to escape from the Chinese army in 1959. These are often inconvenient facts for those who approach Buddhism with western conceptions of what religion is, and it is played down or ignored. Buddhism accommodates lots of non-humans.

One class is referred to as Gods. These - as I have said - inhabit samsara and are part of the wheel of life and subject to karma and death. You say that this doesn't matter, but it is essential. It means that they do not hold the knowledge with which to escape samsara - or else they would. Instead they are wrapped up in a pleasurable existence which distracts them from dharma and results in them frittering their eon long lives away. In contrast, the brutal suffering of human life is the perfect place to realise the truth of suffering, and so humans are considered to be more fortunate in this. 

The other thing is a qualitative aspect. Monotheistic religions rely upon God for guidance, blessings, favours etc etc. Gods in the Buddhist system are as much a part and so there is no use relying upon them. You are quite right to point out that there are lots of local practices associated with pre-Buddhist religions, and that's alright. To an extent the practice of Buddhism is a full time practice which is why there is a monastic community which supports, teaches and guides the local community. In the West we are more fortunate in that we generally have more choice and leisure over what we can do than the average Buddhist in Asian countries. This, of course, is only generally true. As such in many Buddhist countries, local people are often limited to celebrations etc in much the same way that Christmas is observed here in the West. 

And of course there is the definition of theism:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sour...ition&safe=off


theism

In a more specific sense, theism is commonly a monotheistic doctrine concerning the nature of a deity, and that deity's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

That's the generally accepted use of the word - not as a catch all for Buddhism which has Gods within the system.

----------


## Paulclem

> What _Journey to the West_ shows is popular culture. One of the Goddesses that figures prominently in that book is Guanyin. 
> 
> What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins.


I know her as Kuanyin - she is the Chinese version of Chenrezig or Avolokitesvara Bodhisattva of Compassion - not a God. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin

What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins

It's an interesting question. I've not read any Dawkins, but I suppose his stance is from a scientific worldview. Buddhism has a definite rationalism about it in the spirit of discovery. The concepts can be tested through various meditations and the Buddha's last words were to be a lamp to yourself - rely on yourself. That's the key in terms of atheism and theism. The Gods have no relations with man as they are too wrapped up. There's no god to pray to for favour, and the prospect of birth ageing, suffering and death - again and again in possibly lower forms of life - is not a comfortable one. 

The Buddhas themselves are unreachable for an ordinary mind except through the teachings - due to the karmic effects of delusions on an ordinary person's mind. That leaves yourself, your family and friends, and the sangha - your spiritual comrades with which to develop and receive guidance. If a person is lucky - ie has good karma - they may find a teacher who will guide them. If they are very fortunate they will find their teacher - the one who will introduce them to the reality of their mind. 

So then karma - or your actions are the key. You task is to develop a good life - harmlessness, but also develop wisdom that will be able to face and cope with the innumerable difficulties of life. It's not about being a doormat - and letting it all wash over you. You are an active force in your own development.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> That's the generally accepted use of the word - not as a catch all for Buddhism which
> has Gods within the system.


so you admit Buddhism has gods then? Which would mean it is not atheistic ... which would mean it was theistic

----------


## Poetaster

> uhm... I'm surprised at this coming from an atheist?.. do you actually believe this Jesus person existed?


I'm surprised by people who do not think at least someone like Jesus existed. The bible says there was a census taken to get Jesus to be born in Jerusalem, despite the fact that he was from Bethlehem. The story is that under Roman law you had to return to the place of your birth to register. I may not know a lot about the origin of Christianity, but I do know a thing or two about the Roman empire and no such census ever took place - you were not required to go back to your place of birth to register. That was never the case as far as I'm aware. 

Sure travel wasn't easy under Rome, but people still did it. Having people register in their place of birth would have created a logistical nightmare, and that's one thing the Romans didn't exactly care for. Because it was an empire, it needed the roads clear to move troops about, imagine the roads clogged with every kind of tradesman and artisan, and then add hordes of legionnaires and you are imagining pandemonium.

This apparent nonsense is obviously deliberate, and seems to be an attempt to make history fit with legend.

----------


## Paulclem

> so you admit Buddhism has gods then? Which would mean it is not atheistic ... which would mean it was theistic


Hahaha

I said several posts back that God's and Goddesses inhabit the Wheel of Life. I wonder why you are so desperate to bring Buddhism into the theist fold? Given everything I've answered, why are you desperate to affix a familiar label to it? Buddhism arose from within Hinduism a poly theistic religion which still holds that all the aspects of God are United into one God. This is the theistic religion.

The Buddha rejected this. In fact, in conversation with a knowledgeable friend of mine a few years ago, he made the point that Buddhism has no need of an ultimate Godhead. Karma as a natural law ensures justice. The Buddha's teachings provide a means to escape the suffering of countless repeated rebirths. Reincarnation effects the workings of Karma. Beings are born and reborn according to the ripening of good or bad karma. The ultimate nature of reality and Enlightenment are the goal for every Buddhist, not the temporary heavens that exist within Samsara - the realm of suffering. 

And yet, after saying all that, it doesn't really matter what you or I say or think about it. The practice is what really matters. I could declare myself a theistic Buddhist and, so long as I practised and maintained my faith in The Buddha's path, then I'd still be a Buddhist and the world would roll on. It is after all, why there are different local deities and customs still practiced around the world. What you would find though is a consistency of teaching from Zen to Tibetan to Sri Lankan Buddhism. Teachers can move between schools and learn the different emphases and techniques. A famous Burmese Buddhist Master, Dr Rewata Dhamma was not only a practitioner in Therevadan Buddhism, but also studied Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism. There was no problem or conflict in him doing that. 

I think it's a pity that the various theistic religions can't be as tolerant and accommodating with and within each other. The lack of tolerance is what I see in many religions - the unwillingness to allow another to believe or practice what is not held or believed by the first. Perhaps that's why you are unwilling to allow my religion to define itself without trying to slap your own label on it.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I'm surprised by people who do not think at least someone like Jesus existed. The bible says there was a census taken to get Jesus to be born in Jerusalem, despite the fact that he was from Bethlehem. The story is that under Roman law you had to return to the place of your birth to register. I may not know a lot about the origin of Christianity, but I do know a thing or two about the Roman empire and no such census ever took place - you were not required to go back to your place of birth to register. That was never the case as far as I'm aware. 
> 
> Sure travel wasn't easy under Rome, but people still did it. Having people register in their place of birth would have created a logistical nightmare, and that's one thing the Romans didn't exactly care for. Because it was an empire, it needed the roads clear to move troops about, imagine the roads clogged with every kind of tradesman and artisan, and then add hordes of legionnaires and you are imagining pandemonium.
> 
> This apparent nonsense is obviously deliberate, and seems to be an attempt to make history fit with legend.


Yeah, most people have a very poor understanding of the The Roman Empire and how business was conducted. They were in fact quite modern, even by today's bureaucratic standards. Indeed part of their downfall was the reliance of bureaucracy and lack of a coherent central (federal) government at various times. The Romans did what so many empires have done since, became hopelessly overextended and Roman citizens could no longer foot the bill by way of tax revenues.

There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled". The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events. Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history. Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level. The property tax was collected on site by travelling assessors, thus making unnecessary Joseph's journey away from what little property he must have owned. The idea that the Romans enumerated citizens and their property to determine their liabilities, and did so every five years or so is, absurd.

----------


## YesNo

> I know her as Kuanyin - she is the Chinese version of Chenrezig or Avolokitesvara Bodhisattva of Compassion - not a God. 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanyin
> 
> What I am most curious about from your perspective as a western Buddhist who believes in atheism is how your atheism differs from that of someone like Dawkins
> 
> It's an interesting question. I've not read any Dawkins, but I suppose his stance is from a scientific worldview. Buddhism has a definite rationalism about it in the spirit of discovery. The concepts can be tested through various meditations and the Buddha's last words were to be a lamp to yourself - rely on yourself. That's the key in terms of atheism and theism. The Gods have no relations with man as they are too wrapped up. There's no god to pray to for favour, and the prospect of birth ageing, suffering and death - again and again in possibly lower forms of life - is not a comfortable one.


The thread asks: do we need God? As I hear your description of western Buddhism, you don't need Gods because, even if they existed, they couldn't help. Is Kuanyin, not a God by your characterization of her, able to help in any way? Could she be invoked through mantras?




> *The Buddhas themselves are unreachable for an ordinary mind except through the teachings* - due to the karmic effects of delusions on an ordinary person's mind. That leaves yourself, your family and friends, and the sangha - your spiritual comrades with which to develop and receive guidance. If a person is lucky - ie has good karma - they may find a teacher who will guide them. If they are very fortunate they will find their teacher - the one who will introduce them to the reality of their mind.


Perhaps this answered my previous question. Although Kuanyin might be able to help, she cannot be reached by ordinary minds. Then why do people bother making statues of her? (I remember seeing a beautiful, life-size one made out of wood in Chicago's Chinatown. We were buying a dining table and after I looked at the price I didn't even consider suggesting that we buy it.)




> So then karma - or your actions are the key. You task is to develop a good life - harmlessness, but also develop wisdom that will be able to face and cope with the innumerable difficulties of life. It's not about being a doormat - and letting it all wash over you. You are an active force in your own development.


Who sets this task for you? What are you developing toward? 

It looks like our situation is dismal. We cannot escape repeated rebirths. Being here is not a good thing because of the suffering. There are no Gods or Goddesses to help. If we make a mistake there is no forgiveness only cause and effect karma. I suppose the only difference between this position and that of a typical atheist is (1) the rebirths and (2) the value of your consciousness.

The idea of emptiness or maya in Buddhist and Hindu traditions interests me. One gets a similar empty result from quantum physics. I don't understand how someone who is simply meditating can come up with the same kind of results, but since consciousness seems to be involved at the quantum level there may be a way.

----------


## Paulclem

Could she be invoked through mantras?

Chenrezig's mantra is Om Mani Padme Hum which literally means hail to the jewel in he lotus. The purpose of reciting this is to gain merit, but more importantly to bring the mind back to virtuous thoughts. It's not an appeal for help. Kuanyin has her own mantra. 

Then why do people bother making statues of her?

There is a tradition of respect for Buddhas and Bodhisattvas like KuanYin, and this is best expressed to a statue which can become the focus of a shrine or a temple. It is meritorious to make offerings and bow to statues, and it often becomes part of preparatory prayers as a precursor to meditation and study. 

Who sets this task for you? What are you developing toward?

The long term task of any Buddhist is to achieve enlightenment. This, though is like making a determination to win a gold medal at the Olympics. As such the teachings advise people according to their capacity. An initial practice involves stopping doing anything that is negative. This might be controlling anger and developing the antidote patience. These tasks can be read, there are mediation guides and books, but most people who undertake a practice start with a group on such general tasks before developing their own practice under the guidance of a teacher. 

It looks like our situation is dismal. We cannot escape repeated rebirths.

The Buddha's path illustrates that it is possible for a human to achieve enlightenment. If you don't think this then you are probably not a Buddhist. Practitioners are encouraged by the example of their teachers. You read about the brilliance of some teachers such as Lama Yeshe who died decades ago, but who embody the teachings in how they respond to people, teach, deal with problems etc. A qualified teacher is very important. They have to be an example of what they teach and as such are treated with respect. 

I suppose the only difference between this position and that of a typical atheist is (1) the rebirths and (2) the value of your consciousness.


It is a massive difference, but there are many more elements too, particularly regarding Mahayana Buddhism. Non humans for example are regarded as realities. One example of this is Nechung, HH The Dalai Lama's oracle to whom he seeks advice. It was this spirit that advised HH when and where to go when escaping from Tibet. 

I don't understand how someone who is simply meditating can come up with the same kind of results, but since consciousness seems to be involved at the quantum level there may be a way

There are guidelines to meditation. Often there are graduated steps and conclusions for the meditator to test out. It is this which attests to the truth of the teachings? Is what the teacher saying actually true?

----------


## Pumpkin337

Before you get all excited about Buddhism you might want to read a bit more about its dark side:

http://www.extibetanbuddhist.com/tag/lama-sexual-abuse/

http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_0...onasteries.htm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...lamas-buddhism

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...buddhist-monks

And because a great many people think 'oh shame poor Tibetans, poor Dalai Lama, bad Chinese' there is another side to the story:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...hina-feudalism

http://www.rense.com/general81/faeeof.htm

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

And lets not forget the violence that has been ongoing in Myanmar by Buddhists against Muslims:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches...uslims-myanmar

.... 

wait for the outpouring of vitriol against these evil actions 

....

no? 

....


aah well that was expected.

----------


## Paulclem

> Before you get all excited about Buddhism you might want to read a bit more about its dark side:
> 
> http://www.extibetanbuddhist.com/tag/lama-sexual-abuse/
> 
> http://www.lamashree.org/dalailama_0...onasteries.htm
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...lamas-buddhism
> 
> http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...buddhist-monks
> ...


Let me add another website for guidance.

http://viewonbuddhism.org/controvers...stionable.html

It would be foolish to think that there were no controversies or bad practitioners of a religion of an estimated 360 million. 

So now am I supposed to come back with a list of bad christians and then we go into a game of recrimination ping pong? 

I really don't know what the problem is. You made a statement in error and I put across the actual viewpoint of Buddhists. If you don't want that discussion then don't post it publicly to be questioned. 

It seems to be a bit more than that though, and I can understand that to have your religion criticised causes some anger. As the leading religion in the west you have to accept that it will come under scrutiny and criticism - some, like some of the links you posted about Buddhism, are justified. Some won't be. After all, it's just a discussion and christianity won't be adversely affected by the views of a few atheists. The healthiest way is to look into criticism fairly - as the Pope seems to be doing and improve it from there.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> So now am I supposed to come back with a list of bad christians and then we go into a game of recrimination ping pong?


Well don't bother some one else will. (or has already)

We could also talk about the wrongs of any other religion just to make it completely fair. How about Islam? Let's discuss the role of women in the Islamic world, or the wrongs of religious fanatics with their bombs.

How about the use of cannabis and the veneration of Haile Selassie in Rastafarianism? 

Let's spread the accusations with an even knife shall we? But no .. your bias shows in your response. 




> It seems to be a bit more than that though, and I can understand that to have your religion criticised causes some anger. As the leading religion in the west you have to accept that it will come under scrutiny and criticism - some, like some of the links you posted about Buddhism, are justified. Some won't be. After all, it's just a discussion and christianity won't be adversely affected by the views of a few atheists. The healthiest way is to look into criticism fairly - as the Pope seems to be doing and improve it from there.


No idea where you get that idea from... I'm more attempting to show the clear bias that has already been shown in this thread multiple times. 

I'm also not angry ... I just believe in fairness. It pleases me no end to put the bullies on the defensive.

----------


## Paulclem

> Well don't bother some one else will. (or has already)
> 
> We could also talk about the wrongs of any other religion just to make it completely fair. How about Islam? Let's discuss the role of women in the Islamic world, or the wrongs of religious fanatics with their bombs.
> 
> How about the use of cannabis and the veneration of Haile Selassie in Rastafarianism? 
> 
> Let's spread the accusations with an even knife shall we? But no .. your bias shows in your response. 
> 
> 
> ...


Alright. I'll let the bullies respond then.

----------


## mortalterror

> But don't you get it yet... there is an anti-Christian bias here. Buddhism can't be theistic because it is not monotheistic like Christianity. 
> 
> The syncretism of various Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, Thai, etc etc etc traditional gods and goddesses and animism in varying degrees into Buddhism is not theism .. again because it does not measure up to the measurement of Christianity as the yardstick. 
> 
> Most specifically because Buddha rejected the notion of a creator-god (which probably had sweet fanny adams to do with any notion of Christianity other than the anti-Christian bias the current atheist brings to the table) which is fundamental to any monotheistic religion (of which surprise surprise) there are several:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...stic_religions
> 
> and there are pantheistic religions (everything is god and god is everything)
> ...


They go after Jews and Muslims too. I see it sort of like atheism is a break off religion itself from Christianity. I forget where I heard the theory, but someone once said that atheism was an Abrahamic style belief system itself. So you see it reacting to Christianity, conflicting with it, growing in opposition to it the same way as Christianity grew in opposition to Judaism, or say how Protestantism initially grew out of Catholicism. A lot of atheists see the recent growth of their belief system as an unending trend until eventually everyone will be atheist. I think they will just capture a certain percentage of the market share and subsist alongside all the other religions. I also think it's probably fair to say that the brand of atheism practiced in this thread is mostly underpinned by western ideas and western values, even if they are not necessarily Abrahamic values, and so the beliefs and practices of a Western atheist are likely to be very different from those of an Asian, African, or Middle Eastern atheist. In the West, it is more than just a negative claim since it is usually deeply interwoven and defended with all the values of the Enlightenment.

----------


## mortalterror

> uhm... I'm surprised at this coming from an atheist?.. do you actually believe this Jesus person existed?


Jesus was a real person, but only two events in his life are authenticated outside of the Gospels.



> The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine if Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and if any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events, as opposed to the Christ myth theory, which holds that he is a fictional figure. The related study of the historical Jesus attempts to reconstruct portraits of his life and teachings, based on methods such as biblical criticism of gospel texts and the history of first century Judea.
> 
> Historicity is the study of the historical actuality of persons and events, meaning the quality of being part of history as opposed to being a historical myth or legend, or of being part of prehistory. Questions of historicity arise where accounts of events are believed by some to be true, but cannot be verified, either due to the absence of historical records or where historical accounts incorporate folklore, theological views or literature as fact.
> 
> Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][not in citation given][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[5] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[6][7][8] Biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 3036 AD,[12][13][14] that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere,[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.[18][19][20]
> 
> Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Various Christian and non-Christian sources are used to study and establish the historicity of Jesus, e.g. Jewish sources such as Josephus, and Roman sources such as Tacitus. These sources are compared and contrasted to Christian sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels. These sources are usually independent of each other (e.g. Jewish sources do not draw upon Roman sources), and similarities and differences between them are used in the authentication process. 
> 
> Josephus
> ...


As for the historical accuracy of the Bible, some parts of it are very accurate, some parts are partially accurate, and some parts are probably inaccurate. For instance, Herod the Great was a real king and a friend of Augustus Caesar. Lots of the kings and wars in the Bible are authenticated in other books. Nebuchadnezzar, real dude, king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.

When Atheists question the historical existence of Jesus, it makes them hard to take seriously. Atheists love a good lie so long as it casts Christianity in a poor light. It's because of Draper and White that the Conflict Thesis is still popular among laymen even though scientists ceased to believe in it many decades ago, or the myth that everyone believed that the earth was flat up to Columbus' day. When they talk about Bruno as a scientist or any of that other bunk they are always spouting, it shows how profoundly ignorant of history many of them are, and how little the truth interests them.

----------


## mortalterror

> Alright. I'll let the bullies respond then.


Are there any "atheists" here besides Paulclem who believe in reincarnation and spirits?

----------


## YesNo

> I suppose the only difference between this position and that of a typical atheist is (1) the rebirths and (2) the value of your consciousness.
> 
> 
> It is a *massive* difference, but there are many more elements too, particularly regarding Mahayana Buddhism. *Non humans for example are regarded as realities.* One example of this is Nechung, HH The Dalai Lama's oracle to whom he seeks advice. It was this spirit that advised HH when and where to go when escaping from Tibet.


I agree that there must be a massive difference. Thanks for responding to my questions.

----------


## YesNo

> When Atheists question the historical existence of Jesus, it makes them hard to take seriously.


That's right. Atheists who who don't believe in the existence of Jesus need to address the arguments that he did exist provided by people like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, in "Did Jesus Exist?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1400465.html

Whether one wants to believe in Jesus or not is a different question. Questioning his existence should not be an issue.

What I think is the most powerful argument for Christianity are the quantity of shared death experiences reported in the New Testament after Jesus's crucifixion and the inspired ability of Christians to develop that through the centuries. That is evidence enough for me that Jesus was a divine incarnation. Admittedly Christians made mistakes, but overall there is no need for any Christian to leave their religion for something better.

----------


## blazeofglory

Why we need God? God is something that comforts you and you feel secured or we are unsatisfied with the world we are in and we want more of it and break through boundaries. We do not want live satisfied that this world or our life ends with death. We want supernaturals to widen our domain of life and we want to realize things transcendentally or something of other worldliness intrigues us

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Jesus was a real person, but only two events in his life are authenticated outside of the Gospels.


Nonsense.
Tacitus, _whom you mention as authenticating the life of Jesus_, was born 25 years after Jesus' death, and his accounts amount to hearsay... he is echoing the teachings of a religious movement which is at the time, spreading across parts of the empire. Tacitus is not a reliable source. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".
Even in our enlightened _modern_ times, with 24/7 cable news, the information we're given is often incorrect, incomplete, and at times driven by agents of misinformation (propaganda)... and that's within 25 minutes of the breaking news story. Imagine Tacitus, who comes on to the scene decades after the supposed events, and chronicles those events decades later... 50 to 60 years after!

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> That's right. Atheists who who don't believe in the existence of Jesus need to address the arguments that he did exist provided by people like Bart Ehrman, an agnostic New Testament scholar, in "Did Jesus Exist?" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1400465.html
> 
> Whether one wants to believe in Jesus or not is a different question. Questioning his existence should not be an issue.
> 
> What I think is the most powerful argument for Christianity are the quantity of shared death experiences reported in the New Testament after Jesus's crucifixion and the inspired ability of Christians to develop that through the centuries. That is evidence enough for me that Jesus was a divine incarnation. Admittedly Christians made mistakes, but overall there is no need for any Christian to leave their religion for something better.



That is not how one builds a coherent argument... by arriving at conclusions beforehand and with no evidence to back them up, "Questioning his existence should not be an issue". 
It is the issue, because so many of the surrounding elements of the story can be completely discounted by third party sources that were contemporary to that time, and subsequently by modern historians, that the entire story is called into question. 


And again, quoting my other post...
Tacitus, whom you mention as authenticating the life of Jesus, was born 25 years after Jesus' death, and his accounts amount to hearsay... he is echoing the teachings of a religious movement which is at the time, spreading across parts of the empire. Tacitus is not a reliable source. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".
Even in our enlightened modern times, with 24/7 cable news, the information we're given is often incorrect, incomplete, and at times driven by agents of misinformation (propaganda)... and that's within 25 minutes of a breaking news story. Imagine Tacitus, who comes on to the scene decades after the supposed events, and chronicles those events decades later... 50 to 60 years after!

----------


## mortalterror

I know that an atheist is some one who doesn't believe in dieties, but what do you call a person who doesn't believe in history?

----------


## Pumpkin337

as one person put it ...




> To any unbiased observer who is willing to evaluate it without prejudice, the accumulated evidence regarding the Gospel record is truly overwhelming


the issue is not with the evidence, but with one's willingness to evaluate it without prejudice.

----------


## YesNo

> That is not how one builds a coherent argument... by arriving at conclusions beforehand and with no evidence to back them up, "Questioning his existence should not be an issue". 
> It is the issue, because so many of the surrounding elements of the story can be completely discounted by third party sources that were contemporary to that time, and subsequently by modern historians, that the entire story is called into question.


I built my argument by citing Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", which I read some time ago, and provided a link to a review of the book. Ehrman is an "agnostic", so I picked an authority that should appeal to atheists. That's my evidence. My conclusion is the same as Ehrman's: Jesus existed. 

If you want to disagree with me, get a copy of Ehrman's book from the library and cite where you think he was wrong. I'm not a New Testament scholar. I haven't even read all of it, but I will try to respond. However, doubting the existence of Jesus, just makes atheism look dumber than I already thought it was.

----------


## Ecurb

> I know that an atheist is some one who doesn't believe in dieties, but what do you call a person who doesn't believe in history?


It seems to me that those with modern, scientific (and often atheistic) worldviews often doubt historical accounts (of anything). In our legal system, eye witness accounts (which used to be the surest evidence, and are equivalent to "historical evidence") are now less readily believed than scientific evidence. On these very discussion boards, I've seen atheists claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, thereby ignoring the reams of historical evidence, personal testimony, etc. What they mean is that there is no good, "scientific" or "experimental" evidence for the existence of God, as if to say only science qualifies as "evidence". 

No doubt historical accounts are influenced by political, literary and religious factors -- but they still constitute "evidence".

I remember C.S. Lewis writing that the Gospels read more like biography than like myth, from a literary perspective. This doesn't (of course) verify the Gospel's accounts of Jesus' life, but I agree with Lewis -- the Gospels are dominated by Jesus' words and teachings, which reminds me more of "Life of Johnson" than of most myths. Myths are oral histories, and, over time, the words get lost and changed (except for a few homilies or dramatic statements). What remains is the basic story (there are parts of the Gospels, like the crucifixion and resurrection that resemble other myths more than other sections do).

----------


## Frostball

My opinion is that Jesus probably did exist, and may even had said many of the things and parables it has him saying in the bible. If so he was a thinker very different from others in his time and place, and had some pretty interesting things to say. This isn't an extreme claim, and I think the bible and the other evidence is enough for me to believe there was a guy who came up with all that stuff attributed to Jesus. Somebody had to come up with it.

But I see no reason to believe he was the son of god, or did miracles. The bible is not good enough evidence to support such an extreme claim, and there isn't enough (any) non religious sources corroborating any miracles.

----------


## Lokasenna

On the subject of Tacitus, he's usually seen as quite a reliable source. I've used his _Germania_ in my own research, as do many other scholars of pre-Christian northern religions. I can't swear to the _Annals_, as I've not read it, but my understanding is that it is seen as his crowning work. If _Germania_ is anything to go by, he has a tendency to speak directly, even bluntly, with little desire to impose a dogamtic reading on the things he discusses.

With regard to the historicity of Christ, I must admit I thought there wasn't much debate as to his actual existence? Regardless of whether he was god or man (and my money is pretty firmly on the latter), I thought most scholars were in agreement that some bloke named Jesus was knocking around the Holy Land at roughly that time, stirring things up and generally making a nuisance of himself?

----------


## Cleanthes

Since we cannot go back in time and witness directly what happened, we have to go by what we have.

The one fact we know for sure is that by the end of the first Century there was a Jewish movement centered around a certain 'Chrestus', as mentioned by Tacitus. 

Next we have some texts that, according to most scholars, were likely written somewhere between the second half of the first Century and the first half of the second Century.

These texts mention the deeds and teachings of someone or something called Jesus or Christ. Setting aside for the moment the fact of whether or not those texts are complete fabrications, the gospel truth or somewhere in between, something must have motivated their authors to write them. Some interesting theories (among many) to explain why these texts came to be written are that: 
1) There was an actual man named Jesus and some people wanted to document his life or at least write down what they had heard about him or received as a vision. This is the majority view among New Testament researchers and historians.

2) Some people thought that the secret religious knowledge and myths of their sect would be more safely transmitted in public in the form of stories about something called a Christ, and somehow there was a break in the transmission line of this secret knowledge. This view is partly based on how little overlap there is between what Paul wrote about Christ and what Mark wrote about Jesus.

3) Maybe the texts as we have now are a syncretism of 1 and 2. Somehow mystic secret teachings about a supernatural being called Christ (a part of a larger mythology or gnostic belief system) were mixed with tales about a rabbi named Jesus and this became the basis of the Jesus movement. Bart D. Ehrman in his latest book, *How Jesus Became God* describes how beliefs about Jesus differed almost from the very beginning among different groups of believers (adopted or exalted by God, possessed by God, dual nature, God incarnated, etc.)

----------


## Poetaster

> On the subject of Tacitus, he's usually seen as quite a reliable source. I've used his _Germania_ in my own research, as do many other scholars of pre-Christian northern religions. I can't swear to the _Annals_, as I've not read it, but my understanding is that it is seen as his crowning work. If _Germania_ is anything to go by, he has a tendency to speak directly, even bluntly, with little desire to impose a dogamtic reading on the things he discusses.
> 
> With regard to the historicity of Christ, I must admit I thought there wasn't much debate as to his actual existence? Regardless of whether he was god or man (and my money is pretty firmly on the latter), I thought most scholars were in agreement that some bloke named Jesus was knocking around the Holy Land at roughly that time, stirring things up and generally making a nuisance of himself?


It's generally agreed that Jesus was a real person, but people point to certain things, like the C in 'christiani' is apparently not capitalized in the original. And that uncapitalized it can mean something like 'The kind people'. These are reasons given, that I've heard. I don't buy it.

----------


## cacian

Jesus is real god is not.
in jurisdiction terms that would be a fair statement.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> I built my argument by citing Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?", which I read some time ago, and provided a link to a review of the book. Ehrman is an "agnostic", so I picked an authority that should appeal to atheists. That's my evidence. My conclusion is the same as Ehrman's: Jesus existed. 
> 
> If you want to disagree with me, get a copy of Ehrman's book from the library and cite where you think he was wrong. I'm not a New Testament scholar. I haven't even read all of it, but I will try to respond. However, doubting the existence of Jesus, just makes atheism look dumber than I already thought it was.



uhm, no I'm not going to read entire books in order to have a debate with someone who lives in a silly world where a Messiah loves him, and will get him into heaven.

Here you go, a real book by a real historian about the life of Jesus that never was... Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> My opinion is that Jesus probably did exist, and may even had said many of the things and parables it has him saying in the bible. If so he was a thinker very different from others in his time and place, and had some pretty interesting things to say. This isn't an extreme claim, and I think the bible and the other evidence is enough for me to believe there was a guy who came up with all that stuff attributed to Jesus. Somebody had to come up with it.



Are you certain you're an atheist?
What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?

----------


## Poetaster

Well, Jesus wasn't a bad guy. He was a socialist, a pacifist, and an egalitarian.

----------


## cacian

> Are you certain you're an atheist?
> What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?


_''...that he was the son of god''_
let's not forget it was Jesus who apparently said it not god.
I guess that was the most and only interesting thing he would've ever said if he said it at all.  :Wink: 
don't forget doubt is all around. doubting Thomas and all that.
religion however does not doubt. I wonder out.

----------


## cacian

> Well, Jesus wasn't a bad guy. He was a socialist, a pacifist, and an egalitarian.


that is politics is it not??

----------


## YesNo

> uhm, no I'm not going to read entire books in order to have a debate with someone who lives in a silly world where a Messiah loves him, and will get him into heaven.
> 
> Here you go, a real book by a real historian about the life of Jesus that never was... Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald.


First, I'm all in favor that you keep believing that Jesus didn't exist. It is more entertaining that way. 

Second, I recite mantras to Saraswati. I don't know much about her, but the more I find out, the more I like her. My theism is based, however, on my view of the role of consciousness as seen through quantum physics. I know that doesn't make any more sense to you (and probably doesn't make any more sense to anyone else reading this) than your not believing that Jesus existed makes any sense to me.

Third, in spite of my attraction to Saraswati, I think Christians have got a pretty good religion. You're right. Their God loves them. That's what a decent God is supposed to do. You could almost say that is why we need God. 

Fourth, the reason I think Christianity has something going for it is because of the shared death experiences reported after Jesus's crucifixion. Rising from the dead is on the level of the miracles. They don't interest me as much. They could all be made up and Christianity would still be valuable based on the appearances of Jesus after death and the inspired development of Christianity.

Fifth, some things Christians have done have been unfortunate, in particular, antisemitism. Atheists, however, when they behave badly are far worse than Christians just by body count alone. Check out the Khmer Rouge as one example. At least Christians have a God they must be accountable to. Thank God for hell. Atheists don't have jack to be accountable to except their own self-righteousness (unless they are the sort of Buddhists who believe in atheism who will get their butts kicked with karma if they misbehave--again, thank God for karma).

If I run into the Fitzgerald book, I'll check it out. Thanks for the reference.

----------


## mona amon

> Are you certain you're an atheist?
> What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?





> With regard to the historicity of Christ, I must admit I thought there wasn't much debate as to his actual existence? Regardless of whether he was god or man (and my money is pretty firmly on the latter), I thought most scholars were in agreement that some bloke named Jesus was knocking around the Holy Land at roughly that time, stirring things up and generally making a nuisance of himself?


Iain, is it not possible to believe that a man such as Loka describes existed, without compromising your atheist stance?  :Smile:

----------


## Paulclem

> Are there any "atheists" here besides Paulclem who believe in reincarnation and spirits?


I suppose this expresses the middle ground a Mahayana Buddhist occupies not acknowledging a creator God but accepting that a person like Jesus may have had miracle powers. (I used to think it ironic that I had no problem with this whereas the then Bishop of Durham did. 

The key is in the definition of miracle in translation again which, from a Buddhist point of view, is not an expression of divine power but is a natural side effect of being an advanced meditator/ spiritual being.

I also think there's nothing wrong being open minded. The religious - particularly Christian worldview is often at odds on here with the scientific worldview, but it could be argued that both are narratives - like any worldview - that people for various reasons subscribe to without being finally able to describe it as truth. What I mean is the unknowable, ineffable nature of God and the fact that science is a developing discipline which is attempting to establish material truths, but which as yet is still developing. It seems to me that the polarisation of discussion on both sides fails to acknowledge this developing narrative.

----------


## cacian

> I also think there's nothing wrong being open minded. The religious


I am not sure that when one subscribes to religion one is open minded. I would say it is the opposite.

----------


## Frostball

> Are you certain you're an atheist?
> What interesting things did Jesus have to say?.. that he was the son of God, or that it was his way or the highway, or what?


Admitting there may have been an historical Jesus does not mean I follow him or think him in any way divine. By interesting I mean his bits of philosophy, like turning the other cheek, and helping your neighbor. Things which seem pretty facile and obvious now, but back then may have been some pretty interesting and new ideas. I personally do not think turning the other cheek or loving your enemy are either very good ideas, but I could see people following the principles and being good people, so I don't have very much against these ideas, they just aren't for me.

Basically, without all the religious junk and miracle junk, you're left with something of a philosopher-pacifist-man spreading some ideas that were at the time very interesting and different from what people were hearing. An interesting thing to happen in history, even if the actual ideas he espoused may not have been _that_ interesting to me. So that's what I mean by "interesting things to say". Obviously I think his words on the old testament, god, and hell in particular, to be uninteresting and vile, but only to the extent people really believe those things now. Without that fact, I read it as simply some stories or mythology, so yes, even those bits are interesting in that way to me.

All this said, in the end, there may not have been a real Jesus. I really don't know, and it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other. Most experts seem to agree that there was, so I tag along with their collective opinion since I am not an expert. The real question, as I see it, is how much the Jesus as described in the gospels actually matches on to a real person. We don't know how much is made up, and how much comes from the real Jesus. There is no way to answer this question sans time travel, so the question of what the "real" Jesus was like is irrelevant, or at least unanswerable. All we have is Jesus as a character in the gospels who may very well have been based on a real person.

----------


## Paulclem

> I am not sure that when one subscribes to religion one is open minded. I would say it is the opposite.


Surely you mean religious and intolerant?

----------


## cacian

> Surely you mean religious and intolerant?


haha religious yes
intolerant maybe not so much
intolerant means one is incapable of reaffirming ones' beliefs because one is saturated because
religious has made it so because the latter is close minded.
I believe when one gets god's exploring one gets nothing else done.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Iain, is it not possible to believe that a man such as Loka describes existed, without compromising your atheist stance?


Oh most definitely yes, it is a possibility, and truth be known it's the one I'm most partial to. The teachings of Jesus Christ are revolutionary for their time, and "love they neighbor" is something we should all aspire to. I think the message of Jesus, whomever and however his philosophy came about, is beautiful... humanity at its most enlightened.

As I see it, these are the options we have;
1. Jesus Christ existed, and was the Messiah (son of God), and will one day return
2. Jesus existed , was not the son of God, but was a revolutionary philosopher
3. Jesus is a composite of more than one person 
4. Jesus is a myth
5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?.. the sword I carry is The Sword of Truth... or a Lord of the Rings replica?
(later this week my dad [God] will make an announcement... so stay tuned to BBC World News) :Yesnod:

----------


## Paulclem

> haha religious yes
> intolerant maybe not so much
> intolerant means one is incapable of reaffirming ones' beliefs because one is saturated because
> religious has made it so because one is close minded.
> I believe when one gets god's exploring one gets nothing else done.


Intolerance means not putting up with other points of view, attitudes and worldviews. 

Buddhists don't get God. : )

----------


## cacian

> Oh most definitely yes, it is a possibility, and truth be known it's the one I'm most partial to. The teachings of Jesus Christ are revolutionary for their time, and "love they neighbor" is something we should all aspire to. I think the message of Jesus, whomever and however his philosophy came about, is beautiful... humanity at its most enlightened.
> 
> As I see it, these are the options we have;
> 1. Jesus Christ existed, and was the Messiah (son of God), and will one day return
> 2. Jesus existed , was not the son of God, but was a revolutionary philosopher
> 3. Jesus is a composite of more than one person 
> 4. Jesus is a myth
> 5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?.. the sword I carry is The Sword of Truth... or a Lord of the Rings replica?
> (later this week my dad [God] will make an announcement... so stay tuned to BBC World News)


oh my
why a BBC World NEws
why not
a God's News?

----------


## cacian

> Intolerance means not putting up with other points of view, attitudes and worldviews. 
> 
> Buddhists don't get God. : )


yes it does mean just that but the question is why intelorance??
I ask myself that and I realise that is because when one is saturated one comes to believe in none. hence suicide bombing for example.
in the name of religion.
normally one commits suicide when one loses faith in one self. this same applies to fanatic who kill themselves.
intelerance is fanatism.
this means one has lost the belief of one self and that of religion.
hence saturation.

----------


## Pumpkin337

uhhh have you devoted ANY time researching why people become suicide bombers at all ... because you are utterly wrong. Dying in a Holy War gives you a free do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to Paradise ticket. How else do you convince anyone to willingly strap a bomb to their body and blow themselves up? Except for extreme coercion the only way is to convince them that what's on the otherside is better.

----------


## cacian

> uhhh have you devoted ANY time researching why people become suicide bombers at all ... because you are utterly wrong. Dying in a Holy War gives you a free do not pass go, do not collect $200, go straight to Paradise ticket. How else do you convince anyone to willingly strap a bomb to their body and blow themselves up? Except for extreme coercion the only way is to convince them that what's on the otherside is better.


you do not need research to see what is going on
all you need is to look and you will understand how mentally desperate these suiciders are.
these individuals are mentally saturated.
anyone who believes that committing suicide by blowing oneself up and killing others as well gives you one way ticket to paradise is a deluded self deprecated ill being
there is no guarantee in death it is blind to think so
the only guarantee is life and if one choses to take it off in this way is bluntly saturated mentally incapable and delluded
I guess the scary one is not the one that kill themselves because once they are gone they are gone 
by the time they have finished killing themselves there will be none left
the scary ones are the one who convince others to commit suicide by bomb explosion
they are the one to watch for
I guess their turn will come because they will have to step up to the mark and show they will do it too
time is a great healer it eventually catches up on everyone

----------


## Pumpkin337

double post

----------


## Pumpkin337

you genuinely have absolutely no concept of what it means to believe in something do you? 

http://www.frontline.org.za/index.ph...lamic-holy-war

The whole thing is frightening reading (which makes the US support of some Islamic factions incomprehensible) but in support of what I said above:




> here is the Jihad of the Sword. After fleeing to Medina (the Hijra) in AD622, Muhammad started to summon his followers to attack and plunder the caravans of Mecca. His followers initially resisted these calls until Muhammad presented a series of “revelations” commanding Jihad (holy war) and permitting looting (“Whoever has killed an enemy and has proof of that, will possess his spoils” – The Hadith, Vol. 4 no. 370). Where the booty was not large enough, Muhammad held captives as hostages until their families paid a high ransom for their release. Hostage taking has continued to be a common practise in Islam to this day. Those who participate in Jihad are granted a blanket absolution (Surah 8:17) and guaranteed to go straight to Paradise (Heaven) if killed.

----------


## cacian

> you genuinely have absolutely no concept of what it means to believe in something do you? 
> 
> http://www.frontline.org.za/index.ph...lamic-holy-war
> 
> The whole thing is frightening reading (which makes the US support of some Islamic factions incomprehensible) but in support of what I said above:


I am very much aware of what is going on you have my guarantee on that.
I am indeed baffled to why the US is in support of anything of such but then the US has a story of being incoherent with its laws and beliefs it is too busy flying nasa and conquering to a land where the alien is not.
it is a very much a divided nation from the onset.
there is a law different in every state you go and so I am not surprised of this.
about the Jihad speech I notice there is not one mention of the word god in there.
there is Muhammad a lot though.
it is obvious those who wrote this had very much the word Muhammad in mind.
killing is a present word throughout all religions.
it seems to be the driving force of religion
anyone who believes death is paradise is out of belief
and so yeah I think it is severe and it needs a stop to it sooner rather then later.

----------


## Paulclem

> yes it does mean just that but the question is why intelorance??
> I ask myself that and I realise that is because when one is saturated one comes to believe in none. hence suicide bombing for example.
> in the name of religion.
> normally one commits suicide when one loses faith in one self. this same applies to fanatic who kill themselves.
> intelerance is fanatism.
> this means one has lost the belief of one self and that of religion.
> hence saturation.


You're not allowing for the very much greater number of religious people who are neither intolerant nor suicide bombers, but who are ordinary citizens who happen to hold and be content with their religion without trying to convert others. Religion does not = intolerance though you will find small elements like that within it. Those small elements so often come to represent the rest in the minds of others. 

Such attitudes are diappointing especially when someone like Pumpkin rails against what they see as victimisation of their religion, but then go on to do exactly the same thing to another religion.

----------


## cacian

> You're not allowing for the very much greater number of religious people who are neither intolerant nor suicide bombers, but who are ordinary citizens who happen to hold and be content with their religion without trying to convert others.


true but they are not actively prominent in their belief their gratification and content is not changing the world for the better and so I question they very chore of belief that is strong yet inactive .
how does one contribute towards others and the bigger picture when one is content with one's religion?
I personally consider it to be a type of extreme opposite the dormant opposite of the fanatic who under extreme hounding saturation is exterminate toward oneself and others.
dormant versus destructive.




> Religion does not = intolerance though you will find small elements like that within it. Those small elements so often come to represent the rest in the minds of others.


true but what religion does is state who is who and who does what.
religions sets boundaries and dictate by order of different itself/religion hence the present state of religious beliefs.
religion does not wave one flags it waves many and end up creating a wave of any.




> Such attitudes are disappointing especially when someone like Pumpkin rails against what they see as victimisation of their religion, but then go on to do exactly the same thing to another religion.


religion is an attitude and it comes with a price unfortunately for many it is within the characteristic of a human to carry it on.

----------


## Pumpkin337

perhaps I should clarify ... it does not matter what normal sane people believe, but what is in the psychology of the person strapping a bomb to their chest, and in the minds of their mother, father, brother, sister who assist them, kiss them goodbye and send them off with love.

Now what normal sane parent would do that? To be sure almost any person can be convinced to lay their life down for family, for comrades, even for an ideology if they are convinced their action will bring greater good. A person can be coerced into doing it if their loved ones are held hostage. But what force could convince a parent to willingly participate in allowing their child to turn themselves into a bomb? I would argue nothing less than the absolute belief that it was to their child's advantage / betterment would persuade a mother to do that. This belief might be an erroneous interpretation of the Koran, it may not be supported by moderates, but if it is what the bomber believes then it is not a suicidal act of the hopeless but an act of firm and active faith and not an example of oversaturated whatever nonsense put forward above.

In the same way - what motivates a Buddhist monk to immoliate himself? It would be so easy to dismiss such actions as 'insanity' or as 'suicidal' or whatever it was that was said above (which indicates a complete utter lack of any level of comprehension about faith) but these aren't - these are acts of faith.

----------


## YesNo

> 5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?.. the sword I carry is The Sword of Truth... or a Lord of the Rings replica?
> (later this week my dad [God] will make an announcement... so stay tuned to BBC World News)


Jesus of the Dark Side. 

I found Fitzgerald's text online: http://www.nazarethmyth.info/Fitzgerald2010HM.pdf

I agree that numbers 4 and 5 are probably myths, but I don't know that it matters much.

----------


## Ecurb

> It would be so easy to dismiss such actions as 'insanity' or as 'suicidal' or whatever it was that was said above (which indicates a complete utter lack of any level of comprehension about faith) but these aren't - these are acts of faith.


I don't think it's that simple. NO doubt there are religious motivations for such martyrdom (and Christian martyrs are revered just as Muslim martyrs are). However, it seems to me that you are suggesting that martydom is somehow a selfish act -- done simply to gain access to the virgins, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever. I think this is merely an attempt to explain a complicated behavior in economic terms (that is, in terms of cost / benefit). If we see all human behavior as selfishly motivated, as many people do, this makes sense. I don't buy it, though. Humans (and, indeed, all mammals) are clearly not selfish. All mammalian females must regularly give scarce resources to their offspring, or the species wouldn't survive. 

We know that religious "faith" sometimes motivates people, and sometimes does not. Highly religious Christians sin with monotonous regularity -- but I never see them thrusting their hands into a red-hot fire. Perhaps their "belief" in hell is somehow different than their belief in the pain the flames would cause.

I'm guessing suicide bomber have complicated and often noble motives for their acts -- and their parents have complicated and often noble motives for their support of those acts. WE humans are motivated by social rewards -- the opinions of others. I remember after 9/11 G.W. Bush repeatedly called the suicide attack "cowardly". Huh? The one thing we know about the pilots who flew their planes into the Twin Towers is that they were NOT cowardly, and no amount of rigamarole about their "faith' in eternal rewards can suggest otherwise. Similarly, I don't buy that suicide bombers, or the G.I. who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies, have "selfish" motives. The meaning of the word "selfish" must be so twisted to accomadate such an interpretation as to make it meaningless.

----------


## Paulclem

> perhaps I should clarify ... it does not matter what normal sane people believe, but what is in the psychology of the person strapping a bomb to their chest, and in the minds of their mother, father, brother, sister who assist them, kiss them goodbye and send them off with love.
> 
> Now what normal sane parent would do that? To be sure almost any person can be convinced to lay their life down for family, for comrades, even for an ideology if they are convinced their action will bring greater good. A person can be coerced into doing it if their loved ones are held hostage. But what force could convince a parent to willingly participate in allowing their child to turn themselves into a bomb? I would argue nothing less than the absolute belief that it was to their child's advantage / betterment would persuade a mother to do that. This belief might be an erroneous interpretation of the Koran, it may not be supported by moderates, but if it is what the bomber believes then it is not a suicidal act of the hopeless but an act of firm and active faith and not an example of oversaturated whatever nonsense put forward above.
> 
> In the same way - what motivates a Buddhist monk to immoliate himself? It would be so easy to dismiss such actions as 'insanity' or as 'suicidal' or whatever it was that was said above (which indicates a complete utter lack of any level of comprehension about faith) but these aren't - these are acts of faith.


My complaint is that you are taking the extreme to attack the normal and moderate whilst complaining about people who attack Christianity. 

As I said before, as the dominant religion in a mainly western forum, people's experience of religion is usually about Christianity, and so, in religious discussions, that's what they refer to. Religion for them means Christianity. Our previous discussion is a case in point where a serious misunderstanding can come about through what seem to be logical deductions based upon erroneous assumptions. 

what motivates a Buddhist monk to immoliate himself?

The Vietnamese Monk I read/ heard about did it through compassion in an effort to bring the notice of the world media to the plight of Vietnamese during the Vietnam war. In this he was successful and achieved his aim. It's down to motivation. A skilful compassionate motivation in that case was successful. Suicide is not usually regarded as a positive act though and is not encouraged. The monk in question does not seem to have been in any distress and this is because he is in a state of meditation. An experienced meditator will not feel pain if they have had a realisation of emptiness. Rather than an act of faith I think this is a skilful act in that it achieved its aims. 

Also remember that westerners tend to have a 1 unique life view, which enhances the undoubted horror of the act, whereas in Buddhism the cycle of lives is a process working in this case towards a positive aim. 

There have been immolations since in India and Tibet, and it has been used as a form of protest tragically by young untrained people. It is very sad.

----------


## Paulclem

> I don't think it's that simple. NO doubt there are religious motivations for such martyrdom (and Christian martyrs are revered just as Muslim martyrs are). However, it seems to me that you are suggesting that martydom is somehow a selfish act -- done simply to gain access to the virgins, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever. I think this is merely an attempt to explain a complicated behavior in economic terms (that is, in terms of cost / benefit). If we see all human behavior as selfishly motivated, as many people do, this makes sense. I don't buy it, though. Humans (and, indeed, all mammals) are clearly not selfish. All mammalian females must regularly give scarce resources to their offspring, or the species wouldn't survive. 
> 
> We know that religious "faith" sometimes motivates people, and sometimes does not. Highly religious Christians sin with monotonous regularity -- but I never see them thrusting their hands into a red-hot fire. Perhaps their "belief" in hell is somehow different than their belief in the pain the flames would cause.
> 
> I'm guessing suicide bomber have complicated and often noble motives for their acts -- and their parents have complicated and often noble motives for their support of those acts. WE humans are motivated by social rewards -- the opinions of others. I remember after 9/11 G.W. Bush repeatedly called the suicide attack "cowardly". Huh? The one thing we know about the pilots who flew their planes into the Twin Towers is that they were NOT cowardly, and no amount of rigamarole about their "faith' in eternal rewards can suggest otherwise. Similarly, I don't buy that suicide bombers, or the G.I. who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies, have "selfish" motives. The meaning of the word "selfish" must be so twisted to accomadate such an interpretation as to make it meaningless.


Agreed. Siucide is often used as an act of war against an enemy as in the Kamikaze in Japan, or those who undertook suicide missions in the world wars. 

I don't think the religious motivation played up by the media is as relevant as the great sense of grievance that must be felt by many young men in various countries who have lost family and friends in the various wars recently. The civilian casualties were enormous in recent conflicts. It's a wonder there aren't more given the anger it must have engendered in relatives of those collaterally damaged victims.

----------


## Paulclem

> 


I can see you've been poised and waiting for an opportunity to post this. : )

----------


## Pumpkin337

> I don't think it's that simple. NO doubt there are religious motivations for such martyrdom (and Christian martyrs are revered just as Muslim martyrs are). However, it seems to me that you are suggesting that martydom is somehow a selfish act -- done simply to gain access to the virgins, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or whatever. I think this is merely an attempt to explain a complicated behavior in economic terms (that is, in terms of cost / benefit). If we see all human behavior as selfishly motivated, as many people do, this makes sense. I don't buy it, though. Humans (and, indeed, all mammals) are clearly not selfish. All mammalian females must regularly give scarce resources to their offspring, or the species wouldn't survive. 
> 
> We know that religious "faith" sometimes motivates people, and sometimes does not. Highly religious Christians sin with monotonous regularity -- but I never see them thrusting their hands into a red-hot fire. Perhaps their "belief" in hell is somehow different than their belief in the pain the flames would cause.
> 
> I'm guessing suicide bomber have complicated and often noble motives for their acts -- and their parents have complicated and often noble motives for their support of those acts. WE humans are motivated by social rewards -- the opinions of others. I remember after 9/11 G.W. Bush repeatedly called the suicide attack "cowardly". Huh? The one thing we know about the pilots who flew their planes into the Twin Towers is that they were NOT cowardly, and no amount of rigamarole about their "faith' in eternal rewards can suggest otherwise. Similarly, I don't buy that suicide bombers, or the G.I. who leaps on a grenade to save his buddies, have "selfish" motives. The meaning of the word "selfish" must be so twisted to accomadate such an interpretation as to make it meaningless.


I work from the POV that people are generally motivated by love, faith and a desire for better - sure there are some individuals who don't but they are generally suffering from some severe problems resulting in that negative behaviour - so if I assume that the mother of the suicide bomber is motivated by love and a desire for a better life, then how do I find some context for that in the fact that she encouraged him to strap on a bomb? How do I explain what is an apparent contradiction in motherly love and sending a child to their certain death in a horrible way. What could motivate that? It has to be something that makes her think that this is a good thing right? And the only way I can find that works in terms of the culture, religion and rhetoric is that they must be convinced that this is an honour, and that it is a way to something better. Otherwise I can not fathom it. 

Even if you read accounts of people who survived Jones Town ... they say similar things ... they were so taken in with the beliefs of Jim Jones, that he was building a multi-racial utopia ... so again you have the notion that somehow all the insanity will lead to something better ... there is this element of faith, whether its in the Koran, the tennets of Buddhism that forbid harm to others, but say nothing about harming yourself, or a cult-leader, or whatever ... the elements are the same ... to douse yourself in petrol or strap a bomb or drink the cool aid ... first there has to be a belief that this is somehow BETTER or will result in something better.

And that isn't necessarily selfish, although if you think for one cotton picking moment that human beings are all wonderfully altruistically motivated .. think again. Its me and mine for the most part.

----------


## mona amon

> 5. the last option, albeit quite remote, is that I am Jesus... this is a photo of me at a Halloween costume party. The resemblance is uncanny don't you think?..


Nice picture!  :Biggrin:

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Nice picture!



Thanks!.. that comment made my day. :Smile:

----------


## Paulclem

the tennets of Buddhism that forbid harm to others, but say nothing about harming yourself,

This is not true. Suicide is regarded as a very damaging thing because it is usually motivated by a negative emotion such as anger. 

The reason it is regarded as negative is that the next incarnation is very uncertain - no-one will know - unless they ae advanced in practice - where they will be reborn. A suicide motivated by anger for example will propel the person into a lower rebirth.

Human life is seen as precious because it is the basis of attaining enlightenment for oneself and benefiting many other beings. The are meditations which explore this , one of which is called The Precious Human Life. 

The Vietnamese Monk I referred to had a different motivation as I said. His primary concern was, out of compassion, to highlight the suffering of people in Vietnam, and, as I said he had a profound effect. Forty odd years later he is still recalled for this very unselfish act because of the impact he had. 

Again, for the reasons above, suicide is not an option except in exceptional circumstances. Motivation is emphasised rather than hard and fast rules.

----------


## Pumpkin337

I think my point still is that these events are not suicidal acts.

----------


## iamnobody

I'm sure I'm not the first to point this out, but the short answer is.....we don't.

----------


## YesNo

> Human life is seen as precious because it is the basis of attaining enlightenment for oneself and benefiting many other beings.


Initially this sentence made me wonder how someone's individual enlightenment can benefit other beings, but then I realized I was slipping into assumptions or illusions about our isolation from others as individuals. 

Anyway, the thread asks why we need God. Iamnobody, as well as others, have said that we don't need God. I think that's wrong, but I understand how one can take that view: we are isolated and seem to be able to get along just fine on our own. 

If one doesn't like the word, "God", replace it with (C)consciousness. Why do we need consciousness, both our own and that of others (Others)? Here are the answers I have so far:

1) We need God (consciousness) so that when we open our eyes and look at the world, something coherent will appear before us.

2) We need God (consciousness) to feel loved and be able to reciprocate.

3) We need God (consciousness) to escape the isolation of our individuality. This one I'm still trying to make sense out of, but it is related to someone's individual enlightenment being beneficial to others.

----------


## Paulclem

> I think my point still is that these events are not suicidal acts.


Fine. I was just clarifying a point.

----------


## Paulclem

> Initially this sentence made me wonder how someone's individual enlightenment can benefit other beings, but then I realized I was slipping into assumptions or illusions about our isolation from others as individuals. 
> 
> Anyway, the thread asks why we need God. Iamnobody, as well as others, have said that we don't need God. I think that's wrong, but I understand how one can take that view: we are isolated and seem to be able to get along just fine on our own. 
> 
> If one doesn't like the word, "God", replace it with (C)consciousness. Why do we need consciousness, both our own and that of others (Others)? Here are the answers I have so far:
> 
> 1) We need God (consciousness) so that when we open our eyes and look at the world, something coherent will appear before us.
> 
> 2) We need God (consciousness) to feel loved and be able to reciprocate.
> ...


I think if people need or want a God then that's up to them. I don't feel that someone is inferior if they do believe in a God - it's their way and they are free to believe what they want.(within the law). 

Problems arise when one group tries to force belief or non-belief on another. I think this often has the sheen of religion on it, but behind is often political motives from unscrupulous leaders. Because of the association of religion and God with the state and power, then religions leave themselves open to abuses from within and without. I my opinion a relationship with God/ religion is best at a personal level, though there are benefits from having organisations which run valuable charities.

----------


## YesNo

I agree that civil liberties need to be respected when it comes to religion or atheism.

----------


## cacian

> I agree that civil liberties need to be respected when it comes to religion or atheism.


civil religion and atheism
three words that never agree.

----------


## Pumpkin337

Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.

Why we need God?

It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.

It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"

It gives meaning and value to life.

----------


## Paulclem

> Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.
> 
> Why we need God?
> 
> It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.
> 
> It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"
> 
> It gives meaning and value to life.


In the UK 5 per cent of the population attend church it is said. A significant number though still believe in God without interacting with the established religion. In the UK's example, it is still presented as a largely Christian country, though what that actually means in reality is a moot point. 

I think your three points may be a reason for an individual to believe in or want to believe in God. I would dispute that your three points cannot be held by atheists and others. 

The law is a moral code that we can all answer to.
Your second point is an obvious point of dispute as is your third. The idea that a person cannot have meaning and value in their life is clearly untrue. An atheistic doctor for example could easily find meaning and value.

----------


## Pumpkin337

I think it is a mistake to equate concepts of God with a particular faith system and/or Church/religious ceremony attendance. 

As to meaning and value ... so you are completely fulfilled in your life? All questions about your purpose, raison d'être, etc are all completely answered to your satisfaction? No nagging doubts about the meaning of existence, why you / mankind / any one is on this planet? No thoughts that make you wake up in the morning and wonder why the heck you are doing this? No nagging doubts that there is no point to making an effort, doing good, etc because the bad guys always seem to win and the poor, sick, needy are seemingly endless? And lets not forget the ultimate futility - nothing you do matters anyway because you are just going to feed the worms when you are done. None of that?

A question no atheistic can answer is this ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone. Please go find a bridge and take the dive immediately because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness.

On the other hand if we posit a god/divine being who purposed your existence, takes personal interest in every aspect of your life, your life takes on an entirely different meaning and purpose. You have a role to play in the universe, one only you as a unique divinely created individual can fulfill, and one that does not end when you die, because life does not end with the ending of your mortal body. A whole different picture to the bleakness of the meaningless existence of those with faith in science, evolution, and a lack of any divinity.

----------


## cacian

> Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.
> 
> Why we need God?
> 
> It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.
> 
> It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"
> 
> It gives meaning and value to life.


do we need a god to give us morals?
are we incapable of it without?
It is fascinating to think we have to rely on others to forge our own morals.
this implies we depend on others to be and so the question: 
why are we here ?
is
we are here because we depend on something else or someone one else.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> do we need a god to give us morals?
> are we incapable of it without?
> It is fascinating to think we have to rely on others to forge our own morals.
> this implies we depend on others to be and so the question: 
> why are we here ?
> is
> we are here because we depend on something else or someone one else.


to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.

----------


## YesNo

I agree with Pumpkin337 about values. I would add that as a fourth reason for a need for God, or Consciousness as I like to think of it.

Needing God doesn't mean we need to _believe_ in any particular religion. We don't need to _believe_ in God to get the benefits. Belief is irrelevant. In a similar way no one has to believe in the Higgs field for particles to get mass. 

An argument claiming that since atheists are moral, and atheists don't believe in God therefore God is not necessary for moral intuition misses the point. Our need for God is not the same as our need to believe in God. We don't need to believe in God. The world will still exist if we believe in this dogma or that one. We will still intuit reasonable ethics. We can still feel love. 

Belief adds a cultural clarification that sometimes misses the mark. Disbelief can also miss the mark resulting in delusion.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.


That is the way children view the world. Time to grow up, Pumpkin.
There is no all-embracing purpose for humanity, no supernatural reason to why we exist, no revelation at the end of the road. We live our lives and when we're gone, it's as if we were never here. To me, that is sheer magic.

----------


## mona amon

> Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.
> 
> Why we need God?
> 
> It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.


This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulterers? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.

----------


## Ecurb

> to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.


Believing in God because life without God would be "pointless and meaningless" is a form of moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. There is only one reasonable reason to think something is true: because one's examination of the evidence in an honest and disinterested manner persuades one it IS true. This point, by the way, was emphasized by C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity". 

If my life would be uncomfortable without a fairy godmother, does that mean I should start deluding myself so I can be more comfortable. This appears to by the "Ostrich head in the sand" approach to reality -- if I don't SEE the lion, he isn't there. It also appears to be the same approach Pumpkin took toward "Lolita", disapproving of it without actually reading the book. To be or not to be IS a a question with which we must all struggle -- intellecually dishonest reasoning cannot be accepted simply because it leads us to the answer ("to be") we desire.

----------


## Frostball

> to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.


Life being finite does not at all affect what meaning there is in it. To anybody who likes watching movies, they don't enjoy or value the movie any less just because the movie always ends. It is fun while the movie is playing, and that's all that matters.

If anything thinking this life is finite lends _more_ importance and value to life. The atheist (in general, not the user) realizes that this life will someday end, and that this time is all the time we have, and so we have to make the most of it. Theists are generally the ones who think this life is completely worthless, just a place to dust your feet off, or at most just a testing ground before the _real_ life begins. Since nobody knows whether this next life really begins I think it's a tragedy that people waste so much time and effort trying to get into a place that might not exist when they could be living life to the fullest.

You also seem to think life can have no meaning unless it is externally imposed meaning. You seem to think meaning must be bestowed upon us by a greater being. I do not understand why meaning being imposed externally makes it more real. To me what gives our life meaning is up to us. Meaning and value is something conscious beings bestow on things, therefore it is something we have in ourselves. We find meaning and value in our own life, and we decide what we want to make of it. How does having a god insisting your meaning is X make meaning any more real?

An example is if you have children, you don't impose your dream on them. You don't say "Son, you're going to be a chiropractor because that's your dream" no, you let your son have his own dream, and make his own choices and find meaning for himself. That makes it so much better than if you had forced meaning onto your son, as it is much more genuine.

Come to think of it, what meaning can god's life have? (Speaking as though he exists, of course) What meaning could his life possibly have if he can do everything and knows everything? Nobody bestows meaning on him; does his life matter just because he thinks it matters? If so, isn't that how we all do it?

----------


## Cleanthes

Is God a useful fiction in the 'as if' Vaihinger sense? That is, "an idea whose theoretical untruth or incorrectness, and therewith its falsity, is admitted is not for that reason practically valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite of its theoretical nullity, may have great practical importance." In Vaihinger's 'as if' philosophy the acceptance of patently false fictions is justified as a pragmatic non-rational solution to problems that have no rational answers.

----------


## Frostball

> This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulters? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.


I agree so very much.

----------


## Ecurb

> Is God an useful fiction in the 'as if' Vaihinger sense? That is, "an idea whose theoretical untruth or incorrectness, and therewith its falsity, is admitted is not for that reason practically valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite of its theoretical nullity, may have great practical importance." In Vaihinger's 'as if' philosophy the acceptance of patently false fictions is justified as a pragmatic non-rational solution to problems that have no rational answers.


God might be a "useful fiction". Equally, God might "exist" in some metaphorical sense, rather than as a literal "being". After all, if God is ineffable and incorporeal, wondering whether He "exists" is a bit strange. He certainly doesn't "exist" in the same sense that corporeal beings exist. But He might "exist" as other incorporeal cultural constructs (like math or language) exist.

----------


## Pumpkin337

I love the way people can convince themselves up is down and black is white. Pity really.

----------


## 108 fountains

> A question no atheistic can answer is this ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone. Please go find a bridge and take the dive immediately because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness.


While I try my best to respect religious believers, I have to say that these particular comments are insulting, offensive and incredibly bigoted.

----------


## Lokasenna

> to my mind that is better than the alternative ... which is ... what is the point of bothering to exist if you are only here for a few years and then gone, leaving no trace of your passing through the world? I can't think of anything more pointless and meaningless than life without a sense of purpose and without a divine purpose to your existence, you are nothing more than the random result of evolution, it matters not one bit if you are or are not and when you are dead you are gone because you are the ultimate expression of pointless, purposeless nothingness and this thought makes me wonder why the human race just doesn't do a lemming and a head for the nearest high point and take a dive. The fact we don't, that even the most die hard atheist persists in thinking that there is some point somewhere (even if they can't exactly point to one) is greater proof of the existence of god than any empirical proof.


Childish sentiments.

Some might argue that we would value the limited time we have specifically because it is limited - we are not harking after some 'eternal' existence that may or may not exist. If a resource is finite, it is infinitely more precious to us - which is presumably why you don't get atheist suicide bombers or mass suicides. There are no virgins in heaven waiting for us...

I agree with Iain. The universe is a magic place. One does not have to believe in God to be overwhelmed by the sheer wonder of it all. If anything, the paltry concerns of some petty and hideous Middle-Eastern tribal deity whose cult spread by a mixture of luck and the edge of the sword serve only to detract from the astonishing and profoundly beautiful cosmos we inhabit. Yahweh is a tiny, insignificant speck in the eye of the universe - and to focus on Him as one's sole reason for existing is myopic in the extreme.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulterers? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.



I agree completely... and I'll add, that very often divine moral codes are steadfast, which even in western cultures is why it's taken so long for women to have the right to vote, access to birth control, equal pay, etc. We forget that many of these equal rights for women, gays, minorities, have come about in the last four decades.
In America we're struggling with Gay Marriage, in fact in many places the majority still won't allow it... and they pass laws formally defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and add amendments to State Constitutions. Thankfully, even conservative courts are striking down these amendments one by one. Secular Laws can change, become more progressive. And we're all subject to them equally.

----------


## HCabret

> This is dangerous territory, relying on God for our moral code. Which God, who said what? Kill the homosexuals? Stone the adulterers? Give me secular laws which can be subjected to debate, any day.


Can i listen to the part where god said "treat others how you would want to treated"? Or should i just be an atheist and be done with it?

----------


## mona amon

> Can i listen to the part where god said "treat others how you would want to treated"?


That was said by God *after* he became a Christian.  :Biggrin: 

Jokes aside, I'd say listen to whatever you like, as long as it is consistent with your own inner moral code, and not just because it is in the scriptures.

----------


## YesNo

Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird. 

Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe _they_ don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.

Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's _Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening_, I found this:

_All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function._
What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.

He also has this on page 42:

_Dharma practice is the process of awakening itself: the thoughts, words, and deeds that weave the unfolding fabric of experience into a coherent whole._
But I wonder, after washing off the sentimentality, awakening into what? Some brain function?

I was thinking a better title for Batchelor's book would have been _Buddhism Without the Junk I Don't Believe In: A Contemporary Guide to Snoring_. Or even shorter: _How to Sleep Like a Buddha_.

----------


## Frostball

> Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird. 
> 
> Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe _they_ don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.
> 
> Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's _Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening_, I found this:
> 
> _All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function._
> What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.
> 
> ...


I really don't see what god has to do with consciousness. If your opinion is that you can't see how consciousness can possibly exist without god, that is an argument from ignorance, straight up. Even if you don't think consciousness can be explained by evolution and the brain, that still leaves "I don't know" as the best answer not "god did it". You can't just say that just because you don't understand something that means god must have done it. Again, it's an argument from ignorance.

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird. 
> 
> Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe _they_ don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.
> 
> Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's _Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening_, I found this:
> 
> _All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function._
> What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.
> 
> ...



Whilst it is true that Science has yet to give us a satisfactory explanation in either a practical sense, or an evolutionary sense what consciousness is and how it came to be... given that, it is nonsensical to leap to conclusions that we'll never be able to answer those questions, or much worse... that God did it.
There are some researchers who are beginning to think that our consciousness is something equivalent to watching a magic show, and even when the sensory input is very static and unambiguous there are always multiple states of reality. A single reality has multiple appearances. "Where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality".

----------


## Paulclem

> Needing God is close to needing our own consciousness. But who knows? Perhaps we don't need our own consciousness. Perhaps it is only an epiphenomenon of our brain functioning in some way. Perhaps the song is only the radio acting weird. 
> 
> Hmm. Suppose you ran into people who did not believe in electromagnetism and claimed, since they can't see it, they don't need it. If you disagreed, they would point out that they don't believe in it and they can still use their smart phones even better than you can. So, you figure maybe _they_ don't need it. Why wake a pit bull? That reminds me of the saying about pearls and swine. Go back to sleep, puppy.
> 
> Although I know western Buddhists don't believe they believe in anything, I wanted to find out what they really, really believed and so I turned to a source popular enough to be a bestseller. On page 37 of Stephen Bachelor's _Buddhism Without Beliefs: A Contemporary Guide to Awakening_, I found this:
> 
> _All this has nothing to do, however, with the compatibility (or otherwise) of Buddhism and modern science. It is odd that a practice concerned with anguish and the ending of anguish should be obligated to adopt ancient Indian metaphysical theories and thus accept as an article of faith that consciousness cannot be explained in terms of brain function._
> What if consciousness really cannot be explained in terms of brain function? Nagel doesn't think it can. What happens to western Buddhism when it finds out those ancient metaphysical theories were right after all? Probably nothing. They can still use their smart phones.
> 
> ...


Firstly, I think you are under a misconception - one which I noticed earlier in the discussion but wasn't really relevant at the time. You use a term Western Buddhism by which I am assuming you mean to denote the Buddhism practiced by westerners. In actual fact the Buddhism practiced by westerners are the various forms of Buddhism brought by teachers from Buddhist countries. Thus we have the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism manifesting in the Tibetan FPMT and Kagyu schools, Thai, Burmese, Zen and Sri Lankan. Most of them have a prescence in Birmingham and have centres around the country. The same is true of US and European countries. 

You seem to be implying that the Buddhism practiced by westerners is somehow inferior. (I'm not sure what a smart phone has to do with it. I find mine extremely useful). In fact it is in the same traditions. 

Secondly you take a couple of quotes from a western Buddhist writer and use this to make huge assumptions about the nature of Buddhist belief, attitudes to the mind, the relationship of Buddhists to science and the relationship of Buddhist beliefs to Hinduism. That's quite a concise couple of paragraphs you have there to cover a subject which involves a lifetime of study. 

If you want to discuss the mind I'd be happy to do that, but it would be better if you didn't just make inaccurate assumptions.

----------


## YesNo

> Firstly, I think you are under a misconception - one which I noticed earlier in the discussion but wasn't really relevant at the time. You use a term Western Buddhism by which I am assuming you mean to denote the Buddhism practiced by westerners. In actual fact the Buddhism practiced by westerners are the various forms of Buddhism brought by teachers from Buddhist countries. Thus we have the various schools of Tibetan Buddhism manifesting in the Tibetan FPMT and Kagyu schools, Thai, Burmese, Zen and Sri Lankan. Most of them have a prescence in Birmingham and have centres around the country. The same is true of US and European countries. 
> 
> You seem to be implying that the Buddhism practiced by westerners is somehow inferior. (I'm not sure what a smart phone has to do with it. I find mine extremely useful). In fact it is in the same traditions. 
> 
> Secondly you take a couple of quotes from a western Buddhist writer and use this to make huge assumptions about the nature of Buddhist belief, attitudes to the mind, the relationship of Buddhists to science and the relationship of Buddhist beliefs to Hinduism. That's quite a concise couple of paragraphs you have there to cover a subject which involves a lifetime of study. 
> 
> If you want to discuss the mind I'd be happy to do that, but it would be better if you didn't just make inaccurate assumptions.


My view of western Buddhism is confirmed by popular writers like Stephen Batchelor. However, I am sure there are real Buddhists who are also western. 

I see western Buddhism as something practiced by two western views that I have rejected long ago. People with these views co-opt Buddhism to give legitimacy to their positions. This makes me suspicious of Buddhism in general when I hear someone who speaks English present it. I need to make sure I am not getting these cultural views sugarcoated with Buddhism. 

Here are the two views I am referring to:

1. Tibetan Shangrila Anti-Communism: The quantity of books in a library with "Dalai Lama" in the title makes me suspect those stacks are overfilled with anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.

2. Western Atheism: Rejection of specific Gods is natural, but an overall rejection of the idea of a transcendent Consciousness in general does not make sense to me. It is parallel to a rejection of our own personal consciousness. When I hear western Buddhists reject the "Self" I become suspicious they are just western atheists in disguise.

Regarding the mind, reading Batchelor's text has given me an idea how to tell if Buddhism (or any other religious or spiritual position) is legitimate. I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:

1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

2. I don't know.

3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance.

----------


## HCabret

> That was said by God *after* he became a Christian. 
> 
> Jokes aside, I'd say listen to whatever you like, as long as it is consistent with your own inner moral code, and not just because it is in the scriptures.


I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.

----------


## HCabret

> Aah but a discussion on the necessity of separation between Church and State is a whole other discussion.
> 
> Why we need God?
> 
> It gives us a higher moral code than our own to answer to.
> 
> It resolves the question 'Why are we here?"
> 
> It gives meaning and value to life.


do theoretical physics fulfill the same role as god: "why are we here?" And why does morality have to come from a god? Is it impossible to be moral if one does not believe in a god?

----------


## Cleanthes

> I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:
> 
> 1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.
> 
> 2. I don't know.
> 
> 3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.
> 
> I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance.


That's a false trichotomy. There are other alternatives, for example: matter, brain function, consciousness and the universe itself are ultimately reducible to emptiness.

'Buddha-nature is simply the true nature of reality and Being. This true nature is just impermanence, becoming and vast emptiness' or sunyata. According to Eihei Dogen, 'the very impermanency of grass and tree, thicket and forest is the Buddha nature. The very impermanency of men and things, body and mind, is the Buddha nature. Nature and lands, mountains and rivers, are impermanent because they are the Buddha nature. Supreme and complete enlightenment, because it is impermanent, is the Buddha nature'. Karma, Maya, Nirvana, Reality itself are merely a set of ripples on the alaya or storehouse consciousness.

----------


## HCabret

> Well, Jesus wasn't a bad guy. He was a socialist, a pacifist, and an egalitarian.


You can't be a socialist and a pacifist because the collectivist coercion required under socialism is a violence which is antithetical to pacifism. Socialism is inherently violent.

----------


## cacian

> I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.


 the golden rule?

----------


## Paulclem

> My view of western Buddhism is confirmed by popular writers like Stephen Batchelor. However, I am sure there are real Buddhists who are also western. 
> 
> I see western Buddhism as something practiced by two western views that I have rejected long ago. People with these views co-opt Buddhism to give legitimacy to their positions. This makes me suspicious of Buddhism in general when I hear someone who speaks English present it. I need to make sure I am not getting these cultural views sugarcoated with Buddhism. 
> 
> Here are the two views I am referring to:
> 
> 1. Tibetan Shangrila Anti-Communism: The quantity of books in a library with "Dalai Lama" in the title makes me suspect those stacks are overfilled with anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.
> 
> 2. Western Atheism: Rejection of specific Gods is natural, but an overall rejection of the idea of a transcendent Consciousness in general does not make sense to me. It is parallel to a rejection of our own personal consciousness. When I hear western Buddhists reject the "Self" I become suspicious they are just western atheists in disguise.
> ...


1. Tibetan Shangrila Anti-Communism: The quantity of books in a library with "Dalai Lama" in the title makes me suspect those stacks are overfilled with anti-Chinese and anti-communist propaganda. Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.


You are clearly not up to date on HH The Dalai Lama's position over the last ten years. When you say with HH The Dalai Lama in the title, are you referring to books written by HH? 

Just to be certain I checked a list of his publications:

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourc...+lama&safe=off

All of the titles refer to Buddhist teachings. 

Although I don't like the atheism in Chinese communism, I think the theocracy under Lamaism in Tibet is even worse. 

Tibet was a backward medieval country with many problems in the pre-Maoist era, (not communist - Mao was a bloody dictator). For all the problems, there wasn't an engineered famine that killed over a million people as happened under Mao. 

I am not in favor of seeing the Dalai Lama regain power in Tibet and I am disgusted by the self-immolation suicides of monks and nuns to try to bring Lamaism back to Tibet as a state religion.



HH The Dalai Lama now negotiates on the basis of co operation with China as it is clear - always was clear- that Tibetans could never throw off Chinese rule. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for refusing to advocate violence in the struggle with China and has tried to halt the immolations that have occurred. Disgust is a strange emotion to feel for those poor people. Isn't pity more appropriate?

2. Western Atheism: Rejection of specific Gods is natural, but an overall rejection of the idea of a transcendent Consciousness in general does not make sense to me. It is parallel to a rejection of our own personal consciousness. When I hear western Buddhists reject the "Self" I become suspicious they are just western atheists in disguise.

I don't understand why someone would pretend to be one thing to cover for being another, especially an atheist. The absence of the self really has nothing to do with atheism. It is about puncturing the idea that there is an I, a core that exists centrally. It is to demonstrate humans as expressions of emptiness. 

Regarding the mind, reading Batchelor's text has given me an idea how to tell if Buddhism (or any other religious or spiritual position) is legitimate. I only need to ask this question: Do you believe that mind can be reduced to brain functioning? Here are the three possible answers:

1. Yes. The mind is reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

2. I don't know.

3. No. The mind is not reducible to brain functioning and materialism.

I reject any religious or spiritual position that favors either 1 or 2. In the case of Buddhism, if it cannot accept 3, it is a waste of my time. If suffering is the driving concern for a Buddhist who accepts 1 or 2, it would be better to read a self-help book, or if the suffering is severe, get professional, modern assistance


Stephen Batchelor is a well respected writer and commentator on Buddhism. He isn't the final word on Buddhism or Western Buddhism though. 

If I were you I should go with your thoughts on the mind if it works for you. What you want to believe or test is up to you.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> the golden rule?


Love your neighbour as yourself - at least that is the one I assume was being referred to.

----------


## HCabret

> Love your neighbour as yourself - at least that is the one I assume was being referred to.


bump.

----------


## YesNo

> You are clearly not up to date on HH The Dalai Lama's position over the last ten years. When you say with HH The Dalai Lama in the title, are you referring to books written by HH?


No, I am referring to the use of the Dalai Lama for anti-communist, political purposes. 




> Tibet was a backward medieval country with many problems in the pre-Maoist era, (not communist - Mao was a bloody dictator). For all the problems, there wasn't an engineered famine that killed over a million people as happened under Mao.


I agree. You're right. Mao is worse. I don't think Lamaism would be as bad as Mao nor "worse" as I previously stated.




> HH The Dalai Lama now negotiates on the basis of co operation with China as it is clear - always was clear- that Tibetans could never throw off Chinese rule. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for refusing to advocate violence in the struggle with China and has tried to halt the immolations that have occurred. Disgust is a strange emotion to feel for those poor people. Isn't pity more appropriate?


What disgusts me with those immolations is I don't know who's pulling the strings behind them. If the Dalai Lama is opposed to them, why are they still occurring? Is he really opposed to them or is that just his front to the west? Who is setting these people up to immolate themselves? 

It is like some, probably a small, but notorious number of Catholic priests and altar boys. What disgusts me are not the altar boys, but the priests. As I see it, the monks and nuns who have immolated themselves are the victims, like those altar boys. Who's giving them the idea that this is an appropriate thing for them to do? Those are the one's, the ones who are still alive, that I'm disgusted with.




> I don't understand why someone would pretend to be one thing to cover for being another, especially an atheist. The absence of the self really has nothing to do with atheism. It is about puncturing the idea that there is an I, a core that exists centrally. It is to demonstrate humans as expressions of emptiness.


That's the question that I'm asking. What is the "absence of self" referring to? Is it an attempt to legitimate a materialistic philosophy of mind by meditating on the insignificance of one's personal consciousness? If there is anything worth meditating on it is the insignificance of material reality. Not personal consciousness.

This brings us back to the question of the tread. Why do we need God? The best way to rationalize a view that we do not need God, is to dismiss our own personal consciousness. This is what I see western Buddhists trying to do: convince themselves that the materialist philosophy of mind is correct by treating themselves, their minds and consciousness, as "expressions of emptiness".




> Stephen Batchelor is a well respected writer and commentator on Buddhism. He isn't the final word on Buddhism or Western Buddhism though.


The fact that he is well respected is why I'm quoting him. 

I don't consider him to be a Buddhist. He is a western atheist co-opting Buddhism. Why? Because he drops Buddhist tradition or even what the Buddha actually accepted such as rebirth and karma when it doesn't suit his own western, atheistic belief system. One could do the same thing with Jesus or Krishna. It just takes appropriate rationalization (aka "testing for oneself" and "meditation") to build such a belief system.




> If I were you I should go with your thoughts on the mind if it works for you. What you want to believe or test is up to you.


I already have an answer. The mind cannot be reduced to brain functioning and materialism. I am not deluded about the fact that this is a "belief" that I have. 

However, you're the Buddhist. I'm not. What do you think?

----------


## Lokasenna

> I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.


Ceratinly not. If nothing else, he's quoting Leviticus 19:17-18.

Interestingly enough, the meaning of the original hebrew is under some debate - particularly the word _reyacha_, usually translated as 'neighbour' and thus the crux of the whole sentiment. In the context of the Torah, at least, there is some scholarly consensus that it in fact means 'fellow jew'.

So, love thy neighbour... unless he's not one of us, in which case stuff the bastard.

----------


## HCabret

> Ceratinly not. If nothing else, he's quoting Leviticus 19:17-18.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the meaning of the original hebrew is under some debate - particularly the word _reyacha_, usually translated as 'neighbour' and thus the crux of the whole sentiment. In the context of the Torah, at least, there is some scholarly consensus that it in fact means 'fellow jew'.
> 
> So, love thy neighbour... unless he's not one of us, in which case stuff the bastard.


Who said I was talking about the Hebrews? All, may I say, Jewish beer rocks my socks! 

The golden rule was not was originally formulated in Canaan during the Bronze Age. I'll never understand why the followers of Abrahamic religions always seem to think they were the first at everything.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> Who said I was talking about the Hebrews? All, may I say, Jewish beer rocks my socks! 
> 
> The golden rule was not was originally formulated in Canaan during the Bronze Age. I'll never understand why the followers of Abrahamic religions always seem to think they were the first at everything.


Without having any idea about who or when I would say it is one of those eternal and universal truths and a fairly profound one. It goes right to the heart of one's concept of self. You can't give what you don't have (love) and you do give what you do have (whether love or self loathing or any degree in between). Love your neighbour as yourself points directly to the path of healing. First love yourself - although not in an unhealthy self-absorbed narcissistic way but that place where you know who are, accept who you are and basically like (love) who you are. From that place of self-acceptance comes acceptance (and love) towards others. So yes, love others as you love yourself, but sort yourself out first otherwise you will be giving them all the negative head space you have about yourself.

----------


## cacian

> Love your neighbour as yourself - at least that is the one I assume was being referred to.


ah there is a lot of love in religion
there is a lot of man too. religion is masculine.
god is masculine
Jesus is masculine
the priest is masculine
the apostles masculine
the bible masculine
love 
is it masculine??

----------


## mona amon

> I didn't say anything about Christianity. Jesus was not the first to espouse the golden rule.


That's true! Every major religion seems to preach the same good things. Pity so many followers tend to interpret their religions in perverse ways.

I also feel Jesus was the one who really took this 'rule' to the next level, emphasizing its place as the greatest commandment, equating it to the love of God. Too many Christians seem to have missed the boat on this one.

----------


## HCabret

> That's true! Every major religion seems to preach the same good things. Pity so many followers tend to interpret their religions in perverse ways.
> 
> I also feel Jesus was the one who really took this 'rule' to the next level, emphasizing its place as the greatest commandment, equating it to the love of God. Too many Christians seem to have missed the boat on this one.


yeah, clearly they did. Christians make sport out of ignoring the dictates of god.

----------


## HCabret

> Without having any idea about who or when I would say it is one of those eternal and universal truths and a fairly profound one. It goes right to the heart of one's concept of self. You can't give what you don't have (love) and you do give what you do have (whether love or self loathing or any degree in between). Love your neighbour as yourself points directly to the path of healing. First love yourself - although not in an unhealthy self-absorbed narcissistic way but that place where you know who are, accept who you are and basically like (love) who you are. From that place of self-acceptance comes acceptance (and love) towards others. So yes, love others as you love yourself, but sort yourself out first otherwise you will be giving them all the negative head space you have about yourself.


People care way too much about other people. People are obsessed with how much money, fame and property other people have. People care too much about whether someone has a gun or not, or whether someone has blonde hair or not, or if someone else is gay or straight. 

Jesus was an individualist, who wanted people to take care of themselves and afford others the right to do the same. If you don't love yourself (who you are with permanently), then there's no way you love someone else.

----------


## Pumpkin337

at the risk of sounding mildly facetious I do care about guns ... peace was never won by a gun.

----------


## Frostball

The golden rule has been used throughout human history, and has been independently discovered by many cultures. It's certainly a great start to morality, but it could actually use some improvement.

Treating somebody else like you want to be treated seems to presuppose that they want to be treated in a similar manner as yourself. A masochist, for example, will not want to cause pain on others simply because they enjoy certain sensations of pain themselves. A person blaring metal music shouldn't assume that since he wouldn't mind the blaring music, that others wouldn't mind.

There are two versions of the golden rule that I think are superior. They are two different kinds of inversions. The golden rule is in the positive, that is, it speaks about what you should do to a person. You can flip it around to the negative to be that you should not do to somebody what you would not have done to you. This one is at least an interesting different way to look at it, and if you paired the golden rule with its inverse, the two together are better than just one.

But the best way of putting it in my opinion is that you should do unto others how _they_ would have done to them. Basically to find out how they want to be treated, by asking them, and treat them that way.

I'm not knocking the golden rule, it's a great, time tested and time honored maxim that is a great start.

----------


## HCabret

> at the risk of sounding mildly facetious I do care about guns ... peace was never won by a gun.


I was not pointing at you, but there are plenty of people who believe the right to own a gun is more precious than the right to life.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> The golden rule has been used throughout human history, and has been independently discovered by many cultures. It's certainly a great start to morality, but it could actually use some improvement.
> 
> Treating somebody else like you want to be treated seems to presuppose that they want to be treated in a similar manner as yourself. A masochist, for example, will not want to cause pain on others simply because they enjoy certain sensations of pain themselves. A person blaring metal music shouldn't assume that since he wouldn't mind the blaring music, that others wouldn't mind.
> 
> There are two versions of the golden rule that I think are superior. They are two different kinds of inversions. The golden rule is in the positive, that is, it speaks about what you should do to a person. You can flip it around to the negative to be that you should not do to somebody what you would not have done to you. This one is at least an interesting different way to look at it, and if you paired the golden rule with its inverse, the two together are better than just one.
> 
> But the best way of putting it in my opinion is that you should do unto others how _they_ would have done to them. Basically to find out how they want to be treated, by asking them, and treat them that way.
> 
> I'm not knocking the golden rule, it's a great, time tested and time honored maxim that is a great start.


I think you are conflating two similar but not identical ideas. 'Do unto others ... ' is not the same as 'Love others as ...'

'Do unto others ...' is a concept of empathy whereby you understand that other people also have the right to be treated decently ... basically as you like to be treated. (BTW this is the so-called "Golden Rule' not 'love others')

'Love others as ... ' is, as I said above, a concept that deals first and foremost with who you are, your self-image, and capacity to accept yourself, love yourself and receive love and then give it out. On deeper analysis it points to why people who are emotionally or psychologically damaged give out the abuse they suffered. So while they may want to be treated in a certain way, they can't do it to others, no matter how much they might want to. 

So these concepts are not interchangeable or even that similar. One deals with purely external empathetic actions, while the other deals with the internal state.

----------


## Frostball

> I think you are conflating two similar but not identical ideas. 'Do unto others ... ' is not the same as 'Love others as ...'
> 
> 'Do unto others ...' is a concept of empathy whereby you understand that other people also have the right to be treated decently ... basically as you like to be treated. (BTW this is the so-called "Golden Rule' not 'love others')
> 
> 'Love others as ... ' is, as I said above, a concept that deals first and foremost with who you are, your self-image, and capacity to accept yourself, love yourself and receive love and then give it out. On deeper analysis it points to why people who are emotionally or psychologically damaged give out the abuse they suffered. So while they may want to be treated in a certain way, they can't do it to others, no matter how much they might want to. 
> 
> So these concepts are not interchangeable or even that similar. One deals with purely external empathetic actions, while the other deals with the internal state.


I wasn't saying anything about love at all. I was talking about the golden rule, which as you stated, has nothing to do with love. Just musing, that's all, not in relation to anything you were saying.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> That was my whole point: did the god not create Satan?
> 
> My understanding is that the god created everything - the stars, the universe, the air we breathe, light even, and the angels, one of whom became Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is worthy of etching onto stone tablets.


 Hi ,
I told u before . You only know part of the story . No one can understand a book by reading some pages. 
Yeh , Allah created Satan.
Satan was an Angel; his name is Eblees. Satan is the name that means devil and has to do with evil. He got that name after creating Adam .
When Allah created Adam in his image , all angles knelled in front of him except for Eblees. Angles kneel in front of no one. Kneeling in front of Adam means that Adam comes directly after Allah in hierarchy . When Eblees dint kneel like others , Allah asked him " Eblees , what's wrong with you. Why didn't you kneel ? Eblees replied: you created him from burned soil and you created me from fire. I'm better than him. " 
Eblees 's attitude was merely rational . He is indeed right : fire is better than soil. He looks at Adam from a materialistic and scientific perspective only .
Other angels had knelled when Allah put from His soul and light in Adam before He even asked them to do so.
Because of his mere rationality + pride , Eblees directly jumped to the conclusion that Alaah is unfair and unjust . And he judged Him of being so without investigating Allah's reasons. And he challenged Him that he will seduce Adam's ancestors. Allah said you can do so except for the good believers. And He cursed him and banished him from heaven . Eblees has become Satan . The angle transformed into devil.
Allah 's words to Eblees shows that He relies on us to fight him . He allows him to seduce us to test our belief. Allah wouldn't do that if doesn't know that we are strong enough to do it , if we really wanna do it . And then Allah gave us the freedom to choose : to believe or disbelieve, to fight Satan or not to fight.
The dialogue between Allah and Eblees is amazing. It shows that Eblees's love for Allah was fake. Because if you love someone you trust him . And when you think he does something wrong to you , you try to investigate the truth . You ask yourself , why he did so to me ,or you ask him why you did so to me ?This is when you truly love someone. But Eblees didn't ask Allah why you did so . Allah was willing to explain and He first asked Eblees abt his attitude. Allah tried to investigate the truth and didn't judge Eblees directly and Eblees didn't even try . Only those who hate you judge you very quickly.

----------


## cacian

> Yeh , Allah created Satan.


no he did not.
why would he do that?
this reminds me of star wars
sky walker aka eblees turns evil kneevil.
if god/allah wanted to create satan he would have created those who would defeat him too.
I does not make sense otherwise.
if god knows everything so he should have known this bit too where one becomes evil.

----------


## caddy_caddy

Excuse me ,
Have you read the whole post ?
Since the dawn of history , and basically life is nothing but a war between good and evil . 
Try to examine the scene :
Eblees look at the matter . Other angels look at the light that surrounds that matter . Although Adam is one and the same.
Evil in this sense is nothing but the absence of Allah's light , the absence of higher values that govern any matter .
And this my own choice , as it was the angels' choice to see what they want to see. And this is actually a reflection of what we really are.

----------


## cacian

> Excuse me ,
> Have you read the whole post ?
> Since the dawn of history , and basically life is nothing but a war between good and evil .


caddy I have read the whole post.
the point of this is not what is written it is what is possibly feasible.
just because a scripture says so does not necessarily makes it true.
it is obvious to me that anyone with any sense and power would not create something that will turn against them.
logic prevails.
one must engage all senses and brain to analyse and think what one is given to them read.
I don't believe that for a minute someone like god would invent satan to have him as a pain to deal with later on in time.
what would be the point of such creation?

----------


## HCabret

> no he did not.
> why would he do that?
> this reminds me of star wars
> sky walker aka eblees turns evil kneevil.
> if god/allah wanted to create satan he would have created those who would defeat him too.
> I does not make sense otherwise.
> if god knows everything so he should have known this bit too where one becomes evil.


god created the angels. Didn't he?

----------


## cacian

> god created the angels. Didn't he?



why did he?

----------


## caddy_caddy

> caddy I have read the whole post.
> the point of this is not what is written it is what is possibly feasible.
> just because a scripture says so does not necessarily makes it true.
> it is obvious to me that anyone with any sense and power would not create something that will turn against them.
> logic prevails.
> one must engage all senses and brain to analyse and think what one is given to them read.
> I don't believe that for a minute someone like god would invent satan to have him as a pain to deal with later on in time.
> what would be the point of such creation?


 That is exactly what Eblees said to Allah  :Smile5: smile5:: I will seduce them as you seduced me . :Smile5:  :Smile5: 
Satan is just a tool to test our love and belief . You should have asked me why didn't Allah killed Eblees or sent him to hell directly and allowed him to survive ?

----------


## cacian

> That is exactly what Eblees said to Allah smile5:: I will seduce them as you seduced me .
> Satan is just a tool to test our love and belief . You should have asked me why didn't Allah killed Eblees or sent him to hell directly and allowed him to survive ?


I did not ask because I don't believe in his creation whatsoever.

why did not he according to you?

----------


## HCabret

> why did he?


I don't know why. Isn't that the plot of Paradise Lost? We'll never know though now because wolf larsen's vandalized it. 

Am I wrong or did god not create lucifer and the rest of the fallen angels?

----------


## Cleanthes

Sjon rewrote that scene as the prelude to his novel, From the Mouth of the Whale:

Yes, there you lay in His hand, with your knees tucked under your chin, breathing so fast and so feebly that you quivered like the pectoral fin of a minnow. Our Father rested His fingertip against your spine and tilted His hand carefully so that you uncurled and rolled over onto your back. I stepped forward to take a better look at you. You scratched your nose with your curled fist, sneezed, o so sweetly, and fixed on me those egotistical eyes -mouth agape. And I saw that this mouth would never be satisfied, that its teeth would never stop grinding, that its tongue would never tire of being bathed in the life-blood of other creatures. Then your lips moved. You tried to say your first word, and that word was, 'I'. But the Father interrupted you and addressed me in an affable but commanding tone.
'Lucifer, behold Man! You must bow down before him like the other angels, your brothers...'
I looked at you a second time and in that instant you released a stream of slimy green feces. Quick as lightning, you shoved your hand under your buttocks, fetched a fistful of whatever you found there, and raised it to your mouth.
As all the world knows, I did not bow my knee to this new pet of my Father's, and for that I was cast out of Heaven along with all who wished to follow me.

----------


## 108 fountains

> I don't know why. Isn't that the plot of Paradise Lost? We'll never know though now because wolf larsen's vandalized it.


OMG! Wolf has already vandalized Paradise Lost? I better start on Dante's Divine Comedy before Wolf gets to it!

----------


## mortalterror

> I really don't see what god has to do with consciousness. If your opinion is that you can't see how consciousness can possibly exist without god, that is an argument from ignorance, straight up. Even if you don't think consciousness can be explained by evolution and the brain, that still leaves "I don't know" as the best answer not "god did it". You can't just say that just because you don't understand something that means god must have done it. Again, it's an argument from ignorance.


I was reading The Razor's Edge by W. Somerset Maugham the other day and something a character said reminded me of things Yes No has said. The character was a westerner who had traveled in India and converted to the belief in Brahmanism. One of the things he said was that the ground substance of the universe wasn't matter, as materialistic atheists suppose, it was consciousness. I wonder if Yes No means something like that.

----------


## 108 fountains

> OMG! Wolf has already vandalized Paradise Lost? I better start on Dante's Divine Comedy before Wolf gets to it!


-- reading it, I mean.

----------


## HCabret

> OMG! Wolf has already vandalized Paradise Lost? I better start on Dante's Divine Comedy before Wolf gets to it!


i guess. Haha. It's kinda like colorizing old black and white movies, you just shouldn't do it.

----------


## HCabret

> -- reading it, I mean.


LOL. Wolf refuses to read anything not written by himself, as everything else is a tool of the elite ruling class which oppresses bad writers like himself. Cacien was probably reading a wolf Larsen original instead of the elitist Milton version.

----------


## mortalterror

> If there is anything worth meditating on it is the insignificance of material reality.


While I'm not tight with materialistic philosophy, I wouldn't go entirely the other way. Regarding the physical world as inferior to the spiritual seems like just as big a leap in the other direction. It leads to all kinds of awful behavior, mortifying the flesh, neglecting one's self, one's family, one's work. I prefer to think of a human being as both flesh and spirit, and consciousness as a mix of mind/body dualism, both interacting with each other synergistically. I feel like we are given bodies for a purpose, that life is a gift, the same as the soul, and it should be respected and used to profit oneself and others. I think the ascetic monastic life is a mistake and the best way to worship God is to live a good life, treating our bodies and minds like a temple, the way that the ancient Greeks suggested. When we consider the soul, the afterlife, or consciousness to be all that is good, it short changes this life in a similar manner as materialism does.

----------


## cacian

> I don't know why. Isn't that the plot of Paradise Lost? We'll never know though now because wolf larsen's vandalized it. 
> 
> Am I wrong or did god not create lucifer and the rest of the fallen angels?


did he?
if I was going to rule I would better off on my own
by the sound of it god is not clever.
the scriptures say god created all sorts.
why?
I have no idea.
he must have felt alone.
Larsen is funny  :Smile:

----------


## HCabret

> did he?
> if I was going to rule I would better off on my own
> by the sound of it god is not clever.
> the scriptures say god created all sorts.
> why?
> I have no idea.
> he must have felt alone.
> Larsen is funny


God is human. 
Wolf Larsen has an amazing sing voice.

----------


## Paulclem

> No, I am referring to the use of the Dalai Lama for anti-communist, political purposes. 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. You're right. Mao is worse. I don't think Lamaism would be as bad as Mao nor "worse" as I previously stated.
> 
> 
> 
> What disgusts me with those immolations is I don't know who's pulling the strings behind them. If the Dalai Lama is opposed to them, why are they still occurring? Is he really opposed to them or is that just his front to the west? Who is setting these people up to immolate themselves? 
> ...


I can't comment on HH's use in politics as I'm not aware of this.

I don't think, as you seem to be implying, that there is an organisation behind the immolation. There is a tradition amongst young people in Asia of using this as a means of protest. In India there was a spate of young people protesting a few years ago. It's very sad.

The point about non-self is not to establish a materialistic philosophy of the mind. It is to establish the emptiness of self and body. The body brain and self are regarded as having no inherent existence according to Mahayana teachings. That's the point of the meditation. To establish that the I, to which every living being clings, fights for and defends and which is the root cause of suffering, is actually not inherently real. The implications of this are massive. There are two truths in the teachings - conventional and ultimate reality. We cling to conventional reality and are unaware of it's emptiness - which is not the same as saying it doesn't exist. 

The above is merely a brief reference.

----------


## Pumpkin337

> God is human. 
> Wolf Larsen has an amazing sing voice.


I think you are confusing two different people who both use a pseudonym taken from a Jack London book. One is male, and writes the most turgid scatological prose. The other is female and sings.

----------


## HCabret

> I think you are confusing two different people who both use a pseudonym taken from a Jack London book. One is male, and writes the most turgid scatological prose. The other is female and sings.


i wasn't talking about the one who frequents this site, if that's what you mean.

----------


## Paulclem

> While I'm not tight with materialistic philosophy, I wouldn't go entirely the other way. Regarding the physical world as inferior to the spiritual seems like just as big a leap in the other direction. It leads to all kinds of awful behavior, mortifying the flesh, neglecting one's self, one's family, one's work. I prefer to think of a human being as both flesh and spirit, and consciousness as a mix of mind/body dualism, both interacting with each other synergistically. I feel like we are given bodies for a purpose, that life is a gift, the same as the soul, and it should be respected and used to profit oneself and others. I think the ascetic monastic life is a mistake and the best way to worship God is to live a good life, treating our bodies and minds like a temple, the way that the ancient Greeks suggested. When we consider the soul, the afterlife, or consciousness to be all that is good, it short changes this life in a similar manner as materialism does.


From the Buddhist perspective, Yesno is advocating an extreme view. The Buddhist practice of meditation is based upon the suffering of the body, the causes of this and the solutions found in the path - The Four Noble Truths no less. Without a human body, it is not possible to escape suffering and that is why there are meditations upon The Precious Human Life. 

The Buddha advocated The Middle Way, and so extremities are not useful including self mortification. This is not fixed though. What might be extreme for one person may not be for an advanced practitioner. This allows graduated development. I know a Buddhist Teacher - not a monk - who has completed a 3 year solitary retreat. It would be unsuitable for most people at this time. 

Whilst there are important differences in what Mortal says - we would disagree on things like God, soul and spirit- the gist is similar.

----------


## mal4mac

Responses to mortalterror:

Why is mortifying the flesh awful? It simply means subduing the bodies desires by self-denial or discipline. Example: going on a diet. Is dieting bad?

I guess neglecting anything is bad, but to care for your family or work properly may, in some cases, mean not getting involved in these social constructs at all! Like the Buddhist hermit.

How do you know we are given bodies for a purpose? We might just be the random products of evolution. Given Darwin, Dawkins et.al. that looks the most likely thing to me. 

How can you say the ascetic monastic life is a mistake for everyone? Many seem happy with it.

Responses to Paul Clem

Without a human body there is no suffering! The only suffering I've encountered has been in my body. The Buddhist ideas about being reborn on God/hungry-ghost realms where humans can't reduce their suffering seem as fantastical as any Greek or Christian myth and just as likely to be true, i.e., not likely at all!

The Buddha recommended *some* mortification of the flesh - his monks don't marry, don't have sex, or eat when they feel like it. Also meditators are recommended to ignore the suffering when the lotus position starts becoming difficult to maintain (or is that Thai monks having a larf at the expense of stiff Westerners  :Smile: ...)

----------


## caddy_caddy

> I did not ask because I don't believe in his creation whatsoever.
> 
> why did not he according to you?


 Because Allah has the greatest scientific mind . Although He knows the true nature of each human being , He must reveal it to his fellow men . It's like the Litmus that tests Acid , Base , and neutral liquids. Satan doesn't change my nature, he just proves it so that human eyes can see it . When we all stand in front of Allah in the Judgment day holding the scriptures of our own deeds between our hands , no one could object on Allah's Judgment . No one could say you are unjust or think He is unjust. It's all revealed , shown ,and recorded. We Need to know the truth and investigate it, not Him. We need to understand the basis for His decision . No one can ever feel satisfied until he knows the truth .

----------


## Paulclem

> Responses to Paul Clem
> 
> Without a human body there is no suffering! The only suffering I've encountered has been in my body. The Buddhist ideas about being reborn on God/hungry-ghost realms where humans can't reduce their suffering seem as fantastical as any Greek or Christian myth and just as likely to be true, i.e., not likely at all!
> 
> The Buddha recommended *some* mortification of the flesh - his monks don't marry, don't have sex, or eat when they feel like it. Also meditators are recommended to ignore the suffering when the lotus position starts becoming difficult to maintain (or is that Thai monks having a larf at the expense of stiff Westerners ...)


That's why being born a human is beneficial according to the teachings. It is enough to motivate the seeker.

Bodily or gross suffering is not really what's mainly referred to, though there is enough of it about. The human mind has intelligence and awareness enough - given the right conditions - to reflect upon their existential suffering and wish to end it whereas animals are not able to do this. 

I reckon the Thai monks were larfing. Meditating does take effort - that's all part of it, as is boredom.

As for other realms - that's to discover. They do describe mental states generally quite well. We all know of a celebrity or two who live a charmed life full of luck and luxury until one day they fall from grace or die, as the gods are alleged to do.

----------


## YesNo

> While I'm not tight with materialistic philosophy, I wouldn't go entirely the other way. Regarding the physical world as inferior to the spiritual seems like just as big a leap in the other direction. It leads to all kinds of awful behavior, mortifying the flesh, neglecting one's self, one's family, one's work. I prefer to think of a human being as both flesh and spirit, and consciousness as a mix of mind/body dualism, both interacting with each other synergistically. I feel like we are given bodies for a purpose, that life is a gift, the same as the soul, and it should be respected and used to profit oneself and others. I think the ascetic monastic life is a mistake and the best way to worship God is to live a good life, treating our bodies and minds like a temple, the way that the ancient Greeks suggested. When we consider the soul, the afterlife, or consciousness to be all that is good, it short changes this life in a similar manner as materialism does.


I assume the universe is good. Asceticism doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, especially when it is based on thinking that the universe is not good. 

The question about materialism is whether there is some fundamental substance underlying matter or not. I don't think there is based on quantum mechanics and the evidence that "consciousness causes collapse". As I see it the fundamental stuff of reality is consciousness, not matter. While atheists don't believe in a transcendental Consciousness, I don't believe in a Material Substance. Both are kinds of an extreme view. 

I also find it hard to believe what I just wrote which is why I enjoy discussing it. I'm trying to convince myself.

I've been reading Berkeley's _A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge_ to try to make sense out of his idealism. Here's his proof for the existence of God: http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/BerkeleyGod.htm

----------


## caddy_caddy

Guys , you 're really amazing . Unfortunately , I can't follow up with you and understand those scientific evidence in your discussions . I really love science and believe in it and curious to understand but my IQ doesn't help  :Blush5: 
But this leads me to ask you : if someone were like me , can't understand physics , Quantum theory , philosophy and all these complicated issues , how can he come to know God ? What abt those who can't read at all, don't read , never went to schools ?

If we wanna include these evidence in the curriculum at schools , at any age the student can understand it ?
I think you are all above 20 ? Your journey to know God and to investigate this question has begun somehow late ? 

God isn't for the elite only ? Isn't it ?

----------


## Iain Sparrow

> Guys , you 're really amazing . Unfortunately , I can't follow up with you and understand those scientific evidence in your discussions . I really love science and believe in it and curious to understand but my IQ doesn't help 
> But this leads me to ask you : if someone were like me , can't understand physics , Quantum theory , philosophy and all these complicated issues , how can he come to know God ? What abt those who can't read at all, don't read , never went to schools ?
> 
> If we wanna include these evidence in the curriculum at schools , at any age the student can understand it ?
> I think you are all above 20 ? Your journey to know God and to investigate this question has begun somehow late ? 
> 
> God isn't for the elite only ? Isn't it ?


It's the science that dispels God.
It doesn't prove there isn't a God or a Supernatural realm, only that those things are more or less unlikely.
And don't worry yourself too much about not fully understanding concepts like Quantum Theory... the scientists who make it their life's goal to explain Quantum Physics, aren't anywhere close to doing it.

God isn't for the elite, he is for those who remain ignorant.

----------


## YesNo

> Guys , you 're really amazing . Unfortunately , I can't follow up with you and understand those scientific evidence in your discussions . I really love science and believe in it and curious to understand but my IQ doesn't help 
> But this leads me to ask you : if someone were like me , can't understand physics , Quantum theory , philosophy and all these complicated issues , how can he come to know God ? What abt those who can't read at all, don't read , never went to schools ?
> 
> If we wanna include these evidence in the curriculum at schools , at any age the student can understand it ?
> I think you are all above 20 ? Your journey to know God and to investigate this question has begun somehow late ? 
> 
> God isn't for the elite only ? Isn't it ?


One doesn't need quantum physics to know God. The intuitions about God that even a child understands are correct. How do I justify that claim? I use science. Why use science? Because atheists think they are justified by science in denying that claim. They aren't. It is one of their delusions.

People come to know God in the various ways they always have in living their lives for thousands of years.

----------


## Paulclem

> It's the science that dispels God.
> It doesn't prove there isn't a God or a Supernatural realm, only that those things are more or less unlikely.
> And don't worry yourself too much about not fully understanding concepts like Quantum Theory... the scientists who make it their life's goal to explain Quantum Physics, aren't anywhere close to doing it.
> 
> God isn't for the elite, he is for those who remain ignorant.


Science has dispelled some of the religious proclamations such as the world being the centre of the universe, that God created the earth in 7 days etc. It doesn't follow that God doesn't exist. The fact is science cannot say one way or another, and so it becomes a matter of faith and worldview. Perhaps that will change, but at the moment science struggles with an explanation of consciousness let alone a proposed divine prescence.

----------


## HCabret

> Atheism doesn't require any proof that gods do not exist.


just because you havent seen something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. A person living on the far side of the moon believing that the earth does not exist simply because that person have never seen it.

----------


## Frostball

> just because you havent seen something, doesnt mean it doesnt exist. A person living on the far side of the moon believing that the earth does not exist simply because that person have never seen it.


The point is that you shouldn't believe in something unless you have a reason to. This isn't just about seeing, but evidence in any form, be it scientific, visual, auditory, or whatever. The person on the far side of the moon would have no reason to suppose an earth exists unless she had some evidence of it. If she assumed the earth did exist anyway, she might be right, but she got to the correct answer for bad reasons, and is basically just lucky that her belief happens to coincide with reality. She would be rationally justified in not believing the claim that an earth exists unless one of her fellow moon friends produced some evidence.

----------


## Frostball

> I also find it hard to believe what I just wrote which is why I enjoy discussing it. I'm trying to convince myself.
> http://faculty.bsc.edu/bmyers/BerkeleyGod.htm


I don't understand at all the concept of trying to convince yourself of something. It makes no sense to me. Your beliefs are something you can't control, and the only thing one should be trying to do with their beliefs is to make them be in accordance with reality.

----------


## HCabret

> The point is that you shouldn't believe in something unless you have a reason to. This isn't just about seeing, but evidence in any form, be it scientific, visual, auditory, or whatever. The person on the far side of the moon would have no reason to suppose an earth exists unless she had some evidence of it. If she assumed the earth did exist anyway, she might be right, but she got to the correct answer for bad reasons, and is basically just lucky that her belief happens to coincide with reality. She would be rationally justified in not believing the claim that an earth exists unless one of her fellow moon friends produced some evidence.


so i would need scientifically verifiable data, which proves that god does not exist. Are you familiar with shrodinger's cat? Until you open the box and actually observe what is inside, all possibilities are true. Saying there is no moon, is the same as saying there is a moon, in my hypothetical. In other words: neither possibility is impossible.

----------


## HCabret

> I don't understand at all the concept of trying to convince yourself of something. It makes no sense to me. Your beliefs are something you can't control, and the only thing one should be trying to do with their beliefs is to make them be in accordance with reality.


reality is a very weird place though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveparticle_duality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

----------


## Frostball

> so i would need scientifically verifiable data, which proves that god does not exist. Are you familiar with shrodinger's cat? Until you open the box and actually observe what is inside, all possibilities are true. Saying there is no moon, is the same as saying there is a moon, in my hypothetical. In other words: neither possibility is impossible.


Never did in my example did I say anything about there being "no earth". I said the person on the other side of the moon would be rationally justified in disbelieving a claim that there is an earth. She isn't saying "there is no earth" she is simply saying "I don't believe there is an earth." A person isn't denying the possibility of something just because they don't believe it. 

I'm sure you don't believe in every magical creature you've ever heard of, but you aren't saying these creatures are impossible are you? Has there ever been "scientifically verifiable data" that concluded that faeries don't exist? There never could be such a thing. Still, I don't believe they do exist.

----------


## Frostball

> reality is a very weird place though.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave–particle_duality
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle


Yes, reality does run quite contrary to our intuitions. That doesn't mean you should believe things without evidence.

----------


## HCabret

> Yes, reality does run quite contrary to our intuitions. That doesn't mean you should believe things without evidence.


People should believe in whatever they want to believe. And science is not something you either do or do not believe, it is the way it is regardless whether I or anyone believe in it or not. Evolution exists regardless of anyone's opinion on it. I don't believe in gravity, it's just there regardless.

----------


## YesNo

> I don't understand at all the concept of trying to convince yourself of something. It makes no sense to me. Your beliefs are something you can't control, and the only thing one should be trying to do with their beliefs is to make them be in accordance with reality.


I think I agree with HCabret's comments.

What I am trying to convince myself of is that there is no Material Substance underlying and causing the reality we experience. I capitalize this to highlight it. I do believe the world is out there and more or less follows the patterns physicists have modeled it following. What I don't believe exists is an underlying _unconscious_ substance that causes it to exist. That means physics is not "causally closed", that is, physics is not independent of consciousness. 

I've cited this before, but the science that I am relying on is summarized, perhaps too quickly, in this youtube video by InspiringPhilosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C5pq7W5yRM 

My question is whether I am seeing this right or not? I don't know. I still need to convince myself. But if this is right, then the existence of God has been settled by quantum physics. If there is no unconscious Material Substance that causes the world around us, then there must be a Conscious reality that creates what we experience. Therefore, God exists. All of the interpretations of quantum physics, as I see it, are attempts to avoid or ignore this conclusion about consciousness. 

It is possible there is some sort of monism or dualism or panpsychism involved that includes consciousness in some way such as what Thomas Nagel suggests. So to be better convinced I need to consider those possibilities.

----------


## HCabret

> God needs us 
> Like that we needs god
> My god is for me 
> Try to think of god before doing a unkind thing…


Is that a command or simply advice?

----------


## totoro

I think we need God because we need something or someone to blame for everything that goes wrong with the world, I also think we need God because it makes an interesting story/stories. I mean, why do people pray? Because they think someone with all mighty power is listening to solve the world's problems. And, like someone else said, it makes for an interesting take on how everything was made.

----------


## YesNo

I have been reading George Berkeley recently. In his view we need God because otherwise nothing would be present to our experience since to be is to be perceived. It is not our perceptions that make the world real, so there must be some other more powerful mind that manifests it.

Thinking about relativity and quantum physics has made me think that there is no underlying material substance which Berkeley argued for 300 years ago.

----------


## Carousel

Well I think that most of us take it that the earth wasnt created 5000 years ago. I dont see theres a problem with the belief in a supreme deity as to if one exists or not. Where the problem lies is in believing rigidly in the creation theory and the views of the world we live in that applied to those who lived 2000 years ago. To do that you have to dismiss all the knowledge the progress and advances that man has made over 20 centuries.

The bible, which is the result of a committee decision on what was included and what was not from a variety of religious texts made around 350AD. The mistake they made was uniting two separate religions into one book. The Old Testament, based on the Jewish religion and the New Testament which is the Christian religion. The effect being that the bible now gives two quite different versions of the god figure and this provides easy meat for those who ridicule Christian beliefs.

----------


## YesNo

Even Newton believed the universe was created around 4000 BCE. However, Newton, and the Genesis story, got one very critical thing right: The universe had a beginning. It is not eternal. 

Science has discredited both sides of the theist-atheist divide. One the one had, the universe is older than people like Newton expected it could be. On the other hand, it is not eternal. To get away from a mechanistic mindset, I like to think of it having been "born" about 13.7 billion years ago.

----------


## Carousel

Newton lived over 350 yrs ago so he viewed the universe as to the understanding of the cosmos that was relevant in those times. He and his contemporaries would have had no idea of the advances in understanding made over three hundred years after his death in 1726. 

Pure science has no agenda to deliberately discredit religion; in fact religious beliefs play no part in the pursuit for knowledge. When all the baggage of civilisation we carry is stripped away we are left with what we share with all the many other forms of life on the planet and for the purpose of life itself as we live our lives to procreate our species and nothing more. In that respect we are mere carriers of life, so perhaps we should devote our minds to the study of life itself because at present we know nothing of its ultimate purpose or if indeed there is one.

----------


## henk tuten

God is part of the dual western reality, like Allah is part of the dual Middle East reality.
Both based on Hellenic Dualism
And essentially different from the 'nature is god' far east tradition.

Confusing is that the Han part of China got communist, which is also western dualism 

Western Dualism (belief in god, in intelligence) is in deep crisis.

----------


## Melanie

> is it because one feels lonely lost and aimless?
> one does no longer understand what life is for or about one is focused thoughts and locus vehemently on God.
> or is it because 
> God is the ultimate for our sins and weaknesses?
> we need to pass the blame onto a God when we have finished blaming ourselves.


Why do we need God? When my 4 children were ages 1,2,4,and 6, their father died of a heart attack on the tennis court. He was only 46 and I was 36. My children and I felt suddenly lost until I reminded them, and myself, that we still have our heavenly Father and must lean on him for everything. He is faithful and just and will never leave us, as he promises. 

We need God because God is our faithful Father; he created us; we are his children. Just like the ultimate awesome parent, if we seek him first in all things he provides for us in his perfect timing and according to his will and what we really need and when we need it, he loves us unconditionally even when no one else does, (even loves the unbelievers and the worst of sinners but he doesn't love the sin of course). He forgives us when he knows we're sorry, disciplines us, comforts us through his Holy Spirit, wants respect and obedience, and a close relationship with us. 

He guides us and teaches us how to love others and love ourselves and love him. He teaches patience, self-control, gentleness, kindness, and faithfulness. He blesses us with joy, goodness, and a peace that passes all understanding Philippians 4:7. He answers our prayers (he may say yes, no, or later according to what is best for us and when). We need God because he's preparing a place for us for eternity. Every page of the Bible will tell you something of why we need God.

----------


## YesNo

I am sorry to hear of your loss, Melanie, although this may have been long ago.

----------


## Melanie

Thank you, YesNo. Yes it's been a long time and we all pulled through…so far so good.

----------


## Munshie

YesNo

_"We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back."_

There are tens of millions of atheists living and breathing without any need for a deity. According to your views as soon as one became an atheist, the person would/should drop dead.

----------


## HCabret

> YesNo
> 
> _"We need God (or Gods or Goddesses) as much as we need to breath and be aware, but all that means is that no matter how much we try to get rid of our need for them, they keep coming back."_
> 
> There are tens of millions of atheists living and breathing without any need for a deity. According to your views as soon as one became an atheist, the person would/should drop dead.


There are actually many more atheists than that. There are 300 million Buddhists alone. 

Not everyone views life as being possible without dieties.

----------

