# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Atheism, 21st century-style. New? Militant?

## The Atheist

Over the past couple of decades, since atheism has largely come out of the closet, it is often asserted that atheism has a new militancy, that it has become doctrinaire, or some other wild generalisation. I contend that there is nothing new, or newly-militant, about atheism, and in fact it is religion painting atheism as bad that has more to do with the general perception than anything atheists are doing.

For starters, nothing about atheism is new. People have been atheistic since long before the Abrahamic gods arose in man's contemplation. People have also attacked religion quite mercilessly for thousands of years as well.




> The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.


Those words come from over a thousand years ago, yet they are at least as abusive as any treatise by any recent author.

During the French Revolution, christianity was often punishable by death, yet I see no modern atheists asking for theists to be put to the sword.

As to recent popular books on the subject, they are no more dogmatic or militant than Bertie Russell's speech 83 years ago.

There are unquestionably more atheists now than in Bertie's day, and religious adherents are shrinking in the developed world and have been for some time. It suits religion to paint unbelief as some kind of evil doctrine, and the first rotten apple to be thrown is that atheists are big meanies.

So let's compare attacks.

In this very forum are posts which tell me and other atheists that we will be tortured for eternity for simply not being faithful to a god which is invisible to us.

While that doesn't bother me for a billisecond, think about the level of abuse it contains - you are taking delight in someone being tortured for billions of years. Not because they were a mass murderer or rapist, but only because they refused to believe in your god! 

This forum is by no means unique, and a simple search of Google for "Atheists go to hell" returns 55,000 results, many of which are theistic in nature and confirm that atheists do indeed go to hell:




> Atheists dont believe that God exists. It logically follows that they would not believe that God sent his Son into the world to save them, thus they will will not trust on him to save them from their sins. Any atheist who persists in his belief will perish.


link




> Short answer: Jesus is the only way, gate, etc. So, the "good atheist" is still gonna burn.


link

By no means all churches take this view. The RCC, for instance, allows that an atheist who lived a "good" life may avoid going to hell; but then again, the pope only last month likened atheists to Nazis.

Is it any wonder that the proliferation of hardline christianity which spawns these widespread feelings has resulted in some atheists fighting back? And that "fighting back" takes no more form than sales of books by Dawkins, Hitchens, _et al_. Atheists must use a dictionary with a different meaning for "militant" than theists.

Evangelical Amercian churches pay for missionaries to come to NZ to spread their word and seek converts. Do we class that as "militant christianity'? 

Yet when Richard Dawkins undertakes speaking engagements, it is somehow "militant".

Theists sport billboards all over the planet demanding that their god be believed in.

Yet when atheists put billboards on buses, they said "There's *probably* no god..."

Where are these newly-militant atheists? I do not believe that they are new, and I do not believe that the few genuinely militant among them are any greater numbers than have been seen in the past - at any stage in the past.

----------


## oshima

Yes, there have always been atheists. When you take even a cursory look at the history of this issue, most arguments about the existence of god are boring, trite, and often not about the existence of god so much as validation of an individual's personal worldview by any (argumentative) means necessary. Viewpoints, especially on this subject always wane and wax one way or another, as long as there is language it will likely always be this way. The "New Atheist" movement is pretty old hat, but at least most of their figureheads are informative (Dawkins) and elegant (Hitchens) writers.

----------


## Fat Mike

Offtopic, but I'd like to write a couple of lines about the subject:

Unfortunatly, I'm not sure that the number of atheists has increased, it's just an illusion. It's just that atheist literature gets more space nowadays since the freedom of speech and other quasi-rights have been established. And the funny thing is, that it's totally useless. Dawkins and Co might be an amusement for us atheists, but I really doubt that it can convert the religious. Anyway, I think it's natural that they feel threatened because of the increasing anti-religious literature, but they are making the same false conclusion as the atheist camp, that it's necessarily a sign on the diminishing of religion.

----------


## Dodo25

First of all, great OP.




> Unfortunatly, I'm not sure that the number of atheists has increased, it's just an illusion.


Not true. Atheism is the fastest growing 'religion' (it's not a religion!), doing better than Islam even. In certain countries or demographics, it's even the majority now (i.e. Sweden or members of the National Academy of Sciences). 




> Dawkins and Co might be an amusement for us atheists, but I really doubt that it can convert the religious. Anyway, I think it's natural that they feel threatened because of the increasing anti-religious literature, but they are making the same false conclusion as the atheist camp, that it's necessarily a sign on the diminishing of religion.


Dawkins has a 'converts corner' on his website, with thousads of testimonies. But you're right, believers are hard to convince and the effect probably isn't very significant. In my view, the biggest achievement of the 'new atheism' is that 'atheist' has become a normal term. I remember well when I was younger and heard the first time that one of my favorite authors was an 'atheist' (not an agnostic), I was somewhat shocked. I don't even know why, the word just struck me as radical and hateful. Now it's pretty common, and most people start to understand that 'agnostic' is just a lame.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

Can someone explain to me why athiests shouldn't be militant? The negative effects on laws and social mores is obvious and, to be honest, anyone who believes they would personally benefit from armegeddon is dangerous to say the least. Remember, these people's votes count just as much as yours and mine.

If it were really a live and let live thing I could understand letting people get on with their silly beliefs, but we're talking about a group that hangs it hat on circular logic and willful (nay, joyful) ignorance. Remember that Pres. Bush was _a good Christian man_! Nevermind the fact that he's a war criminal..

Athiests cannot afford to stand on the sideline. Religion _needs_ to be eradicated.

The next step, of course, is apatheism - the highest form of athiesm. When that happens, we know we've made it.

----------


## The Atheist

> Unfortunatly, I'm not sure that the number of atheists has increased, it's just an illusion.


No, it is demonstrably true that atheism is growing and religion declining - in the developed world at least.

Over half of Britons now do not believe in any god/s. That is a huge increase from 60 years ago. Other western countries are in much the same pattern.




> Can someone explain to me why athiests shouldn't be militant?


Certainly not me! 

The recent survey which showed athiests as the least-trusted minority group in USA is food for the idea that we're nowhere near militant enough.




> Athiests cannot afford to stand on the sideline. Religion _needs_ to be eradicated.


I wouldn't go quite that far - I'm happy for it to stay around as on old tradition like Halloween.

----------


## Fat Mike

> Remember, these people's votes count just as much as yours and mine.


So you're a believer after all?  :Wink5:

----------


## Ecurb

The problem with both Hitchens and Dawkins is that they attack religion at its weakest links. Bashing uneducated Fundamentalists is a bit like the U.S. invading Grenada -- victory is easy, but there's not much glory in it. Dawkins in particular is unsophisticated in his approach. I'll grant that the book that made him famous (The Selfish Gene) was a step forward in how we think about evolution, but even in that book his chapter on culture and memes was (as I remember it, which is not very well) of dubious value. 

In addition, it seems to me that we are moving into a post-religious age. As The Atheist points out, half the people in the U.K are not religious. I live in the supposedly religious United States  but I barely know a single religious person. Theres a sort of gloating snootiness to Hitchens belittling of religion. Its as if a modern, second-rate scientist said, Isaac Newton sure was a moron. Look at all the stupid stuff he believed. 

In a post religious age, it is no longer necessary to belittle religion or to argue against the existence of God. (Exactly how does a non-corporeal and transcendent being exist or 'fail to exist'?) Instead, we can look at God and religion as one of the Humanities  one of the great creations of mankind, through the study of which we can learn about ourselves (just as we do through studying literature, for example). 

Hitchens and Dawkins (like our own goatjoke) think religion needs to be eradicated. But the question of whether religion has been good or bad for mankind over the millennia is not easily answered. As members of a literary community, we can perhaps at least admit that religion has influenced some of the great literature, architecture, paintings, and works of music of humankind. I go along with The Atheist: I LIKE Halloween (all those ghosts and goblins are, of course, supernatural beings and thus "religious").

----------


## OrphanPip

There's also the problem that we can't really ignore the tangible effects religion continues to have in controlling the lives, and negatively influencing some people's lives, as we speak. Religion is hardly the benign cancer some would make it out to be. Billions of people continue to live in nations where religion is allowed to dictate who you can sleep with, what you can wear, who you can speak to in public, and what you're allowed to say. 

Religion does not need to be eradicated, but it needs to be pushed out of serious consideration in the public sphere.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

I'm pretty convinced by now that religion _can't_ be eradicated. On an individual level, it has a valuable purpose that I don‘t see the majority of people ever being able to live without. It's only when religious _groups_ start telling people what to do, using their position of power to affect government policies and scare and oppress people that don't abide by their dogmas - _then_ that religion becomes unacceptable. _That's_ the purpose of so-called "militant new atheists," they're a reaction against the obvious and numerous harms caused by organized religion (I don't have to waste time talking about the problems that organized religion have caused in the modern world, only the wilfully ignorant would be unaware of them at this point). Sure they're annoying and often pretentious, but their views are understandable and they serve as a "balancing mechanism" to counter-out religious fundamentalism, which is good. 

As long as religious fundamentalism exists, I welcome the new atheist. I don't think that they can do any harm to the spirituality of individuals, but I _do_ see them taking a huge chunk out of organized religion.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

I won't even concede that on a personal level religion is good. Maybe in a few cases for a truly messed up individual because lets face it, if it takes the threat of eternal hell to, pardon me, light a fire under the 'morals' part of you then you probably need a doctor.

People don't behave ethically because their religion tells them to. They do however engage in bigotry because their religious leaders tell them to.

----------


## oshima

> I won't even concede that on a personal level religion is good. Maybe in a few cases for a truly messed up individual because lets face it, if it takes the threat of eternal hell to, pardon me, light a fire under the 'morals' part of you then you probably need a doctor.


There are religions who ignore the concept of the existence god and avoid direct moralizing. Can, say, Zen Buddhism or many types of Hinduism be only good for a "truly messed up individual."? It seems like a large proportion of religious criticism is aimed at literalistic or semi-literalistic interpretations of Abrahamic religions, and to criticize "religion" is nebulous and inaccurate.

----------


## Serena03

The expression of atheism may be as emanate as homosexuality ever was, both of which are still under harsh discrimination and oppression. Still a militant organization would actually defy the concept of atheism, they may actually have to be obligated to call themselves a 'religion' if so. You then become part of the problem rather than the 'solution.' 

But I would hardly say religion is on its way out, more than ninety-five percent of the world is still very much devout or at least still interested. And if evolution has taught us anything, it is that a "selfish gene" likes the satisfaction of fruitful enrichments, manipulated by our own weaknesses and strengths. We can only survive if we have reason or willingness to persist. However, nature itself may just as well determine our fate for us. 

But the endurance of religion has shown that much of society is still much too weak to comprehend the acrimony and complexity of the universe and the 'power' that really comes from within. Their infinite deep-seated need for belief and further conveyance has been society's 'strongest' inquiry motivation and willpower. Attempt for eradication will only feed the fire.

----------


## Fat Mike

> I won't even concede that on a personal level religion is good. Maybe in a few cases for a truly messed up individual because lets face it, if it takes the threat of eternal hell to, pardon me, light a fire under the 'morals' part of you then you probably need a doctor.
> 
> People don't behave ethically because their religion tells them to. They do however engage in bigotry because their religious leaders tell them to.


Okey, I might be on thin ice by saying this because of the obvious flaws according to the rules of argumentation, but I'll still risk it in order to shed light upon the hypocrisy of a lot of atheists and serve as a comparison. 

So the basic argument against religion is that it makes people do stupid things. But how about the so called secularized Western world then? We don't use religion anymore to commit genocide, but rather the invention of democracy and human rights which are the 21st centurys religion. At least in the western world. Democracy is based on bull****, so do human rights and are used to kill innocent people in third world countries. Does it sound familiar? I think it sounds just like the history of Christianity. Why don't the atheists attack the way of thinking in developed countries? I mean all those fancy expressions in politics serve the same purpose as religion did a couple of hundred years ago. It's a mean to power and wealth for the ruling elite. That's why religion got it's bad reputation. But we never question our western beliefs, because we are convinced that it is the truth.

My point is, I guess, that it's not about the personal beliefs, but rather about the controling elite of the specific belief system. Of course people should never be encouraged to choose a God, but even if they do for personal reasons, it doesn't automatically make them killers. One similarity between atheists and believers is our naive commitments to our image of truth. So when the ruler uses our conviction in order to achieve selfish goals, we obey. So blaming religion itself is as stupid as blaming cats not ****ting in toilets.

----------


## OrphanPip

> So the basic argument against religion is that it makes people do stupid things. But how about the so called secularized Western world then? We don't use religion anymore to commit genocide, but rather the invention of democracy and human rights which are the 21st centurys religion. At least in the western world. Democracy is based on bull****, so do human rights and are used to kill innocent people in third world countries. Does it sound familiar? I think it sounds just like the history of Christianity. Why don't the atheists attack the way of thinking in developed countries? I mean all those fancy expressions in politics serve the same purpose as religion did a couple of hundred years ago. It's a mean to power and wealth for the ruling elite. That's why religion got it's bad reputation. But we never question our western beliefs, because we are convinced that it is the truth.


I don't see how democracy is based on bull****, it is a tested and effective means of governance that is the best way to ensure individual participation and representation. There is a big difference from the actions of states at the international level, which always act in ways to increase their own power, and the participation of the state in limiting the rights of individuals for the arbitrary reason of religion. Religion doesn't have a bad reputation because it did bad a few years ago. Religion continues to do bad. Last year the Catholic church endorsed life imprisonment for homosexuals in Nigeria. Women continue to be oppressed in the name of religion throughout the Middle East. Religion's past is irrelevant when its present is still oppressive. 

Besides, I support democracy and individual rights because I'm a social democrat, not because I'm an atheist. Democracy is not the opposite to religion, but secularism is a necessity for the proper functioning of a liberal democracy.




> My point is, I guess, that it's not about the personal beliefs, but rather about the controling elite of the specific belief system. Of course people should never be encouraged to choose a God, but even if they do for personal reasons, it doesn't automatically make them killers. One similarity between atheists and believers is our naive commitments to our image of truth. So when the ruler uses our conviction in order to achieve selfish goals, we obey. So blaming religion itself is as stupid as blaming cats not ****ting in toilets.


No, not all belief systems are equivalent. One that arbitrarily supports oppression of individual freedoms is not acceptable. Your position is reductionist and ignores the oppression at the level of the individual. Ignore the state level and look at how small Christian groups participate in attempting to get ID taught in schools, or campaign against gay rights. These have nothing to do with the greed and power of human beings, these have to do with the inherently flawed arbitrary morality of religion.

----------


## Satan

> As long as religious fundamentalism exists, I welcome the new atheist.


This.

And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yNZ1U37sE

Lack of belief in a supernatural nothingness -- even in an organized form -- doesn't constitute a _religion_. I shouldn't have to reiterate that a million times over and over again. And there's nothing wrong with democracy, except that people have the _g-d given free-will_ to be, act and choose stupid.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> There are religions who ignore the concept of the existence god and avoid direct moralizing. Can, say, Zen Buddhism or many types of Hinduism be only good for a "truly messed up individual."? It seems like a large proportion of religious criticism is aimed at literalistic or semi-literalistic interpretations of Abrahamic religions, and to criticize "religion" is nebulous and inaccurate.


Not to mention the threat of hell doesn't even play a major role in all the Abrahamic religions. ::cough:: Judaism ::cough::

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

People need to stop asking what does religion do bad and start asking what good it does. The bad is obvious, the good could and is supplied elsewhere.

----------


## Ecurb

> There's also the problem that we can't really ignore the tangible effects religion continues to have in controlling the lives, and negatively influencing some people's lives, as we speak. Religion is hardly the benign cancer some would make it out to be. Billions of people continue to live in nations where religion is allowed to dictate who you can sleep with, what you can wear, who you can speak to in public, and what you're allowed to say. 
> 
> Religion does not need to be eradicated, but it needs to be pushed out of serious consideration in the public sphere.


Ill grant that the Islamic world endorses both unity between Church and State, and (often) a great many oppressive laws. However, we cannot infer from this that advocating separation of church and state is the best way to end oppression. Oppression in Muslim countries is enforced by the state  and the unity of Church and State is a long-standing tradition in Islam (Muhammed was a political reformer, as well as a prophet). It seems likely to me (and Im no expert) that many Muslims resent Western demands for a separation of Church and State as a form of intellectual imperialism and a desire to stamp out Islam. Liberalization of oppressive laws might be more likely if reformers endorsed the Islamic ideal of unity of Church and State, but argued for new interpretations of the Quran. 




> People don't behave ethically because their religion tells them to. They do however engage in bigotry because their religious leaders tell them to.


This is ridiculous. The notion that religion cannot (or at least never does) have a good influence on followers behavior, but often has a bad one defies reason and common sense.

----------


## Fat Mike

> I don't see how democracy is based on bull****, it is a tested and effective means of governance that is the best way to ensure individual participation and representation.


I'm sorry, I expressed my thoughts very poorly there. I support democracy as well, even though I'm sometimes convinced about the stupidity of mankind. What I ment is that calling the current system for democracy is a fallacious assumption. Yes, maybe a some narrow form of democracy, but it's far far, light years away from how democracy ought to be. And people don't seem to accept this fact; voting doesn't have jack **** to do with democracy. And we use this conviction, based on lies, to commit murder abdroad. Why I keep saying "based on lies" because there is not a single country today that has democracy, but we keep spreading it like it existed. The western world operates the same way as the bigot religious part of the world. 




> Religion doesn't have a bad reputation because it did bad a few years ago. Religion continues to do bad. Last year the Catholic church endorsed life imprisonment for homosexuals in Nigeria. Women continue to be oppressed in the name of religion throughout the Middle East. Religion's past is irrelevant when its present is still oppressive.


You're right, it's important to have in mind that religion is still oppressive in some parts of the world. But the mistreating of women in the islamic world is more of a tradition and a cultural phenomen than a religion. You don't find it anywhere in Qur'an nor in the feared Shariah law that women should be oppressed. Claiming that religion equals oppression of women is like claiming that democracy equals homeless junkies on the streets. I live in Sweden which is one of the most secularized country in the world, but it's still the women who cook, take care of children and earn less than men. I think you could call that for oppression of women. 




> Besides, I support democracy and individual rights because I'm a social democrat, not because I'm an atheist. Democracy is not the opposite to religion, but secularism is a necessity for the proper functioning of a liberal democracy.


And again, I disagree. I don't see the opposition between democracy and religion, perhaps you could explain your views on this. On the contrary, the morality of some religions are a lot more complex and developed than the ones you find in the UN Charters for example. Morality might be a natural result of evolution that almost all human beings are aware of, but the first steps to institutionalize them were made by religions, no?




> No, not all belief systems are equivalent. One that arbitrarily supports oppression of individual freedoms is not acceptable. Your position is reductionist and ignores the oppression at the level of the individual. Ignore the state level and look at how small Christian groups participate in attempting to get ID taught in schools, or campaign against gay rights. These have nothing to do with the greed and power of human beings, these have to do with the inherently flawed arbitrary morality of religion.


The problem with these oppressive behaviours that are often associated with religons is that they are not religious at all. The leaders of different sects use religion as a tool to gain support for their ****ed up and sick values. And this brings us to my only problem with religion, that it encourages worshipping and blind following which makes believers an easy victims for selfish reasons. If we try to implement democracy on the individual level as well, where every participant has an equal voice in the decision making, I don't think any sect at all would start witch-hunts on homosexuals. I think most sects work on the basis of group pressure and has nothing to do with religious values.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> This is ridiculous. The notion that religion cannot (or at least never does) have a good influence on followers’ behavior, but often has a bad one defies reason and common sense.



No it's not. A common claim is that religions helps set up a code of ethics, which it does not. If religion had never been invented people would still behave ethically.

And if you're denying that it often leads people to bigotry you are blind.

----------


## Ecurb

> No it's not. A common claim is that religions helps set up a code of ethics, which it does not. If religion had never been invented people would still behave ethically.
> 
> And if you're denying that it often leads people to bigotry you are blind.


Religion obviously DOES often establish a code of ethics (did you ever read the Ten Commandments?). Of course that does not imply that people without religion cannot behave ethically. Why would it?

Religion doubtless DOES lead people into bigotry  especially against people of other religions. I am not blind, but I do wear corrective lenses for nearsightedness.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> Religion obviously DOES often establish a code of ethics (did you ever read the Ten Commandments?). Of course that does not imply that people without religion cannot behave ethically. Why would it?
> 
> Religion doubtless DOES lead people into bigotry – especially against people of other religions. I am not blind, but I do wear corrective lenses for nearsightedness.


Like I said, it's a false attribution to claim that religion created a code of ethics. That code of ethics existed before religion. We agree here.

We agree that religion leads people to bigotry. I am -5.25 in each eye. It has gotten worse every few years and I hold a slight, irrational fear that if it keeps progressing I may one day be blind.

----------


## Ecurb

I'm not sure we agree. I'd suggest that we don't know how the earliest "codes of ethics" developed. They may have been influenced by religion and they may not have been. Animals that lack a sophisticated language are capable of "ethical" behaviors -- but are probably not capable of developing a "code" of ethics. The word "code" implies formalized rules. We know (from ancient burial sites) that some sort of religion probably developed very early in human prehistory, and we can imagine that "codes" of ethics developed about the same time (since both are dependent on some linguistic sophistication). They probably arose together (although perhaps not). 

How's that for a wishy-washy response?

----------


## Rores28

> People need to stop asking what does religion do bad and start asking what good it does. The bad is obvious, the good could and is supplied elsewhere.



Alleviates existential anxieties relating to death and purpose.

----------


## The Atheist

Can I note we're getting well off track here?

The thread is supposed to be about atheism, not theism - there's a whole sub-forum to discuss that stuff.

I am a little disappointed that people who are only to happy to post assertions about "new" and "militant" atheism in other threads haven't come along armed with buckets of evidence that atheism circa year 2010 is somehow different to the atheism of ~2000 BC, 900 AD and 1939. (among other dates)

I'll keep waiting, because it surely isn't just empty rhetoric?

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Yeah, I was wondering where all of the opposition went as well. Aunty already made her point very nicely in her thread, *{edit}*



> Alleviates existential anxieties relating to death and purpose.


Yes, agreed - that's what I meant when I said that individual spirituality was important.

----------


## Ecurb

> Yes, agreed - that's what I meant when I said that individual spirituality was important.


"Personally, I'm not religious but I consider myself to be a very spiritual person."

How many times have I heard that? Aren't there any atheists out there that think such a comment is even more ridiculous than organized religion?

It seems to me to be a little like saying, "I've never studied math, but I'm a very mathematical person." Perhaps so, but isn't it likely you are reinventing the wheel? The one thing that Organized religions have studied --with a great deal of zeal, by the way -- is spirituality. To pooh pooh religion and interest oneself in "spirituality" doesn't seem very rigorous. It's like refusing to read history books, but being fascinated by history. The level of spirituality that can be reached without training, education, techniques, etc., etc. that have been highly developed over the millenia must (I suspect) be less sophisticated than the level reached by the well-educated acolyte. I mean, to think that we can learn nothing about spirituality from the many brilliant Saints (and Buddhas) who spent their lives questing for it shows a bit of hubris, does it not?

----------


## Dodo25

> "Personally, I'm not religious but I consider myself to be a very spiritual person."
> 
> How many times have I heard that? Aren't there any atheists out there that think such a comment is even more ridiculous than organized religion?
> 
> It seems to me to be a little like saying, "I've never studied math, but I'm a very mathematical person." Perhaps so, but isn't it likely you are reinventing the wheel? The one thing that Organized religions have studied --with a great deal of zeal, by the way -- is spirituality. To pooh pooh religion and interest oneself in "spirituality" doesn't seem very rigorous. It's like refusing to read history books, but being fascinated by history. The level of spirituality that can be reached without training, education, techniques, etc., etc. that have been highly developed over the millenia must (I suspect) be less sophisticated than the level reached by the well-educated acolyte. I mean, to think that we can learn nothing about spirituality from the many brilliant Saints (and Buddhas) who spent their lives questing for it shows a bit of hubris, does it not?


It depends on the definition of spiritual. What atheists like Sam Harris or even Richard Dawkins mean by it is *nothing supernatural.* It's a feeling/state of mind that can be scientifically investigated. Buddhist meditation techniques can do something interesting to the mind, but that doesn't mean all the metaphysics that goes with it is true.

I hate the word 'spiritual' because I immediately associate it with ghosts and God, but if one adopts the other definition, I see no reason whatsoever why atheists can't be spiritual. It's just like the whole morality thing. Religion has claimed possession of everything moral and spiritual, as if the two (three) would always go together, and together only. This simply isn't true, and it's good that some atheists point that out.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> Alleviates existential anxieties relating to death and purpose.


So does liquor.


edit- And does it really? Anyone worth their salt hits an existential crisis in their twenties and then moves on. Just because someone happens to pick up religion around the same time doesn't mean that religion was the salve. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

----------


## Rores28

> So does liquor.


Yea but a lot of religions frown on drinking.

----------


## Fat Mike

This is what Wikipedia says about militant atheism:

"The terms militant atheism and militant atheist are designations applied to atheists who are, or are perceived to be, hostile towards religion."

"Atheism which is actively hostile to religion"

"...and is characterised by a desire to wipe out all forms of religious belief."

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

It's interesting because I haven't met any atheist that didn't want to wipe out all the religions in the world. Of course, this is just whishful thinking. Atheist don't actually go out and kill all the religious people, which according to me militant atheism should refer to. It's simply rhetorics, to make atheism look worse than what it actually is.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> It's interesting because I haven't met any atheist that didn't want to wipe out all the religions in the world. Of course, this is just whishful thinking. Atheist don't actually go out and kill all the religious people, which according to me militant atheism should refer to. It's simply rhetorics, to make atheism look worse than what it actually is.


I have. My brother isn't the type of atheist that would love to see all of the world religions disappear. I think if anything he's ambivalent about it all.

----------


## Ecurb

> It depends on the definition of spiritual. What atheists like Sam Harris or even Richard Dawkins mean by it is *nothing supernatural.* It's a feeling/state of mind that can be scientifically investigated. Buddhist meditation techniques can do something interesting to the mind, but that doesn't mean all the metaphysics that goes with it is true.
> 
> I hate the word 'spiritual' because I immediately associate it with ghosts and God, but if one adopts the other definition, I see no reason whatsoever why atheists can't be spiritual. It's just like the whole morality thing. Religion has claimed possession of everything moral and spiritual, as if the two (three) would always go together, and together only. This simply isn't true, and it's good that some atheists point that out.


Huh? My dictionary defines "spiritual" as "pertaining to or affecting the immaterial nature of the soul of man." Another definition is: ".. consisting of spirit as distinguished from matter, incorporeal." Obviously, Dawkins and Harris are free to define the word as they choose -- but why bother? Why not just use another word? 

In addition (and this is one of the worst things about Dawkins and Harris) the assumption that things only exist if they "can be scientifically investigated" is narrow minded. That's my real quarrel with Dawkins -- he thinks science somehow not only leads to understanding reality, but that it is the ONLY way to understand reality. This is as narrow-minded as religious thinking. There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt of in your philosophy (as Hamlet once said, philosophy being and old-fashioned word for "science").

----------


## Rores28

> Huh? My dictionary defines "spiritual" as "pertaining to or affecting the immaterial nature of the soul of man." Another definition is: ".. consisting of spirit as distinguished from matter, incorporeal." Obviously, Dawkins and Harris are free to define the word as they choose -- but why bother? Why not just use another word? 
> 
> In addition (and this is one of the worst things about Dawkins and Harris) the assumption that things only exist if they "can be scientifically investigated" is narrow minded. That's my real quarrel with Dawkins -- he thinks science somehow not only leads to understanding reality, but that it is the ONLY way to understand reality. This is as narrow-minded as religious thinking. There are more strange things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt of in your philosophy (as Hamlet once said, philosophy being and old-fashioned word for "science").


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

It's funny that you say this because as I read this for the first time I also thought of Dawkins.

I would also like to raise my hand as an atheist (or maybe agnostic) who has mixed feelings about religion. I would certainly never describe my position as wanting to see all religion eradicated.

Also I think Dawkins is using the term spiritual to fend off the belief that scientists do not find beauty or inspiration in their profession cold hard facts. I think they simply means to convey that they are not robots and are actually inspired in a sort of romantic sense by their scientific endeavors.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

Anyone who's on the fence about religion and whether you'd like to see it gone or not, can you explain why?

----------


## Rores28

> So does liquor.
> 
> 
> edit- And does it really?


In short yes, it almost is not even debatable. Back in the day it was a near guarantee that when I would actually engage religious folk (or just people who believed in god) in debate, when I said I didn't believe in God, the first thing they would ask is 

"Well then what do you think happens after you die?"

"Nothing."

"Doesn't that bother you? I just can't accept that"

If the conversation didn't follow this formula it was extremely surprising, and I was quite an ******* so I argued with a lot of people.




> Anyone worth their salt hits an existential crisis in their twenties and then moves on. Just because someone happens to pick up religion around the same time doesn't mean that religion was the salve. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


Here you've lost me to some extent. I've been having existential anxieties since I can remember, which would be sometime around 3rd grade. It was never any sort of acute event but rather a pervasive theme of my entire life. And my guess is that it is so for the majority of people, at least relating to death and what happens when you die. During that time I knew plenty of religious folk in my church who were unafraid of death (or at least as much as they could cognitively override their baser physiology). And I myself was unafraid for a good 2-3 years around the ages of 9-12. My only fear was that my mom and dad would go to hell, and so I wanted to stay alive long enough to reform them.

While today I still do make snooty comments about most religions and their ridiculous logic, its not as if I don't still harbor some envy for them. They have to live by stricter standards in most cases and in some way impoverish or fetter their life experience but the payback is pretty massive, they get a free pass on basically the single most troubling aspect of being a living sentient being.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> they get a free pass on basically the single most troubling aspect of being a living sentient being.


I'd wager that most religious folks have about the same experience with existential crises that I do. We all know we're going to die, but we go about our daily lives until we have an acute episode. During that time, the religious folks pray and I don't. We both get through that episode, but the religious person is going to attribute it to the strength that god gave him. 

They aren't protected from having those crises, though. I wouldn't think so anyway, especially the kind that are religious because they need an answer to "what happens when you die."

edit - Rereading the last paragraph I get the feeling you're talking about fundies, which is probably another ballfield.

----------


## Jassy Melson

This probably has nothing to do with the main idea of this thread, but I'll state it anyway just for the hell of it. "Dostoevsky gves me more than any scientist" - Albert Einstein

----------


## Rores28

> I'd wager that most religious folks have about the same experience with existential crises that I do. We all know we're going to die, but we go about our daily lives until we have an acute episode. During that time, the religious folks pray and I don't. We both get through that episode, but the religious person is going to attribute it to the strength that god gave him. 
> 
> They aren't protected from having those crises, though. I wouldn't think so anyway, especially the kind that are religious because they need an answer to "what happens when you die."
> 
> edit - Rereading the last paragraph I get the feeling you're talking about fundies, which is probably another ballfield.





> I'd wager that most religious folks have about the same experience with existential crises that I do. We all know we're going to die, but we go about our daily lives until we have an acute episode. During that time, the religious folks pray and I don't. We both get through that episode, but the religious person is going to attribute it to the strength that god gave him. 
> 
> They aren't protected from having those crises, though. I wouldn't think so anyway, especially the kind that are religious because they need an answer to "what happens when you die."


We have to agree to disagree. This has not at all been my personal nor empirical experience of others. The former coming from my days of being very religious, and the latter coming from my early high school years of being an atheist, with a very religious cousin, aunt, girlfriend, and all the concomitant religious acquaintances that go along with that. The concern of whether or not experience went on after you died was never even a question, only if the way you were living was sufficient to get you into heaven. I will say this is coming from a Christian background and so I cannot speak directly for the other two religions. Also I am assuming we are only talking about the big 3, some of these claims become much more silly if talking about Hinduism/Buddhism.

Certainly religious people have crises but from what I've seen they are nearly always crises of faith or misunderstanding, basically, why would God let this happen, and never "I hope there is really a heaven." And even in this case they have the answer... the Lord works in mysterious ways... not to mention what relevance is the pain on earth compared to the joy experienced in heaven. Their palliatives are just much better. Prospect of Heaven > Pint of Rocky Road Ice Cream

But let's say their palliatives aren't better. Better to whom. In the same way that I can't use their palliative, even though I want to be able to, they would probably have no luck using mine. 

Reading is fun.
Watching Basketball is fun.
So given that both are fun rores28 you wouldn't mind giving up reading and instead spending that time watching basketball. Except that I find watching basketball boring so I can't swap one for the other.

In the same way liquor may help some people with existential problems but it doesn't help me, god or religion helps some people but it doesn't help me.

Anyway I don't think the question is whether or not their are benefits to religion, just whether its benefits outweigh its costs

----------


## Rores28

As to the militant issue. This is one of my biggest problems with Dawkins. His approach is just condescending and dickish, (from what I've seen of him) and I just see no reason to be rude and insulting in a discussion, if it can be helped, though I am guilty of finding the same stuff funny.

Still the bigger issue is that it's counterproductive. You know what usually sells me on an argument, when some obstinate douche does nothing but espouse his inflexible views to me and does so with obvious contempt. Atheists can be steadfast or ambitious without being "militant." People are always more likely to accept, at least partially, and make concessions to the views of someone more reasonable and polite.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> Certainly religious people have crises but from what I've seen they are nearly always crises of faith or misunderstanding, basically, why would God let this happen, and never "I hope there is really a heaven."


Crises of faith that arises from what? If we're staying on topic, an existential crisis. Just because you have faith in eternal life doesn't mean you get to skip those crises. And of course they have doubts about life after death. Anyone who doesn't admit a moment of doubt in weakness is a liar.

I took a sexual education course in college. The professor asked the class how many of us had masturbated _in our lives_ and asked those who had to raise their hands. Half the class answered in the affirmative. Grown men, in a class about sex, held their hands in their laps.

----------


## Rores28

> And of course they have doubts about life after death.


Sure, you just think they a more frequent and severe than I do.

Of course it's true that the people I knew could be lying or hiding the fact, but there's not much reason to if they'd already admitted that they had some questions about God's motives or his existence. It's not like one would cause more judgment from peers than the other.

Nonetheless we've seen that religion does have good attributes and can be good on the individual level.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

Rather than continue with the very tired, very old debate between the theists and the atheists, we might consider the apparent split within the atheist camp, as evidenced here. 

On the one hand we have what we might call the Calm Atheists, and on the other hand the Hysterical Atheists, those in whom an inner voice keeps saying: _The theists are coming! The theists are coming!_  as if theyre scared that the Theists might actually know something they dont or refuse to know.

----------


## Ecurb

> Rather than continue with the very tired, very old debate between the theists and the atheists, we might consider the apparent split within the atheist camp, as evidenced here. 
> 
> On the one hand we have what we might call the Calm Atheists, and on the other hand the Hysterical Atheists, those in whom an inner voice keeps saying: _The theists are coming! The theists are coming!_  as if theyre scared that the Theists might actually know something they dont or refuse to know.


I think Dawkins and Hitchens fit very nicely into the "hysterical" category. I, on the other hand, am a "calm atheist", perhaps because of all the prescription drugs my doctor gives me so I can avoid worrying about what will happen when I die.

----------


## MarkBastable

Fat Mike said: _I haven't met any atheist that didn't want to wipe out all the religions in the world._



You must get someone to introduce us.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Rather than continue with the very tired, very old debate between the theists and the atheists, we might consider the apparent split within the atheist camp, as evidenced here. 
> 
> On the one hand we have what we might call the “Calm Atheists,” and on the other hand the “Hysterical Atheists,” those in whom an inner voice keeps saying: _The theists are coming! The theists are coming!_  as if they’re scared that the Theists might actually know something they don’t or refuse to know.


Well there quite literally are large groups of theist out to get me and people like me...




> This probably has nothing to do with the main idea of this thread, but I'll state it anyway just for the hell of it. "Dostoevsky gves me more than any scientist" - Albert Einstein


That quote is apocryphal though, it was claimed Einstein said this in conversation.

----------


## The Atheist

> This is what Wikipedia says about militant atheism:


The question is, is there more of that kind of atheism now than in the past?




> It's simply rhetorics, to make atheism look worse than what it actually is.


Bingo!




> In addition (and this is one of the worst things about Dawkins and Harris) the assumption that things only exist if they "can be scientifically investigated" is narrow minded.


Can you point to that quote from Dawkins, please.

Harris, you can mis-quote as much as you like, it won't be worse than what he says intentionally, but I would be immensely surprised that Dawkins would make such a statement, being completely unsupportable.

Dawkins was, after all, the chair of public understanding of science.

I believe you are mis-attributing your strawman to Dawkins. In my opinion, he has not and would never make the statement .

_things only exist if they can be scientifically investigated_




> Their palliatives are just much better. Prospect of Heaven > Pint of Rocky Road Ice Cream


Yes, I always like to emphasise that if it were a sales contest, one side saying "When you die, you get to go to the cuddly place and have no responsibilities for the rest of eternity" and the other saying, "You die, then rot." is not much of a contest.

What amazes me, is with that sales pitch, how can they be *losing* customers so quickly?




> Anyway I don't think the question is whether or not their are benefits to religion, just whether its benefits outweigh its costs


Spot on.

I think I can paint a clear case that the benefits to society outweigh the costs. Trouble is, like Orwell's pigs, some religions are more equal than others.

If all christians were "liberal", in the mould of the outstanding Rowan Williams, boss of the Church of England, there would be a lot fewer militant atheists.

But while that version of godliness is dying, the one growing is the one to be scared of - Pauline evangelism. These are the people who believe in and teach Dante's Hell, for crimes as small as unbelief. These are the people who insist that the earth is 6014 years old and want it taught in schools.

It's not a case of whether religion overall is good, it's which bits of it are worth preserving.




> As to the militant issue. This is one of my biggest problems with Dawkins. His approach is just condescending and dickish, (from what I've seen of him) and I just see no reason to be rude and insulting in a discussion, if it can be helped, though I am guilty of finding the same stuff funny.


What constitutes rude and insulting? Is it rude and insulting to suggest someone will be tortured for billions of eons for not saying his prayers?




> People are always more likely to accept, at least partially, and make concessions to the views of someone more reasonable and polite.


This is an often-made claim of which I have never seen any proof.

I'd really like some decent research to be done on what constitutes the correct and most successful approach to what is more likely to make think about their religion, and if you can show me that calm and polite actually does work better than getting to people do wonder "Why do these people despise me so much?" then I'll change my ways.

You may catch more flies wth jam than vinegar, but you catch even more with faeces.




> Rather than continue with the very tired, very old debate between the theists and the atheists, we might consider the apparent split within the atheist camp, as evidenced here.


A split in the camp?

You must have missed the point that atheism is a simple lack of belief in god/s.

There are lots of little "atheism camps" within that, but there is no such thing as an "atheist camp" to split. You can start that when you manage to get a rift in the aphilatelist camp.

Some of the wee groups of atheists don't get along, but that's nothing new - humans have a species-long history of disagreement.




> On the one hand we have what we might call the Calm Atheists, and on the other hand the Hysterical Atheists, those in whom an inner voice keeps saying: _The theists are coming! The theists are coming!_  as if theyre scared that the Theists might actually know something they dont or refuse to know.


"Hysterical atheists"?

Crikey, that's a notch or two up from militancy, I guess.

The trouble is, we have proof that the theists are indeed coming.

You must have heard of various attempts by christian groups to pervert the US education system? Scopes, Dover, Kentucky school boards, _et al ad nauseum_?

There is ample proof that if the US law allowed school boards to set curricula based on their personal beliefs, a huge percentage of US school pupils would right now be being taught that the earth is ~6014 years old and that, accordingly, all science is fake.

I just don't think that's a good thing.

Nor do I think it's hysterical not to presume that it wouldn't happen if everyone just ST*U.




> I think Dawkins and Hitchens fit very nicely into the "hysterical" category. I, on the other hand, am a "calm atheist", perhaps because of all the prescription drugs my doctor gives me so I can avoid worrying about what will happen when I die.


Dawkins hysterical?

Crikey, the man's an antichrist, Stephen Fry's safe at last.

I've seen him get a bit emotive at times, but hysterical? Come on.

Pity, because your meds comment was worth a couple of smilies, but the joke got lost in my amazement that Dawkins is seen as hysterical. He is getting some punishment in this thread.... and I haven't even started on him yet!

 :Biggrin:

----------


## MarkBastable

> This probably has nothing to do with the main idea of this thread, but I'll state it anyway just for the hell of it. "Dostoevsky gves me more than any scientist" - Albert Einstein



I never understand why this is trotted out. The argument is whether religion or science best explains the universe. I don't see why it's germane to suggest that Russian literature does the job better than either of them.

----------


## The Atheist

> Fat Mike said: _I haven't met any atheist that didn't want to wipe out all the religions in the world._
> 
> You must get someone to introduce us.


What????!111???

I'll have your bloody atheist card back.

When you undertook the sacred Oath of Atheism, you forswore to attack and hate all religion equally. Don't be getting soft on me or we won't let you wear that "A" badge any more.




> That quote is apocryphal though, it was claimed Einstein said this in conversation.


I just get a lot of pleasure out of people thinking Einstein knew everything. Maybe they should learn about his personal and private thoughts where he speaks his mind about belief.

----------


## oshima

I would problably be considered an atheist just because I think the idea of a personal/creator god a pedantic conception (though I find some of the tradions that are classified under the umbrella of religion facinating and in some cases transcendental) . However, having read _God is Not Great_ and _The God Delusion_, I must say that while I found these books an entertaining and somewhat informative diversion, they are terrible as arguments. Hitchens writes well but is too insulting to be read by anyone who isn't a secularist, and Dawkins lame attempts at at using science to negate the existance of god, while amusing, show a lack of intuitive understanding of what makes religion so attractive. His proposal to call Atheists "Brights" to maybe combat it's negative connotations just makes him sound foolish. These people don't bring much new to the table that hasn't been there before, but at least they remind some people of "the other side" of the argument. Hitchens himself half-jokingly said in a disccusion with Dennet, Harris, and Dawkins, that he hoped religion never stopped becasue he loved arguing about it (much to the wide-eyed incredulity of Dawkins). Dawkins himself is most effective when he writes about science. Dawkins, at his best, writes so well about science in his other books that one doesn't even feel like wasting time with the tired "existance of god" debate. 

As the OP states, Atheism is has been around for a long time in all areas of the globe where there were humans. Even Atheism as found in the public forum is not new, during what is refered to as the Enlightenment there were open public disscussions and books about turning away from worship of something that doesn't exist and moving on with the "progress of mankind". Buddhism 500 years before Christ rejected the idea of a personal god and the idea of quintessential self in a country that had literally thousands of deities, and I don't think I need to explain how popular that got (although it can't be denied that many sects turned Siddharta into a god like image and turned much of his story into mythology). 

Taking all this into account, I think at least as far as the public forum is concerned, the *resurgence* of pulic atheism is certainly welcome as a balance to people like Pat Roberson and the like, but as far as changing minds about religion they are pretty weak.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> What????!111???
> 
> I'll have your bloody atheist card back.
> 
> When you undertook the sacred Oath of Atheism, you forswore to attack and hate all religion equally. Don't be getting soft on me or we won't let you wear that "A" badge any more.


Amusing, but a lot of this does read like an inter-collegiate match between Team Atheists and Team Believers, each side counting the number of adherents it has gained or the other side has lost. Like many games, it's a dumbing-down of reality to a zero sum game, rather than the virtually infinite number of possibilities there are in reality. 

Indeed "God" may be analogous to Schrodinger's cat, in this case simultaneously existent and non-existent until someone opens the lid.

And it's possible that a lot of atheists share the feeling of Julian Barnes, who said: "I don't believe in God, but I miss Him."

----------


## AuntShecky

> Amusing, but a lot of this does read like an inter-collegiate match between Team Atheists and Team Believers, each side counting the number of adherents it has gained or the other side has lost. Like many games, it's a dumbing-down of reality to a zero sum game, rather than the virtually infinite number of possibilities there are in reality. 
> 
> It seems as if that may be the case, for good or ill. I just checked the "score" (if the criterion is the number of views --this one versus William James Redux
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=57272)
> 21st Century Atheists -- 735
> William James -- 386
> 
> Indeed "God" may be analogous to Schrodinger's cat, in this case simultaneously existent and non-existent until someone opens the lid.
> Brilliant analogy.
> ...


I think I can discern this idea in recurrent themes in the poetry of Wallace Stevens.

----------


## Rores28

> What constitutes rude and insulting? Is it rude and insulting to suggest someone will be tortured for billions of eons for not saying his prayers?
> 
> 
> 
> This is an often-made claim of which I have never seen any proof.
> 
> I'd really like some decent research to be done on what constitutes the correct and most successful approach to what is more likely to make think about their religion, and if you can show me that calm and polite actually does work better than getting to people do wonder "Why do these people despise me so much?" then I'll change my ways.
> 
> You may catch more flies wth jam than vinegar, but you catch even more with faeces.


Yes christians often overlook the fact that what they are doing is rude but from their perspective it isn't seen as rude. It's seen as attempting to save you from the worst fate imaginable. In any case, my motherly advice is two wrongs don't make a right and I still maintain it is better to take the high ground.

I can't produce any peer reviewed papers on what best persuades people on issues of that magnitude, and this claim is only from my experience, however, I'm sure if you looked some study to that effect must exist. It would be interesting to see the findings.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> Sure, you just think they a more frequent and severe than I do.
> 
> Of course it's true that the people I knew could be lying or hiding the fact, but there's not much reason to if they'd already admitted that they had some questions about God's motives or his existence. It's not like one would cause more judgment from peers than the other.


"I don't understand where that God fellow is coming from" is much different than "You know, I don't think God knows what he's doing."

I wasn't there for the conversations, but one of those is blasphemous.




> Nonetheless we've seen that religion does have good attributes and can be good on the individual level.


No, we've only seen that when people pray to god about their problems and then make the false attribution that that action is what helped them then the consequences can be at most neutral. Its probably more often negative once they progress and buy into dogma. Bigotry limits you on a personal level so that has to be factored in.



The high ground doesn't pack enough punch to wake people up. And people need to be woken up. Religion causes so many social ills there's no reason to give even an inch. Of course on an individual level religion can be good in a very narrow way, but that you don't convince people that it's worthless by admitting that. Beat it into the ground. People, like Dawkins, are convincing far more people to reassess than the so-called Calm Athiests. Christianity (the only one I'm very familiar with) and from what I've seen, Islam are seriously _that_ bad that something needs to be done.




> I can't produce any peer reviewed papers on what best persuades people on issues of that magnitude, and this claim is only from my experience, however, I'm sure if you looked some study to that effect must exist. It would be interesting to see the findings.


Look at politics. People claim to prefer level headed straight talk, but react to smear campaigns. 

The fact is that it's going to take a sea change and that means that it's going to take an extremist approach to bring us all the way from one side to, maybe even just the mid point. Also, the majority of people are not capable of rational discussion or logical thought.

----------


## MarkBastable

> ...one of those is blasphemous.


To an atheist, 'blasphemy' is like 'time travel' - it has conceptual meaning but no practical application.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> And people need to be woken up.





> Also, the majority of people are not capable of rational discussion or logical thought.


You don't think very highly of people. What makes you think that you're in a position to tell people what to think? Don't you know that it's better to let people think for themselves, because if you try to impose your will onto anyone they're just going to react _against_ you? I could give you some studies that indicate that _individual people_ are, for the most part, very reasonable as long as they're not feeling that their status is being threatened or they are in a group situation. If you spout off about how "the majority of people are not capable of logical thought," you're just going to get people thinking that you're a jerk and thinking the opposite of what you want them to just to spite you. I'm not passive by any means, but I usually just try to react against outspoken bigots as best I can and let the quiet majority reason things out for themselves without indicating that they’re all morons, because that doesn't really accomplish much and also it's not true.

----------


## The Atheist

> Amusing, but a lot of this does read like an inter-collegiate match between Team Atheists and Team Believers, each side counting the number of adherents it has gained or the other side has lost. Like many games, it's a dumbing-down of reality to a zero sum game, rather than the virtually infinite number of possibilities there are in reality.


"Virtually infinite possibilities"?

You're making an infinity from a trilogy. God-belief, no god-belief, don't know - three choices only.

Since we're discussing atheism, those are the only three options. There are certainly lots of options in both other camps, but atheism is very, very simple. I'm not quite sure why you want to try to make it into something it isn't, but feel free to carry on.

Have you simply missed the point of the thread? This one isn't actually about whether any god/s exist.




> And it's possible that a lot of atheists share the feeling of Julian Barnes, who said: "I don't believe in God, but I miss Him."


Yep. It's also possible that Bertie Russell's teapot is still orbiting Venus.




> Yes christians often overlook the fact that what they are doing is rude but from their perspective it isn't seen as rude. It's seen as attempting to save you from the worst fate imaginable.


I don't actually buy that for a second, because of the context and manner of delivery on every occasion I've heard a christian talk about unbelievers going to hell. It is never a case of "Crikey, I wish you'd listen to me/Jesus/someone, because I really fear for your immortal soul.", but always "Atheists are going to go to hell, LOLOL!!11!"




> In any case, my motherly advice is two wrongs don't make a right and I still maintain it is better to take the high ground.


I have yet to be convinced that attack is wrong. To paraphrase one of Dawkins' faves, it isn't necessary for the truth to be somewhere in the middle - one side can be completely wrong.

In the case of fundamental Pauline christianity, I'm sure that is true.




> I can't produce any peer reviewed papers on what best persuades people on issues of that magnitude, and this claim is only from my experience, however, I'm sure if you looked some study to that effect must exist. It would be interesting to see the findings.


I've looked for years and I'm confident there isn't any research, because no interested group has the funding to organise it. Unless Dawkins decides to spend some his writing millions finding out, I doubt we'll ever know.

----------


## FaederStole

The amount of disgust a person feels towards religion is not entailed by their lack of belief in supernatural entities.

That being said, atheism has been a comforting notion throughout my life.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> You don't think very highly of people. What makes you think that you're in a position to tell people what to think? Don't you know that it's better to let people think for themselves, because if you try to impose your will onto anyone they're just going to react _against_ you? I could give you some studies that indicate that _individual people_ are, for the most part, very reasonable as long as they're not feeling that their status is being threatened or they are in a group situation. If you spout off about how "the majority of people are not capable of logical thought," you're just going to get people thinking that you're a jerk and thinking the opposite of what you want them to just to spite you. I'm not passive by any means, but I usually just try to react against outspoken bigots as best I can and let the quiet majority reason things out for themselves without indicating that theyre all morons, because that doesn't really accomplish much and also it's not true.


This appeals to me as a calm, enlightened point of view. When I posted earlier of the "two camps," the calm atheists vis the hysterical ones, I was thinking more of a psychological rather than a theological difference. The calm atheists have examined the evidence - or lack of it - for a "God," and having concluded that it's unconvincing, they go about their lives as best they can.

The hysterical atheists, on the other hand, *need* the believers. Raging against them gives purpose to their lives. It amuses me to imagine a world in which theism and all those who subscribed to it have disappeared, and the dedicated atheists run around looking desperately for something or someone else to be against.

There is always the one-billionth of a percent chance that theists know _something_ and as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know, why not leave them alone - and carry on our lives as morally and usefully as we can?

----------


## MarkBastable

> This appeals to me as a calm, enlightened point of view. When I posted earlier of the "two camps," the calm atheists vis the hysterical ones, I was thinking more of a psychological rather than a theological difference. The calm atheists have examined the evidence - or lack of it - for a "God," and having concluded that it's unconvincing, they go about their lives as best they can.
> 
> The hysterical atheists, on the other hand, *need* the believers. Raging against them gives purpose to their lives. It amuses me to imagine a world in which theism and all those who subscribed to it have disappeared, and the dedicated atheists run around looking desperately for something or someone else to be against.
> 
> There is always the one-billionth of a percent chance that theists know _something_ and as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know, why not leave them alone - and carry on our lives as morally and usefully as we can?



It's intellectual debate. Intellectual debate is always good and harms no one. It's not an attack on a person to attack the ideas that person holds - or, at least, it shouldn't be seen as such by any person who can marshall the intellectual skills to take part.

So, although I fall into your 'calm' category, I disagree with you about the other one (and I think the choice of the word 'hysterical' is perjorative). The constant and rigorous testing of ideas against each other is not only good exercise, it's also good social intercourse. If you don't want to take part, fine - don't. But don't stick your head round the door to advise everyone else not to do it and to pass judgement on the people who do. It's patronising and unkind.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> Don't you know that it's better to let people think for themselves, because if you try to impose your will onto anyone they're just going to react _against_ you?


I don't know that I can undermine your religion and not threaten your status. 





> I could give you some studies that indicate that _individual people_ are, for the most part, very reasonable as long as they're not feeling that their status is being threatened or they are in a group situation.


Please do. Make sure the examples are of something analogous like politics where people cling blindly to their beliefs and disregard facts.

As for not giving people credit for having the capacity for reason and logic, 23% of the world is Islamic and Christiany comprises 25-33%. Both these religions require the suspension of logic, so no, I don't.




> The hysterical atheists, on the other hand, *need* the believers. Raging against them gives purpose to their lives.


This is just self-indulgent.




> as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know


You don't see that this is impossible?




> Yes christians often overlook the fact that what they are doing is rude but from their perspective it isn't seen as rude. It's seen as attempting to save you from the worst fate imaginable.





> I don't actually buy that for a second, because of the context and manner of delivery on every occasion I've heard a christian talk about unbelievers going to hell. It is never a case of "Crikey, I wish you'd listen to me/Jesus/someone, because I really fear for your immortal soul.", but always "Atheists are going to go to hell, LOLOL!!11!"


Yea I don't agree with rores here either. On top of what you said I might be rude, but I'm doing so with the best interests of society so I have to get a free pass as well.

----------


## The Atheist

> The hysterical atheists...


More strawman nonsense.

You have manufactured a category - hysterical atheists - so I guess you're free to state what those are and how they behave, but since it bears no relevance to reality, I will just stick to pointing out that when one makes one's own categories, based entirely on one's own preferences, it's pretty easy to be right all of the time.

I am finding it highly amusing that these outrageous strawmen are being constructed and burnt by a former self-professed atheist.

Just like ex-smokers, I guess...




> Yea I don't agree with rores here either. On top of what you said I might be rude, but I'm doing so with the best interests of society so I have to get a free pass as well.


Sounds good to me.

Even better, you can inject humour into the discussion, which certainly gets you a free pass.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> It's intellectual debate. Intellectual debate is always good and harms no one. It's not an attack on a person to attack the ideas that person holds - or, at least, it shouldn't be seen as such by any person who can marshall the intellectual skills to take part.
> 
> So, although I fall into your 'calm' category, I disagree with you about the other one (and I think the choice of the word 'hysterical' is perjorative). The constant and rigorous testing of ideas against each other is not only good exercise, it's also good social intercourse. If you don't want to take part, fine - don't. But don't stick your head round the door to advise everyone else not to do it and to pass judgement on the people who do. It's patronising and unkind.


Sure, there are many reasonable atheists interested in intellectual debate and testing ideas.

But having debated quite a few atheists in my time, I also know there are many out there who aren't interested in any real debate and clearly are only interested in insulting people who believe in God or practice even the faintest hint of a religion. 

I think this is the sort of "hysterical" atheist PrinceMyshkin is talking about, although his defining them as someone "jealous" of religion seems a tad silly. The issue isn't really atheism; it's a certain type of anti-theism.

----------


## Rores28

> Yea I don't agree with rores here either. On top of what you said I might be rude, but I'm doing so with the best interests of society so I have to get a free pass as well.


Its not so much a matter of agreeing... these are simply what I have seen from the majority of the people who I have spoke with. Maybe the people I knew were just nicer than the ones you have talked to... or maybe I am getting less extremist and dickish responses because I am dishing out less extremist and dickish proclamations.

As to the free pass.... its funny but it does illustrate a real problem in the debate and that is that there is still a contest going on (well if they get a free pass so do I.... etc...). Discussions, especially ones of this importance, need to divest themselves of the notion of winning and teams

Also I want to be clear because there is some confusion. I am not against a concerted and constant effort to bring atheism to the mainstream and explain what it is all about and why I it is the framework within which my life is lived. My issue is with being an ******* about it. 

I think atheism is at especially high risk already as people amazingly still equate the word atheist with immoral and *******. I imagine a scenario in which every atheist / theological discussion has the religious folk giving out there own brand of rude abrasive illogical debate, while the atheists remain totally calm and polite and in no way condescending and I just can't that this would not be a greater boon to the cause than **** throwing in both directions.




> There is always the one-billionth of a percent chance that theists know _something_ and as long as they don't try to legislate on the basis of what they believe they know, why not leave them alone - and carry on our lives as morally and usefully as we can?


The sad fact is this just isn't going to happen. Even if that legislating occurs only on an implicit level. This is where irrational dogmatism is at its most dangerous.




> "I don't understand where that God fellow is coming from" is much different than "You know, I don't think God knows what he's doing."
> 
> I wasn't there for the conversations, but one of those is blasphemous.


Well to simplify.. what they were saying to me was already blasphemous, thus the existence question was equally blasphemous so I see no reason to hold back one or the other. But of course I could be making all of this up... you'll have to take it on faith  :Wink: 




> No, we've only seen that when people pray to god about their problems and then make the false attribution that that action is what helped them then the consequences can be at most neutral. Its probably more often negative once they progress and buy into dogma. Bigotry limits you on a personal level so that has to be factored in.


Here you and I still have very different ideas about how religion operates. You are viewing it as something more analogous to a bottle of tylenol that people break out when they have some sort of existential dilemma. I see it as more pervasive and automatic. Additionally, plenty of religious people do not think praying is simply going to fix their problems... they believe, and this is not just implicitly, that it is an issue of faith and prayer combined with personal responsibility.

It seems like much of the talk about theists is focused on the almost caricature like fundamentalists that generally are only seen in TV and movies made to poke fun of them, rather than what is surely the larger demographic of the much more reasonable variety. [/QUOTE]

Bigotry is limiting... perhaps. But sometimes limits are personally liberating... underground man?





> Look at politics. People claim to prefer level headed straight talk, but react to smear campaigns.


This is unfortunately true but I think that sort of persuasion is only suited to more transient and facile conceptions, like who should I vote for, as opposed to entire religious ideologies. Smear campaigns may be able to cause people to disregard particular candidates but I don't think they are able to impel people to disregard their entire political party or political views.




> Also, the majority of people are not capable of rational discussion or logical thought.


I want to say that this is not true, but I can't say that has been my experience. I just find this idea of blindly manipulating people "for their own good" as somewhat morally repugnant, but only on an emotional moral level not a logical moral one. This attitude also seems to open the flood gates for some dangerous ramifications.




> I don't know that I can undermine your religion and not threaten your status.


Logically you can't... but they are religious right....

Jesting aside.. it's a difficult balancing act, but when you're as charismatic and tactful as me its totally achievable.




> "Virtually infinite possibilities"?
> 
> You're making an infinity from a trilogy. God-belief, no god-belief, don't know - three choices only.


I think they are referring to the fact that the "don't know camp" is comprised of a continuous spectrum of certainty/uncertainty about God. 80% sure 75% sure etc... 





> I don't actually buy that for a second, because of the context and manner of delivery on every occasion I've heard a christian talk about unbelievers going to hell. It is never a case of "Crikey, I wish you'd listen to me/Jesus/someone, because I really fear for your immortal soul.", but always "Atheists are going to go to hell, LOLOL!!11!"


Another thing about this. When you get this response, you must know this is the manifestation of insecurity or an emotional defense mechanism to their faith being challenged. They are falsely attributing their anger at your "dangerous" idea to just anger at you. The problem is this anger doesn't resolve itself into a deeper understanding or consideration of the subject but instead engenders more implacable jingoism.

Are they being rude? Yes.... but it's a sort of pitiable response... not unlike the newly rejected partner who claims they were going to break up with you anyway.




> I have yet to be convinced that attack is wrong. To paraphrase one of Dawkins' faves, it isn't necessary for the truth to be somewhere in the middle - one side can be completely wrong.


This is true, though I think rarely the case.... But probably in this case..

Still is this relevant to the militant approach. Let's say atheism is one hundred percent factually correct. This would speak nothing to the degree of militancy that we should employ in its proselytization. If indeed the main contention is that a wholly militant approach is not the most efficacious means of conversion.

----------


## The Atheist

> Another thing about this. When you get this response, you must know this is the manifestation of insecurity or an emotional defense mechanism to their faith being challenged. They are falsely attributing their anger at your "dangerous" idea to just anger at you. The problem is this anger doesn't resolve itself into a deeper understanding or consideration of the subject but instead engenders more implacable jingoism.
> 
> Are they being rude? Yes.... but it's a sort of pitiable response... not unlike the newly rejected partner who claims they were going to break up with you anyway.


I know!

Fortunately I thrive on that stuff.

 :Biggrin: 

This is true, though I think rarely the case.... But probably in this case..




> Still is this relevant to the militant approach. Let's say atheism is one hundred percent factually correct. This would speak nothing to the degree of militancy that we should employ in its proselytization. If indeed the main contention is that a wholly militant approach is not the most efficacious means of conversion.


I don't believe it's necessary or desirable to proselytise just because atheism is the correct position - there's nothing special about being right. I can't speak for others, but conversion has never really been a goal for me.

It really is atheism as the bulwark against fundamentalism and teaching of absurd anti-science theories that concerns me. We know with 100% surety that, unopposed, certain sects will try to enforce teaching of their beliefs to all.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> As to the free pass.... its funny but it does illustrate a real problem in the debate and that is that there is still a contest going on (well if they get a free pass so do I.... etc...). Discussions, especially ones of this importance, need to divest themselves of the notion of winning and teams.


It's not about competition. If execution is going to be viewed through the lense of intention, then that courtesy must be granted to everyone. 





> This is unfortunately true but I think that sort of persuasion is only suited to more transient and facile conceptions, like who should I vote for, as opposed to entire religious ideologies. Smear campaigns may be able to cause people to disregard particular candidates but I don't think they are able to impel people to disregard their entire political party or political views.


Rush Limbaugh, Fox News. It's effective not only as a surprise attack right before election night, but in the long term as well. Constant, unabashed derision slowly erode people's will (and, in the case of fox news, rationality). After being on the defensive for so long, you're basically forced to reconsider your position and that's what we're after. 




> I want to say that this is not true, but I can't say that has been my experience. I just find this idea of blindly manipulating people "for their own good" as somewhat morally repugnant, but only on an emotional moral level not a logical moral one. This attitude also seems to open the flood gates for some dangerous ramifications.


I agree with you completely, but on this point I'm willing to give myself a pass because I know what's best.




> Jesting aside.. it's a difficult balancing act, but when you're as charismatic and tactful as me its totally achievable.


Except that earlier in this thread you refer to Richard Dawkins and, tacitly, myself as "obstinate douchebags" thus violating your own terms of engagement.  :Smile: 




> Another thing about this. When you get this response, you must know this is the manifestation of insecurity or an emotional defense mechanism to their faith being challenged. They are falsely attributing their anger at your "dangerous" idea to just anger at you. The problem is this anger doesn't resolve itself into a deeper understanding or consideration of the subject but instead engenders more implacable jingoism.


Really? Maybe I'm not in the majority, but, while I'll never cave in the face of the person delivering damning evidence, it invariably reenters my consciousness later and forces me to resolve the dissonance. Then again, I suppose the defense for that is learned through religion. 




> Still is this relevant to the militant approach. Let's say atheism is one hundred percent factually correct. This would speak nothing to the degree of militancy that we should employ in its proselytization. If indeed the main contention is that a wholly militant approach is not the most efficacious means of conversion.


In this case, it is 100% true.. probably. And while you're right, we need to give more weight to the social damage done by not employing a blitzkrieg style proselytization. We need massive cultural change because right now religion = good, even to lots of athiests.

I don't think that a truly religious person - not just fundies, either, rational religious types - can be swayed by argument from a single individual no matter how calm or vitriolic. It takes a sea change in the culture to do that. The target audience is the agnostics or the types who go to church out of tradition and others who carelessly identify as religious. I'm basically talking about reversing the flow of peer pressure away from religion. When approached from this angle, bullies like Dawkins and Bill Maher are extremely profitable. Dawkins because of his stature and logic and Maher because of his ability to make people laugh at the absurd elements of religion.

I'm just saying, is all I'm saying. Morally repugnant or not, it works. And maybe the ends justify the means.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I don't know that I can undermine your religion and not threaten your status.


You can. Believe it or not, it _is_ possible to _not_ treat people like crap who don't agree with you. 




> Please do.


Ah, balls. *sigh* Aaaalright, give me a second.

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/gpr-813.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4320265.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel...ge-1354553.pdf
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4316500.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/xlm/index.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/rel/index.aspx
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4320265.aspx



There we go. I have a Chem midterm in the morning, so I didn't have time to go through the articles, but the synopses look promising in providing evidence that humans are actually logical creatures that can function without you telling them what to do. Rest easy. There are some books too which are directly related to the conversation.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> Over the past couple of decades, since atheism has largely come out of the closet, it is often asserted that atheism has a new militancy, that it has become doctrinaire, or some other wild generalisation. I contend that there is nothing new, or newly-militant, about atheism, and in fact it is religion painting atheism as bad that has more to do with the general perception than anything atheists are doing.
> 
> For starters, nothing about atheism is new. People have been atheistic since long before the Abrahamic gods arose in man's contemplation. People have also attacked religion quite mercilessly for thousands of years as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Those words come from over a thousand years ago, yet they are at least as abusive as any treatise by any recent author.
> 
> During the French Revolution, christianity was often punishable by death, yet I see no modern atheists asking for theists to be put to the sword.
> ...


Hi
I read this thread when you first posted it and liked it so much .
It's sth I asked to myself : who is better ? A religious man who spends his time praying to God ,or an atheist who dedicates his life to do sth good to humanity ?
Honestly , to me the atheist is much better than the religious .Because the religious is self- centered although he knows God and loves Him . Most religious now become self-centered and what's is worse, soo arrogant . They feel they are superior to others and treat others with superiority .

The Prophets and their disciples *,who are the examples to follow for religious,* were very humble . We never saw such arrogance in them . They never condemned any one .
A Prophet who knows God better than any one asks God for mercy and begs him to go to Heaven!! How comes ?
How a Prophet could not be sure he will go to Heaven and asks for mercy and he is of no sinner ???
*What does this tell to religious people ?*

----------


## The Atheist

> The Prophets and their disciples *,who are the examples to follow for religious,* were very humble . We never saw such arrogance in them . They never condemned any one .


That may be true in terms of what scripture claims, but that would hardly count as autobiographical accounts of their lives. In fact, there is no independent evidence that any of them actually existed - other than John the Baptist, I'm pretty sure. Even Jesus' own life in the bible has enormous gaps in it, while his nother rates a whole couple of lives. It's not hell of an accurate or useful in looking at what people actually did.

As to whether they condemned anyone, I'd be inclined to disagree since they were all very specific that people who worshipped other gods, or denied theirs, would be going to the hot place.

In the muslim faith, their chief prophet having married a nine-year old girl would disqualify him as a role model, so I'm not sure your premise works in any religion.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> That may be true in terms of what scripture claims, but that would hardly count as autobiographical accounts of their lives. In fact, there is no independent evidence that any of them actually existed - other than John the Baptist, I'm pretty sure. Even Jesus' own life in the bible has enormous gaps in it, while his nother rates a whole couple of lives. It's not hell of an accurate or useful in looking at what people actually did.


There is archaeological evidence confirming the existence of quite a few of the Biblical kings. I would, however, agree that it's very dangerous grounds to take the Bible or any religious book as pure history or even as reliable biographical narrative.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> That may be true in terms of what scripture claims, but that would hardly count as autobiographical accounts of their lives. In fact, there is no independent evidence that any of them actually existed - other than John the Baptist, I'm pretty sure. Even Jesus' own life in the bible has enormous gaps in it, while his nother rates a whole couple of lives. It's not hell of an accurate or useful in looking at what people actually did.
> 
> 
> *Here you're very skeptical.*
> 
> As to whether they condemned anyone, I'd be inclined to disagree since they were all very specific that people who worshipped other gods, or denied theirs, would be going to the hot place.
> 
> *Here you take the information for granted .You always make me smile.*
> 
> In the muslim faith, their chief prophet having married a nine-year old girl would disqualify him as a role model, so I'm not sure your premise works in any religion.


*
Do u think I'm addressing you in the post ?!! Oh NO!
It was clear I'm addressing , religious people , it's in bold if you noticed .
I'm Muslim and my premise works for Muslims like me as well as others -- religious .
I would like to add that God doesn't need us , this is we who needs Him . And there is more than one billion and a half who takes Mohammad as a model . They are more than enough .

Good luck*

----------


## The Atheist

> There is archaeological evidence confirming the existence of quite a few of the Biblical kings. I would, however, agree that it's very dangerous grounds to take the Bible or any religious book as pure history or even as reliable biographical narrative.


Kings of the time aren't really what I'd describe as prophets, though, and what prophesying is done by the odd king has no other corroboration at all. That those kings existed is pretty obvious and the bible would obviously have to have them right. The dates in the bible are mostly well out, however.




> [B]
> Do u think I'm addressing you in the post ?!! Oh NO!
> It was clear I'm addressing , religious people , it's in bold if you noticed .


No, you ask what religious people think _at the end_, but you quoted my post and this is a discussion forum. Anyone can address your post, and since you're posting in a thread on atheism, I think I have every conceivable right to answer your comments.

----------


## caddy_caddy

> In the muslim faith, their chief prophet having married a nine-year old girl would disqualify him as a role model, so I'm not sure your premise works in any religion.


 I quoted you because this is you who arose the subject which mainly addressed the religious and I JOINED YOU in that .This is your subject not you .
And I say so because I'm not stupid to speak from a religious perspective with an atheist and try to convince him .
It's a complete nonsense .

Secondly you said : your premise doesn't work in any religion as though you know our religions !!!Your type of knowledge is very selective . You pick up what does suit you and ignore the rest or try to ruin it .
Moreover,you always come here and criticize those who speaks about Atheism and know nothing about it or have misconceptions . You try to correct them but I won't.
I recently learnet sth that is of great wisdom . God thaugt us that the mind is the sense of the heart as the sight is the sense of the eye .
If there is a disease in the heart you can't rely on your mind .We should first cure our hearts from their diseases.

----------


## AuntShecky

I have long heard the expression "There are no atheists in foxholes" and up until two months ago had thought it to be a platitude. But after my family's harrowing bereavement recently, I now tend to believe that there is no atheism among mourners.

The other day I found an online article which may be germane to this thread. The webpage contains an imbedded video which I haven't had a chance to watch, but I'm sure will shed some light on the discussion at hand. Here is the link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-..._b_783755.html

----------


## OrphanPip

> I have long heard the expression "There are no atheists in foxholes" and up until two months ago had thought it to be a platitude. But after my family's harrowing bereavement recently, I now tend to believe that there is no atheism among mourners.


I'm not sure that's true. I've lost family before, and frankly, it has done nothing to inspire any religious belief. In fact, watching someone like my grandmother waste away slowly, and in drug induced delirium, from cancer, I'm fairly sure I would be quite angry at any supposed supreme being if it did exist. What sadistic creator would make a world so full of suffering?

----------


## YesNo

> But after my family's harrowing bereavement recently, ...


My condolences to you and your family.

I believe those near-death experiences that people have reported, which I consider as scientific evidence rather than based on any religious belief, imply that the universe is very, shall we say, "friendly".

----------


## OrphanPip

> My condolences to you and your family.
> 
> I believe those near-death experiences that people have reported, which I consider as scientific evidence rather than based on any religious belief, imply that the universe is very, shall we say, "friendly".


Or that oxygen deprivation to the brain causes a sense of euphoria, thus why huffing glue and auto-asphyxiation are popular with some individuals.

----------


## The Atheist

> ... I now tend to believe that there is no atheism among mourners.


Well, that would be a very silly belief.

I wasn't drawn to any gods when my father died when I was 22, nor did I seek any gods when my mother died 16/17 years ago. 

While I'd be devastated if one of my kids died, I can't imagine any circumstances any god would be mentioned at the funeral, or that either myself or my wife would have any desire to salve the grief with any part of religion or gods.

I've also been to secular funerals where thoughts of gods have been non-existent to the extent that the dead person's lack of belief in them has been a central theme.




> Or that oxygen deprivation to the brain causes a sense of euphoria, thus why huffing glue and auto-asphyxiation are popular with some individuals.


Which is why auto-asphyxiation among 11-13 year olds has become popular across the western world in the past couple of years. I just read the other day - reporting on an inquest of a Kiwi kid who had a death experience rather than a NDE because of it - that UK is suspected of having 85 kids died from auto-asphyxiation in the past year.

I saw kids doing it 40 years ago when I was in that age group. It still attracts kids because those that survive it have one hell of a trip. Those who don't, don't.

Plus ce change...

----------


## JuniperWoolf

^In that hypothetical situation, you wouldn't even hold out the slightest hope that some part of you child's... I don't know... "them-ness" could still exist somewhere? I'm not talking about a "god" (and yeah, if any supreme deity existed that would just sit there and let someone that I love waste away I would likely want to kick him in the balls) I'm more wondering if even the smallest, most private part of you would hold out hope that maybe your kid lived on in _some_ way (be it reincarnation, or their joining some universal energy source, or any other way that maybe hasn't been theorized yet). Grief is a strong motivator, it must be tough to reconcile pure atheism with the loss of a loved one. As I've said before, that's an example of more than admirable intellectual discipline.

----------


## The Atheist

> ^In that hypothetical situation, you wouldn't even hold out the slightest hope that some part of you child's... I don't know... "them-ness" could still exist somewhere? I'm not talking about a "god" (and yeah, if any supreme deity existed that would just sit there and let someone that I love waste away I would likely want to kick him in the balls) I'm more wondering if even the smallest, most private part of you would hold out hope that maybe your kid lived on in _some_ way (be it reincarnation, or their joining some universal energy source, or any other way that maybe hasn't been theorized yet). Grief is a strong motivator, it must be tough to reconcile pure atheism with the loss of a loved one. As I've said before, that's an example of more than admirable intellectual discipline.


Honestly, it wouldn't even occur to me. I don't see continuing after death as desirable in any way, so no, I would not harbour any supernatural hopes.

Maybe you find it difficult looking in from outside, because reconciling death with finality is actually pretty simple. I look around and I'm used to things dying - plants, animals, stars... you name it, it's going to die sometime and I don't see anything special about the atoms that make up humans.

----------


## AuntShecky

I've noticed that the video link in my reply #75 does not automatically bring you to the site. You can access this wonderful, worthwhile video by going to www.youtube.com and typing "Debate: Does the Universe have a purpose?" in the search engine window.

Yesterday I watched the entire video and found much to think about from both sides of the debate. (One of the scientists seems fond of the favorite phrase of our original poster,"The Atheist,": "straw man.") Michael Shermer, editor of _The Skeptic Magazine_, was already familiar to me, as I had read --and totally agreed with-- his debunking of the hysteria surrounding the paranoiac myths about 2012. On this panel Shermer said that making a commitment for doing good in this life can bring purpose to an individual's life. He didn't use the phrase "secular humanist," but that's what he meant. I find no fault in that position, as far as it goes.

All six of the main speakers (3 on the science side, 3 on the faith side) were impressive, but one of the best comments came from a physicist, Michio Kaku, who wasn't on either panel, and thus not given the same amount of time. Dr. Kaku said that neither the scientists nor the "theists" were 100% correct, and that, as a scholar of string theory, he (Dr. Kaku) has found that there had been a cosmic event previous to the "Big Bang." Who started the string theory, he wondered and guessed that we may never find the answer to the God question, even a hundred years from now.

One school of thought neither side ever mentioned was that of Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit theologian and paleontologist who spent a lifetime reconciling the truth of evolution with the truth of ultimate faith. His complex theories were contemporary and future-oriented, and nearly incomprehensible. But I really think Teilhard was on to something. 

One of the more interesting facts brought out by the scientists was the fact that there may be a "God gene," a program in an individual's DNA code which determines whether he or she believes in God. If so, that would cover a lot of people: those who have the gene, those who don't, those who think they have it, and those who think they don't have it. That's okay, but the religious counterpart to the DNA answer is that Faith is a gift -- perhaps manifested in the tangible form of a gene? Who knows? One thing I do know is that anyone who requires physical evidence upon which to base his or her religious belief may have a "belief" but it certainly isn't "faith." And in that case your faith is nothing. This statement does not originate with me but from Douglas "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" Adams, who was an avowed atheist.

Rabbi Wolpe (on the "theist" side) was both logical and emotional and, in my opinion, the most powerful of all six main speakers, and not just because I'm tending -- tending, mind you -- toward his side. Only once did Rabbi Wolpe quote scripture, from the Book of Job:
"Though He slay me, yet I will believe in Him."

We have to be careful, I think, about attributing all the evil, suffering, and discord to an Act of God. It may be part of a grand plan, or perhaps, as the 18th century Deists believed, the Supreme Being was the Great Clockmaker, who set the Universe in motion and left it to run according to its own rules, one of which, I hasten to add, is human free will. Perhaps a death of an individual may be a tiny piece of the puzzle of great purpose, maybe not. But it's extremely arrogant, I think, to pronounce everything that goes wrong or contrary to our desires as "God's Will." As I wrote in my blog, it's just as bad to say that death is merely part of the natural cycle, which in its exquisite abstraction, does nothing to comfort a person when he or his loved one is dying.

For 2000 years of history, a great population has believed in a God who -- far from causing death or "allowing" death-- conquered death. When my mother died when I was only 11 years old, my father when I was 22, when the older of my two children was diagnosed with a pervasive and permanent disability, when my only brother passed away two years ago, followed by my youngest sister just a week ago yesterday, I did not blame God. I did not think that cancer, illness, or a life-changing condition was a judgement of God but a question of chance, a quirk of nature. 

But let me tell you something-- with her earthquakes, floods, killer storms and all manner of cataclysms, *Nature is a gentle, cookie-cutting grandmother compared to the horrifying things we do to each other.* 

William James, a scientist and philosopher, said that we believe certain ideas to be "good" because "we are fond of them" but also because "they are helpful in life's practical struggles." Some of us, struggling with grief and ongoing troubles, look both inward and outward to something beyond our puny selves, for truth. Some of us find certain beliefs to be helpful even though others may find these very beliefs to be --as Dawkins says in the video -- "silly and childish."

Life is tough enough without faith. Some of us tend to certain beliefs because without them the universe is even more indifferent, pointless, and cold. Some of us need to believe that the Universe has a purpose, and find a semblance of solace in the idea of a metaphysical presence of ultimate benevolence.

Forgive me, but to deny that tiny comfort to another human being in the grip of grief --to call it "silly"-- seems unspeakably heartless and cruel.

----------


## The Atheist

> Forgive me, but to deny that tiny comfort to another human being in the grip of grief --to call it "silly"-- seems unspeakably heartless and cruel.


You need to read more carefully - I didn't say that.

I said it would be silly for you to believe there were no atheist mourners, because it is demonstrably incorrect.

----------


## AuntShecky

> You need to read more carefully - I didn't say that.
> 
> I said it would be silly for you to believe there were no atheist mourners, because it is demonstrably incorrect.


I meant Dawkins, who used the word "silly" to describe
believers.

----------


## The Atheist

> I meant Dawkins, who used the word "silly" to describe
> believers.


Gotcha; I think it was you calling him "Dawson" got me confused.

 :Smile:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> One of the scientists seems fond of the favorite phrase of our original poster,"The Atheist,": "straw man."


I've also noticed that phrase being bandied about a lot lately. I haven't decided how I feel about it yet: I've been accused of creating "straw men" before, and it seems to me like an effort to polarize an issue. It's like you can't make good points for both sides of a debate, you HAVE to pick a side and pretend that the opposing arguments dont exist or else are easy to disprove. I _hate_ polarizing issues, because it tends to make people prejudice and creates groupthink situations. On the other hand, it _is_ describing a method of argument that's been used a lot lately which can be fairly blinding and effective. I've read articles before in which the writer is clearly building an idea up just to tear it apart in the in the second half, and as a reader you go along with her reasoning and the conclusion that she pretends to reach is easy to swallow - much easier than if her point had just been a simple counter argument (which is really much more honest and less underhanded). 




> One of the more interesting facts brought out by the scientists was the fact that there may be a "God gene," a program in an individual's DNA code which determines whether he or she believes in God."


I really don't like that idea, and I also disagree. It takes free will and reason right out of the equation. Not everything that we do and think can be attributed to genetics. Someone in one of my psych classes once tried to argue that there was a genetic predisposition among white European descendants which made them more likely to prefer apples over oranges than other racial and cultural groups, it's ridiculous. People _do_ have the ability to think, we aren't slaves to our genetics. It's like when people blame their genetics on drug use or alcoholism, or when they blame their adultery on gender. Sorry buddy, you have a rational mind and you make your own decisions, no passing the buck. You know, there are court cases where people try to get away with crimes by blaming their genetics?

It reminds me of the behaviourists in the '50's who were trying to prove that absolutely everything was the effect of conditioning, there are _so_ many problems with both of these schools of thought. Why are some people believers early in life and then atheists later on? If theism is dependant on genetics, shouldn't it be consistent? Why isn't a child who was born of theistic parents and then adopted by atheists more likely to tend towards atheism? Why is the world gradually becoming more atheistic, are atheists more _evolved_ than theists? Can't be, theists reproduce much faster. So many holes. 





> For 2000 years of history, a great population has believed in a God who -- far from causing death or "allowing" death-- conquered death.


I could see that with death - if you believe that your you-ness continues after your body ceases to function then really there IS no death - but that doesn't really apply to suffering, which definitely exists whether you believe in god or not. If there is an omnipotent being out there that's supposed to be watching over us (even the watchmaker metaphor doesn't work - watches have to be take in for repairs fairly often, right?), then it must be just sitting there allowing so much suffering to go on. 




> Forgive me, but to deny that tiny comfort to another human being in the grip of grief --to call it "silly"-- seems unspeakably heartless and cruel.


Agreed, _as long as they keep it to themselves._ When Christians try to shove their ideas down your throat or imply that you're a bad person because you don't pretend to care about the thing that they worship, then I take issue.

----------


## YesNo

> People _do_ have the ability to think, we aren't slaves to our genetics.


I agree. 

Basically, I suspect we become what we love to think about. Focusing the mind on money, for example, we become, to the best of our physical ability, what we love. Focus on something better, and there might be a better outcome even if to others all we think about are dreams and illusions.





> I could see that with death - if you believe that your you-ness continues after your body ceases to function then really there IS no death - but that doesn't really apply to suffering, which definitely exists whether you believe in god or not. If there is an omnipotent being out there that's supposed to be watching over us (even the watchmaker metaphor doesn't work - watches have to be take in for repairs fairly often, right?), then it must be just sitting there allowing so much suffering to go on.


If you consider the possibility that your "you-ness" _can't_ die, even if you commit suicide, maybe the point of suffering is not to avoid it. Who knows?

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I think we wink out like a light turned off. The "youness" is gone. We just have to get over being upset about that and enjoy our "selves" while we can. Trying to extend our lives seems like a really important thing to do also. We won't figure out what the keys are to unlocking the mysteries of our bizarre universe if we keep reproducing people who live very short lives.

I saw my brother's dead body. It did not inspire the mental retardation required to start deluding myself that his spirit would go on. The energy ceased to flow through his body and brain, thus ending his awareness and his flow of thoughts and memories, thereby completing his "self". His body was just a dead machine. Like a broken computer. Nothing was spared. Not the hard drive. Not anything. Just the skin casing until that got burned up in the incinerator.

We are a society of whining, sissy victims. It's time to get brave. Religion is giving up on curiosity and succumbing to mental illness brought on by fear. End of story.

Try this: Chill out, cutie cupcakes! Have some fun. Read books.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I think we wink out like a light turned off. The "youness" is gone. We just have to get over being upset about that and enjoy our "selves" while we can. Trying to extend our lives seems like a really important thing to do also. We won't figure out what the keys are to unlocking the mysteries of our bizarre universe if we keep reproducing people who live very short lives.
> 
> I saw my brother's dead body. It did not inspire the mental retardation required to start deluding myself that his spirit would go on. The energy ceased to flow through his body and brain, thus ending his awareness and his flow of thoughts and memories, thereby completing his "self". His body was just a dead machine. Like a broken computer. Nothing was spared. Not the hard drive. Not anything. Just the skin casing until that got burned up in the incinerator.
> 
> We are a society of whining, sissy victims. It's time to get brave. Religion is giving up on curiosity and succumbing to mental illness brought on by fear. End of story.
> 
> Try this: Chill out, cutie cupcakes! Have some fun. Read books.


You know, it's probably not a good idea to call people who believe in the afterlife retarded. Deluded? Maybe. Wrong? Possibly. Mistaken? Sure.

----------


## DanielBenoit

What do I think of the new militancy in atheist movements? One word comes to mind: Annoying.

Just as annoying as the new bouts of evangelicalism throughout the country.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You know, it's probably not a good idea to call people who believe in the afterlife retarded. Deluded? Maybe. Wrong? Possibly. Mistaken? Sure.


People are very easily offended these days. Respecting someone else's beliefs doesn't extend to me praising them or holding back criticism. You don't like the word "retarded"? I understand that, but I meant it scientifically. Retardation is another term for a severe deficiency. It can be mental or motor. In this case, I would have to do significant brain damage to myself in order to achieve delusions on such a grand level.

I was speaking on a personal level. I do not wish to retard myself. I hope this brings more clarity to my earlier post.

If someone is huffing paint and telling their kids to huff paint, I can respect their right to harm their brains and raise damaged children, but I don't have to say I like it. I have the right to say it disgusts me.  :Smile: 

Merry Christmas, Christians! Keep sipping that kool-aid!

PS
I'm not angry or militant. If that's the conclusion you've jumped to, you're taking me way too seriously.  :Wink:

----------


## Scheherazade

*W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your comments.

If you are unable to show respect towards those whose views are different from yours, please refrain from taking part in this discussion.

Posts containing inflammatory or personal comments will be removed without further notice.*

----------


## DanielBenoit

A question to atheists: what value if any do you find in religion? Do you believe that religious belief doesn't necessarily have to be based on an ontology and can in a sense an attempt to understand ourselves and not necessarily the universe?

What I'm tired of is hearing these religious debates turn into a debate on evolution and creationism. The latter is just a stupid way to try to counter the supposed threat of science on religious belief and in fact devalues the value of the religious experience into some kind of political or scientific argument, which is anything but faith.

I think the main problem I have with atheism of the Dawkins-crowd is not that it doesn't believe in a religion (for I do not) but that it is so antagonistic towards religious belief, sentiment and scripture. Just discrediting it as mere fairy tales and nonsense. I think it is the prime error of normative Judeo-Christianity that the stories of the Bible are to be taken literarly. It is mandatory that one understands (or tries to understand) the historical and literary contexts of the Biblical canon and recognize that much of it was not intended as historical truth (the idea of writing history during the time of the writing of Genesis for example was totally different from ours).

----------


## Drkshadow03

> People are very easily offended these days. Respecting someone else's beliefs doesn't extend to me praising them or holding back criticism. You don't like the word "retarded"? I understand that, but I meant it scientifically. Retardation is another term for a severe deficiency. It can be mental or motor. In this case, I would have to do significant brain damage to myself in order to achieve delusions on such a grand level.
> 
> I was speaking on a personal level. I do not wish to retard myself. I hope this brings more clarity to my earlier post.
> 
> If someone is huffing paint and telling their kids to huff paint, I can respect their right to harm their brains and raise damaged children, but I don't have to say I like it. I have the right to say it disgusts me. 
> 
> Merry Christmas, Christians! Keep sipping that kool-aid!
> 
> PS
> I'm not angry or militant. If that's the conclusion you've jumped to, you're taking me way too seriously.


Criticism involves a rigorous questioning of an idea or showing a lack of evidence for it or demonstrating evidence that counters it (all of which can be done and has been done by the posters prior to you). Calling something a "mental illness" and an act of "mental retardation" is just an insult and I would argue a dehumanizing act that isn't so much attacking the belief, but the people who profess it.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> A question to atheists: what value if any do you find in religion? Do you believe that religious belief doesn't necessarily have to be based on an ontology and can in a sense an attempt to understand ourselves and not necessarily the universe?
> 
> 
> ...I think the main problem I have with atheism of the Dawkins-crowd is not that it doesn't believe in a religion (for I do not) but that it is so antagonistic towards religious belief, sentiment and scripture. Just discrediting it as mere fairy tales and nonsense. I think it is the prime error of normative Judeo-Christianity that the stories of the Bible are to be taken literarly. It is mandatory that one understands (or tries to understand) the historical and literary contexts of the Biblical canon and recognize that much of it was not intended as historical truth (the idea of writing history during the time of the writing of Genesis for example was totally different from ours).


Atheists view religion as mythology. What value do you place on religions and/or mythologies that you feel have been disproven or simply not supported by enough evidence for you to attach your faith to them? Do you place a high value on ancient Roman or Greek mythologies? From a literary standpoint, some of the stories are entertaining.

I am atheist and I do not take the bible literally. I don't view that as an atheist problem. I have been confronted by fundamentalist Christians who do take the bible literally, and attempt to use the text as evidence to support their claims, as is their right. If a question is posed in a literal way, I will have to answer it in kind with scientific evidence, as is the right of the atheist. This type of debate might at some point lead to better understanding.

A lot of bible stories came from Jews, who have themselves acknowledged that these are simply fables for schooling people toward decent behaviors (morals). This atheist understands that and it further contributes to my choice to be non-religious. I haven't encountered the atheists who are attached to literal meanings in the bible. Not saying they aren't out there. Stranger things have happened.  :Smile:

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Criticism involves a rigorous questioning of an idea or showing a lack of evidence for it or demonstrating evidence that counters it (all of which can be done and has been done by the posters prior to you). Calling something a "mental illness" and an act of "mental retardation" is just an insult and I would argue a dehumanizing act that isn't so much attacking the belief, but the people who profess it.


You have misjudged me greatly. Really though, some context. I did not say Christianity was "an act of mental retardation." I said I couldn't retard my awareness to a level of delusion that would allow me to have faith. If you don't understand that I'm not calling anyone retarded by saying that, I can only apologize for the confusion I have caused you.

It's like if I told you I had a doctorate, and pointed out that someone else was only in the beginning stages of medical school, you would accuse me of abusing them and calling them retarded. Statistically, people with a higher education are less likely to be extremely religious. That doesn't mean all educated people are non-religious and it doesn't mean that religious people are retarded. I have reached a level of awareness in which religion has been negated for me. To go back to my own previous level of awareness, in which I was a Christian, I would have to retard my mental database. Again, this in no way makes Christians retarded. 

If nothing else, I hope this fosters a better understanding of vocabulary. I mean no insult to anyone.

As to the mental illness classification, in my recent psychology classes we learned that religion is largely convincing based on a sort of indoctrination that occurs in the "nurture" environment. It is not genetic, it is socioculturally influenced. It is also used by a great many people as a sort of therapy, a means of feeling good, or better, or to separate from things a person finds unpleasant. Since prayer is not a chemical or biological treatment, it's effectiveness is based on mental reaction, it can be classified as a placebo. Placebo effects generate a mental disorder in which q subject feels they have been "treated" or "healed" or "saved."

Now that you know the derrivation of my comments, I hope you don't feel so injured by me. I'm a really nice girl and I don't enjoy having my opinions misrepresented or malice assigned to my intentions when there is none. I do understand the confusion, and my apology is sincere. I have friends and family who are Christian, and their faith and kindness is endearing to me, but I can't pretend to relate to them theologically. If that is an offense to you, you may be destined to be offended by atheism (without or anti-theism).

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Atheists view religion as mythology. What value do you place on religions and/or mythologies that you feel have been disproven or simply not supported by enough evidence for you to attach your faith to them? Do you place a high value on ancient Roman or Greek mythologies? From a literary standpoint, some of the stories are entertaining.


Again, this is the typical ontological stance that is taken by atheists. Religion, especially when you actually understand and read scripture (this is not just Judeo-Christian scripture) is more than just simply believing the in the validity of these myths. It is a terrible misreading of normative Judeo-Christian religions to take stories like the Garden of Eden or the Tower of Babel as literal fact. The people who wrote them were writing a tradition of mythology and ritual in establishing their national/ethnic/cultural identity. Yahweh may not exist, but there is profound spiritual truth to be found in the stories of the Torah and to disregard them as useless myths or just mere entertainment is like disregarding Shakespeare as a mere crowd-pleaser.

People adopt a religion not out of their antagonism towards science (something Dawkinites constantly spout), but because it is spiritually fulfilling for them. Science is totally valid but it cannot provide you with what religion provides because they are two completely separate things.

And btw, the stories can't be "disproved" because they were never meant to _be_ proved or taken as fact. The foundation of a religion is to create a mythology that explains this or that groups view of the universe and human nature. This is philosophical and not scientific and it was never meant to be.




> I am atheist and I do not take the bible literally.


But when you take the Bible as a text trying to establish a science (or from your view a pseudoscience) you are taking it literally, even though you might not believe in it.

For example: Both atheists and fundimentalists take a reading of the Garden of Eden as literal. The only difference is that fundimentalists accept the historical validity of the stories on faith while atheists look at them as absurd (the talking snake etc.). Both approaches do injustice to the depths of the text.

Like I said, you're asking for proof of a theory that doesn't even attempt to be a theory. It's kind of ironic but most atheists, like fundimentalists, do indeed treat the Bible as science, the only difference is that atheists find it to be utterly untrue and "disproven".




> A lot of bible stories came from Jews, who have themselves acknowledged that these are simply fables for schooling people toward decent behaviors (morals).


Even though I'm not Jewish, I like to take the approach many Jews seem to take towards the Bible (and my outlook on the Bible is essentially Jewish). There's some joke I heard that every rabbi you meet will have a different opinion on the Torah. I think it is important in understanding these tales not only as morality tales (in fact the Old Testament is a chronicle of human failure and not exactly morals) but of a deeper understanding of life and of ourselves.

Whether we like it our not, religions form a basis of civilizations. This does not mean that the good outweighs the bad or vice-versa, but we must recognize that almost all Western thought is derivative of the Bible (the rest is derivative of ancient Greek thought).

My final statement is this: Religion is not a science and thus it is not meant to do what science does. If I'm not mistaken (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the idea of having _faith_ in God is a Christian concept and the "in-way" to becoming a Christian. For Jews it is whether or not you trust in Yahweh's covenant and with Muslims it is if you submit to Allah. These are different epistemic approaches and to apply the Christian idea of faith to Judiaism or Islam will make no sense because they are all different traditions (or rather, different approaches to a single tradition).

----------


## Drkshadow03

Varenne: Fair enough. I was just defending some of the other posters who I thought you were insulting.




> There's some joke I heard that every rabbi you meet will have a different opinion on the Torah. I think it is important in understanding these tales not only as morality tales (in fact the Old Testament is a chronicle of human failure and not exactly morals) but of a deeper understanding of life and of ourselves.


Two Jews, three opinions?

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Two Jews, three opinions?


Lol yeah.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Varenne: Fair enough. I was just defending some of the other posters who I thought you were insulting.


Thank you, Shadow. I reread what I wrote and it did come off much snarkier than I had intended. It was certainly my error. For what it's worth, I appreciate the compassion you've shown to your fellow litnetters, and I look forward to reading more of your opinions and insights.

I think we essentially agree, Daniel. That being said, I am a scientist without religion. I try to explain everything with science, or I wouldn't be a scientist. However, I understand that there are some things that have not been explained by science, so people concoct mythologies to attempt a better understanding of the abstract. In a way, there are many fables that I have embraced in my life that have contributed greatly to my happiness and my decent set of ethics. I just want to know more about why we're here, and some aspects and practitioners of some religions can greatly hinder physical sciences; with legislation, protest, shunning of information, attempted censorship of educational materials, and costly faith driven wars. In the face of that I have to speak up for science, but I'm not one of the ones trying to insert the science factor into someone's faith in attempts to bust it up just 'cause.

I like some shows of faith. It's alright with me when it brings people happiness, as long as it isn't harming others. The issue I sometimes take with Christianity is that some of it's groups have caused great damage to my life and mankind. With good intentions, religious groups have often blocked scientific practices, methods and researches that could already have extended human lives by hundreds of years. As an atheist, my predicament is that I don't have the luxury of thinking there's an afterlife. I want to live as long as I can, forever, if ever possible. When so many people seem content to die when it's "their time" or when it's "God's plan," it worries me that doctors and scientists won't ever have the support needed to prolong life indefinitely. It makes me feel doomed to obscurity. 

So maybe, if other atheists feel as I do, they're just quick to explain the sciences of life in the hopes that people will care more about making this life good and long lasting. Whereas the Christians I have known want to make good, finite lives, with paradise awaiting after. The big difference might be that Christians find a way to be content to die, and atheists only feel content if we don't give up on life. Both causes are admirable in their own ways.

I am sleepy. Ha.

Oh! I should mention that I am American. There are a lot of evangelical Christians here who definitely take the bible literally and force and bend legislation often and dangerously. My disclaimer is that these individuals have influenced all of my religious debates. There's no way around it, but I'm sorry if my views have been incompatible with those of people residing in countries that tend to embrace common sense more frequently.

----------


## The Atheist

> We are a society of whining, sissy victims.


Bravo! 




> A question to atheists: what value if any do you find in religion?


It's hard to quantify, because I must look at the _net_ result of religion.

I believe there are net benefits to _being part of_ a religion, but that religion itself is a net cost to society.

The issue is enormously complicated, and exacerbated by there not really being any counter-cultural groupings that give the same kind of personal benefits as religion.

On the other hand, there are few organisations as corrupt and evil as some religious sects.




> Do you believe that religious belief doesn't necessarily have to be based on an ontology and can in a sense an attempt to understand ourselves and not necessarily the universe?


How would an atheist care why people follow a religion? I'm sure there is no one reason, so it's an unanswerable question.




> I think the main problem I have with atheism of the Dawkins-crowd is not that it doesn't believe in a religion (for I do not) but that it is so antagonistic towards religious belief, sentiment and scripture. Just discrediting it as mere fairy tales and nonsense.


Unfortunately, you'll have to do a lot more than say the bible isn't fairytales and nonsense, because to me, that's precisely what it is.

The morality of the bible is a joke and isn't even followed by the vast majority of christians. Should we not eat pork? Are crayfish "unclean"? Should we wear beards or not? Which parts of the bible's morality should we accept as valid or reasonable?

Even if we use Jesus' morality exclusively, we would do away with law courts at once because everyone involved in the legal process will have sinned at some time, so cannot judge another.

If you think you can show how biblical morality has moved human morality forwards rather than backwards - as I believe it has - have a crack. Given that absurd rules were made across vast tracts of Europe for centuries because someone wrote something 2000 years beforehand your position may be somewhat difficult to defend.




> Oh! I should mention that I am American. There are a lot of evangelical Christians here who definitely take the bible literally and force and bend legislation often and dangerously. My disclaimer is that these individuals have influenced all of my religious debates. There's no way around it, but I'm sorry if my views have been incompatible with those of people residing in countries that tend to embrace common sense more frequently.


Yes, it's a common problem with Americans, and as I live in the bible belt of NZ, where US-style evangelical/Pentecostal churches are growing quickly, I feel your pain!

 :Biggrin:

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> I think we essentially agree, Daniel. That being said, I am a scientist without religion. I try to explain everything with science, or I wouldn't be a scientist.


You're not a science psycholgist. I'm too tired to get into this conversation right now (it takes me a clear mind to come up with a good post), but before I come back tomorrow, try to think about religion from the point of view of psychological science (and not just an explination, which is obvious, but some of the benefits and costs, and which route is more "worth it").




> Yes, it's a common problem with Americans, and as I live in the bible belt of NZ, where US-style evangelical/Pentecostal churches are growing quickly, I feel your pain!


Ah, two of our most vocal atheists are right in the thick of the whole mess! That actually explains a lot - being Canadian, we aren't overwhelmed with evangelists (I think that the last one I saw was three years ago when I was waitressing) and we don't have anything that even _resembles_ Fox News.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> You're not a science psycholgist. I'm too tired to get into this conversation right now (it takes me a clear mind to come up with a good post), but before I come back tomorrow, try to think about religion from the point of view of psychological science (and not just an explination, which is obvious, but some of the benefits and costs, and which route is more "worth it").
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, two of our most vocal atheists are right in the thick of the whole mess! That actually explains a lot - being Canadian, we aren't overwhelmed with evangelists (I think that the last one I saw was three years ago when I was waitressing) and we don't have anything that even _resembles_ Fox News.


Eh, it depends where you live in the states too. There isn't really much of an evangelical presence in NY, at least where I'm from. Oh sure, there are some. I dated an evangelical, for example, but you almost have to be looking specifically for them. I think people get this weird perception that everywhere in U.S. is like the deep south. 






> Unfortunately, you'll have to do a lot more than say the bible isn't fairytales and nonsense, because to me, that's precisely what it is.
> 
> The morality of the bible is a joke and isn't even followed by the vast majority of christians. Should we not eat pork? Are crayfish "unclean"? Should we wear beards or not? Which parts of the bible's morality should we accept as valid or reasonable?
> 
> Even if we use Jesus' morality exclusively, we would do away with law courts at once because everyone involved in the legal process will have sinned at some time, so cannot judge another.
> 
> If you think you can show how biblical morality has moved human morality forwards rather than backwards - as I believe it has - have a crack. Given that absurd rules were made across vast tracts of Europe for centuries because someone wrote something 2000 years beforehand your position may be somewhat difficult to defend.


Of course, Daniel made no comment whatsoever about the morality of the Bible. Nevertheless, I certainly think one can draw some decent enough morals from the Bible, such as the golden rule, helping one's neighbors, showing respect towards one's parents, treating all people with respect (with limitations, of course), etc.

Of course, no one is saying these morals are exclusive to the Bible.

----------


## YesNo

> For example: Both atheists and fundimentalists take a reading of the Garden of Eden as literal. The only difference is that fundimentalists accept the historical validity of the stories on faith while atheists look at them as absurd (the talking snake etc.). Both approaches do injustice to the depths of the text.


I hadn't thought of it like this before, but I think you are right. Both atheists and fundamentalists take the Bible literally, and I might add, they are only interested in the Bible, no other religious tradition.

There are other positions independent of this bipolar social division between atheists and fundamentalist Christians, just like in the US there aren't just Democrats and Republicans. There are also independents.




> Whether we like it our not, religions form a basis of civilizations. This does not mean that the good outweighs the bad or vice-versa, but we must recognize that almost all Western thought is derivative of the Bible (the rest is derivative of ancient Greek thought).


This is a good reason to read other cultural traditions. We are lucky they exist to give us a fresh perspective.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I hadn't thought of it like this before, but I think you are right. Both atheists and fundamentalists take the Bible literally, and I might add, they are only interested in the Bible, no other religious tradition.


Not only is Daniel right, I noticed the same exact phenomena when I began re-reading the bible eight months ago.

I wrote this on my blog on April 10 2010:




> "Indeed, when I thought about why I wanted to pursue this project of re-reading the Bible from beginning to end and commenting on each piece, I realized that I considered both the Christian fundamentalist literal readings of the Bible and the skeptical atheist readings that assumes it's all a myth, complains that sections are illogical, and full of atrocities, which invariably relies on its own form of literal reading of the Bible, to be two sides of the same corroded coin. After all, if you're going to question biblical narrative from strict logic and science then you're reading the text in a literal fashion. For example, if a skeptic claims that it makes no sense that light exists prior to the stars and sun existing in Genesis 1, then they're reading in a literal fashion; by asking such a question of the text it presupposes the text was meant to be taken literally and fails to consider the literary reasoning behind the text, the possibility that such details might fulfill a symbolic, thematic, and structural purpose where the authors didn't care about the impossibility of light coming prior to the existence of the sun; they were more interested in the symbolic meaning behind the ordering. I find such literal readings to be short-sighted because it fails to step into the shoes of the original authors; the Bible employs very sophisticated literary techniques that may not always be obvious, especially to those not willing to try to understand the text on its own terms. Nevertheless, I'm not solely interested in reading it on its own terms, or trying to reconstruct the Bible of the Ancient Israelites. This isn't to say I don't want to reconstruct the meanings behind the text, but I also want to delve into what this text means to me today as both a Jew and as an individual interested in literature. I want to read it through my own lens; I want to share Eric's interpretation of the Bible with my readers."






> There are other positions independent of this bipolar social division between atheists and fundamentalist Christians, just like in the US there aren't just Democrats and Republicans. There are also independents.


Yes, exactly. One of the biggest problems with these debates is the assumption that there are two sides or at least that's how people tend to act, while there are in fact hundreds of slightly different positions. 

I'm a cultural Jew who celebrates the major Jewish holidays, never goes to synagogue, and believes in God most of the time (which is really the position that I have no idea if God exists or not, but I'm leaning towards he does, and some days I lean towards he probably doesn't), and basically live a 98% secular life. The hardcore theists drive me just as nuts as most atheists; I want evolution to be taught and think it's terrible when the religious nutjobs interfere with education, but at the same time certain atheists have annoyed me because they act like that last 2% somehow offends them. 






> This is a good reason to read other cultural traditions. We are lucky they exist to give us a fresh perspective.


Yeah, I think it's important to read the literature and the cultural traditions of other people.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Unfortunately, you'll have to do a lot more than say the bible isn't fairytales and nonsense, because to me, that's precisely what it is.
> 
> The morality of the bible is a joke and isn't even followed by the vast majority of christians. Should we not eat pork? Are crayfish "unclean"? Should we wear beards or not? Which parts of the bible's morality should we accept as valid or reasonable?
> 
> Yes, it's a common problem with Americans, and as I live in the bible belt of NZ, where US-style evangelical/Pentecostal churches are growing quickly, I feel your pain!


Thank you, Atheist! You're quite brilliant, aren't you? You might be my favorite person right now.  :Smile:

----------


## YesNo

> One of the biggest problems with these debates is the assumption that there are two sides or at least that's how people tend to act, while there are in fact hundreds of slightly different positions.


Yes, I agree. There are way more than two sides. 

I also like how you described the two positions in your blog as 




> two sides of the same corroded coin

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> You're not a science psycholgist. I'm too tired to get into this conversation right now (it takes me a clear mind to come up with a good post), but before I come back tomorrow, try to think about religion from the point of view of psychological science (and not just an explination, which is obvious, but some of the benefits and costs, and which route is more "worth it").
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, two of our most vocal atheists are right in the thick of the whole mess! That actually explains a lot - being Canadian, we aren't overwhelmed with evangelists (I think that the last one I saw was three years ago when I was waitressing) and we don't have anything that even _resembles_ Fox News.


You make great points. I'm not technically a science psychologist, but I am a psych minor, bio-chem major, so you tell me what I should call myself.  :Wink: 

Fox News is one of the worst things to happen to this country. I wish criminal action could be taken against it. I'm not from a bible belt, I'm from Southern Caifornia. Even the generally progressive people here have been screwed up by the nutso media. Mega confusion abides. It's pretty funny when it's not scary.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Bravo! 
> 
> 
> 
> It's hard to quantify, because I must look at the _net_ result of religion.
> 
> I believe there are net benefits to _being part of_ a religion, but that religion itself is a net cost to society.
> 
> The issue is enormously complicated, and exacerbated by there not really being any counter-cultural groupings that give the same kind of personal benefits as religion.
> ...


Fair enough.





> Unfortunately, you'll have to do a lot more than say the bible isn't fairytales and nonsense, because to me, that's precisely what it is.


Maybe reading some biblical scholarship would help:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-J-Harold-Bloom/dp/0802141919

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Ri.../dp/0060630353

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bib...0&sr=1-2-spell

Also, we must keep our definitions straight: If the Bible is just a bunch of fairy-tales, then why is it that it has something of a better following than say. . .Aesop's Fables? There is more to the whole project in the scriptures than just telling fairy tales.




> The morality of the bible is a joke and isn't even followed by the vast majority of christians. Should we not eat pork? Are crayfish "unclean"? Should we wear beards or not? Which parts of the bible's morality should we accept as valid or reasonable?
> 
> Even if we use Jesus' morality exclusively, we would do away with law courts at once because everyone involved in the legal process will have sinned at some time, so cannot judge another.


This is a common mistake made by both atheists and fundamentalists: What Bible are you talking about? We fail to recognize that the Bible is a canon and not a complete book. The differences between the Old and New Testament are great because they are both two different traditions (or rather, the NT is a tradition sprung out of the OT). But there's even different opinions, ideas and motives of the authors within the OT or NT. One must also account for the Redactor edits made upon many parts of the scripture.

I should say also that _yes_ there are some nutty things in the Bible (being bisexual, I do not exactly appreciate Leviticus 20), but we must once again remember that the Bible is a tradition of texts and not one complete text. Also, the Bible is not meant to be a series of morality tales (unlike as normative traditions has interpreted it for millennia). There is an awful misconception of the Book of Job by Christians as some kind of morality tale about how one should keep their faith even if God does strange things. They kind of forget that almost the entire book deals with Job fretting over _why_ God had to destroy his entire life. The book ends not with God coming to explain to Job to be patient, but with God "coming out of the whirlwinds" and virtually mocking him, posing more puzzles and ambiguities and then leaving. Not exactly a morality tale I think.[/QUOTE]




> If you think you can show how biblical morality has moved human morality forwards rather than backwards - as I believe it has - have a crack. Given that absurd rules were made across vast tracts of Europe for centuries because someone wrote something 2000 years beforehand your position may be somewhat difficult to defend.


As stated before, it is both an atheist and normative Judeo-Christian misconception that there _is_ Biblical morality (or immorality if you wish). Little of the OT are outright morality tales. The entire post-crusifixtion history of the West has been a misreading of both the OT and NT, simply because there is no single reading. Why would I defend 2000 years of horrid abuses of the Bible?

That said, I'm not going to deny that an anti-Semitic interpretation of the NT or some nutty interpretation of the OT has had an gross effect on civilization. But you cannot blame the texts for the people who were perverse enough to carry out such acts.




> Not only is Daniel right, I noticed the same exact phenomena when I began re-reading the bible eight months ago.
> 
> I wrote this on my blog on April 10 2010:


Lol, I should probably read your blog.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

> Fair enough.
> 
> Maybe reading some biblical scholarship would help:
> 
> Also, we must keep our definitions straight: If the Bible is just a bunch of fairy-tales, then why is it that it has something of a better following than say. . .Aesop's Fables? There is more to the whole project in the scriptures than just telling fairy tales.
> 
> This is a common mistake made by both atheists and fundamentalists: What Bible are you talking about? We fail to recognize that the Bible is a canon and not a complete book. The differences between the Old and New Testament are great because they are both two different traditions (or rather, the NT is a tradition sprung out of the OT). But there's even different opinions, ideas and motives of the authors within the OT or NT. One must also account for the Redactor edits made upon many parts of the scripture.
> 
> I should say also that _yes_ there are some nutty things in the Bible (being bisexual, I do not exactly appreciate Leviticus 20), but we must once again remember that the Bible is a tradition of texts and not one complete text. Also, the Bible is not meant to be a series of morality tales (unlike as normative traditions has interpreted it for millennia). There is an awful misconception of the Book of Job by Christians as some kind of morality tale about how one should keep their faith even if God does strange things. They kind of forget that almost the entire book deals with Job fretting over _why_ God had to destroy his entire life. The book ends not with God coming to explain to Job to be patient, but with God "coming out of the whirlwinds" and virtually mocking him, posing more puzzles and ambiguities and then leaving. Not exactly a morality tale I think.


As stated before, it is both an atheist and normative Judeo-Christian misconception that there _is_ Biblical morality (or immorality if you wish). Little of the OT are outright morality tales. The entire post-crusifixtion history of the West has been a misreading of both the OT and NT, simply because there is no single reading. Why would I defend 2000 years of horrid abuses of the Bible?

That said, I'm not going to deny that an anti-Semitic interpretation of the NT or some nutty interpretation of the OT has had an gross effect on civilization. But you cannot blame the texts for the people who were perverse enough to carry out such acts.



Lol, I should probably read your blog.[/QUOTE]

Hm. I think issues are being conflated here. Any version of the bible, or any religious text, by nature of being atheist, have to be viewed as fairy tales and/or mythology. You have yourself called it mythology. Why should we examine it over and over to try to find deeper meaning? For me, it is clear that no story of man points to evidence of deities. Perhaps you just want it to be something valid so badly, that you feel compelled to urge people to stop thinking of fact vs. fiction. 

I mean, I'm not sure what your position is. You seem to be saying that atheist and Christian opinions are incorrect. So what is your argument? At some point it was brought up that there are many many interpretations or bibles and points of view, but maybe you don't understand the nature of atheism. ALL theism is flawed, incomplete, invalid. The only people saying that atheists fixate on Christianity as the big opponent are not atheists. Christianity stands out in these arguments because there aren't scientologists or snake charmers here arguing their causes. Let me just say, we live, we struggle, we die. All of the rest is theory at this point. It doesn't mean that there are zero possibilities, and it doesn't mean atheists are dissing the bible as literature. But why should we care about or value the bible or any bible when we feel that these religions have been debunked and only serve to confuse and assert cultlike mentality on masses?

What DO you want atheists to say about the things you are talking about? I am genuinely curious as to what you think the atheist position should be, and how you think we should pose our arguments, instead of just berating us for discussing scientific fact.  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> I hadn't thought of it like this before, but I think you are right. Both atheists and fundamentalists take the Bible literally, and I might add, they are only interested in the Bible, no other religious tradition.


That is incorrect.

Atheists don't usually take the bible literally at all. I look at each individual analysis of the bible and discuss that.

Given the bible's ridiculous mess of contradictions and outright fallacies, finding sane analysis isn't always easy, so one is left with the words themselves as a starting point.

To say that the bible is the only part of interest is allso fallacious. Speaking personally, the bible doesn't interest me a bit until some theist tries to use it as justification or evidence.

As with most active atheists, including Dawkins _et al_, what concerns us is the indoctrination of young minds with mumbo-jumbo, the attempted inflicting of religion-generated morality on others and the proliferation of anti-science propaganda.

I believe, as I have often said that opponents of atheism are far more likely to use a strawman argument than anyone else.

Unless you can show that even a significant percentage of atheists adhere to the traits you claim, you should stop making the claim.




> There are other positions independent of this bipolar social division between atheists and fundamentalist Christians, just like in the US there aren't just Democrats and Republicans. There are also independents.


Again, I believe this is a false dichotomy of your making; it does not reflect reality.




> This is a good reason to read other cultural traditions. We are lucky they exist to give us a fresh perspective.


I agree. It's a question of how seriously one takes them. The Mayan 2012 apocalypse is a case in point.




> Thank you, Atheist! You're quite brilliant, aren't you? You might be my favorite person right now.


Wow, I'm blushing!




> Maybe reading some biblical scholarship would help:


As noted in my reply above, I don't need biblical scholarship and I certainly don't take the bible literally. Not that I believe it's possible to take it literally.




> Also, we must keep our definitions straight: If the Bible is just a bunch of fairy-tales, then why is it that it has something of a better following than say. . .Aesop's Fables? There is more to the whole project in the scriptures than just telling fairy tales.


Aesop didn't claim to be a god or the son of a god.

Aesop did not have the luxury of his supporters actually torturing people for not believing in him and he most definitely did not have supporters burning books written in opposition to his fables.




> This is a common mistake made by both atheists and fundamentalists: What Bible are you talking about? We fail to recognize that the Bible is a canon and not a complete book. The differences between the Old and New Testament are great because they are both two different traditions (or rather, the NT is a tradition sprung out of the OT). But there's even different opinions, ideas and motives of the authors within the OT or NT. One must also account for the Redactor edits made upon many parts of the scripture.


They are not mistakes I make and that is borne out by my many references to the apocrypha, among others.




> As stated before, it is both an atheist and normative Judeo-Christian misconception that there _is_ Biblical morality (or immorality if you wish). Little of the OT are outright morality tales. The entire post-crusifixtion history of the West has been a misreading of both the OT and NT, simply because there is no single reading. Why would I defend 2000 years of horrid abuses of the Bible?


Regardless of what you think, there are hundreds of millions of christians who *do* use the bible as a basis for their morality.

----------


## OrphanPip

I think it's irrelevant whether the New Atheist read the Bible literally, misunderstand it, or are mean to believers. They still fill a valuable social role of being in vocal opposition to religion and as active advocates for secularism. 

The idea that atheist are only concerned with the Bible is nonsense also, I am far more concerned with the vast injustices inflicted by Islam. It just so happens that Buddhist don't seem to be actively involved in trying to **** with my life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalism stands as a real threat to me if their ideas manage to take hold where I live, so I just happen to be more concerned with them.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Hm. I think issues are being conflated here. Any version of the bible, or any religious text, by nature of being atheist, have to be viewed as fairy tales and/or mythology. You have yourself called it mythology. Why should we examine it over and over to try to find deeper meaning?


It think it is important here that I differentiate the difference between our typical modern use of "myth" and mythology. When I refer to the world religions as using mythology, I mean that they create narratives containing metaphor, symbolism, allegory and tons of different literary techniques to express a whole meta-narrative of the universe.

Different from secular literature, mythology is meant to encourage an entire worldview. It is important to notice that if religion was all about believing in a man (or men) in the sky and an afterlife, than there would be only little differences between religions. In fact, religion is meant to convey a cultural mythology. This mythology is not meant to be some kind of alternative to science (for indeed, mythology existed long before science) but to be a framework at how we view the world at levels other than ontological ones.

For example; Christian mythology (which is more focused on a single narrative than Judiac) originates in its "hero" who sacrifices himself for the sins of the world. Whether or not there is factual truth to this myth is irrelevant to the framework in which we are discussing it (for within the Christian framework, it's whether or not you believe in its truth, and not its actual ontological truth). The point of this mythology is to express the framework of its meta-narrative which would be things like; we all have to redeem ourselves from our sins because Christ died for them, his death is a fulfillment of Jewish prophesies, etc.

I think the problem is that we have our epistemologies mixed up: It is impossible get anything out of religious mythology from a scientific perceptive because the two are completely different.




> For me, it is clear that no story of man points to evidence of deities.


That's because they're _stories_ (or at a deeper level, mythologies). Science, like religion does create a narrative of the universe, but this narrative is not based on culture, tradition or philosophy but empirical data and theory.




> Perhaps you just want it to be something valid so badly, that you feel compelled to urge people to stop thinking of fact vs. fiction.


Lol, funny enough, I'm an agnostic and for the most part learn towards there being no God. I've been trying to explain this whole time that religious mythologies are a mix of both fact and fiction. To simplify it, mythology is an allegorizing of fact.




> I mean, I'm not sure what your position is. You seem to be saying that atheist and Christian opinions are incorrect. So what is your argument?


When one takes the simple theist/atheist or Christian/nonbeliever dichotomy, you are left with very little to think about. I _am_ indeed saying that common atheist and common Christian opinions are incorrect (it is valuable to note that when I mean "common atheist opinions" I am referring to the opinions this new surge of atheists have had this past decade; I'm not arguing against nonbelief, I'm just arguing against this unnamed movement of nonbelievers such as Dawkins, Harris, etc. which we might as well call neo-atheism).

My argument is simply that in order to approach various world religions, we should approach them by their own framework (just as we should approach science by its own framework and not with whether or not we have "faith" in it or not). That's not to say that you _should_ believe in these religions, I'm just arguing against disregarding them as fairy-tales and the believers as "misguided" or worse "crazy" (the latter which nobody as far as I know has said here).




> ALL theism is flawed, incomplete, invalid.


That's what I'm arguing against. I'm arguing against Hitchens' anti-theism, I'm an anti-anti-theist in that regard  :Biggrin: 




> The only people saying that atheists fixate on Christianity as the big opponent are not atheists.


I'm not saying that. It's unavoidable that American atheists would attack Christianity as oppose to Taoism because the latter has very little to do with their nations religious culture, tradition and population. But yes, I agree and I think everyone agrees that atheists don't believe in _any_ religions. That's not what we're discussing.




> Christianity stands out in these arguments because there aren't scientologists or snake charmers here arguing their causes. Let me just say, we live, we struggle, we die. All of the rest is theory at this point. It doesn't mean that there are zero possibilities, and it doesn't mean atheists are dissing the bible as literature. But why should we care about or value the bible or any bible when we feel that these religions have been debunked and only serve to confuse and assert cultlike mentality on masses?


Like I said, that's because you are taking the Bible for what it is not. Nowhere in the Bible does it present itself as a "theory" waiting to be proved or debunked.




> What DO you want atheists to say about the things you are talking about? I am genuinely curious as to what you think the atheist position should be, and how you think we should pose our arguments, instead of just berating us for discussing scientific fact.


I have no problem with the atheist position; that is, atheism in the very general sense of the term as it has always been: Nonbelief in deities or religion. That's all fine and dandy and I would fit myself into that category to an extent.

My problem is with this movement of atheists that we all are very aware of, who criticize religion as "pointless", "meaningless", "dangerous" etc.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Lol, I should probably read your blog.


Stop by anytime. I'm always looking for new readers and commenters.




> Yes, I agree. There are way more than two sides. 
> 
> I also like how you described the two positions in your blog as


Yeah, I mean it's obvious to anyone reading the Skeptic's annotated Bible or Dmitry Brant's weblog how it requires a literalist perspective to respond in that fashion. I mean the same people hopefully wouldn't read Stephan Crane's poem "In the Desert" and then write a post talking about the absurdity of a creature eating its own heart or write a long rational rebuttal against Emily Dickinson's poem CIII that the moon in fact can't smile because it's not alive and such an assertion is ridiculous. Dmitry actually says outright that his perspective is geared towards debunking a literalist fundamentalist perspective.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> I mean the same people hopefully wouldn't read Stephan Crane's poem "In the Desert" and then write a post talking about the absurdity of a creature eating its own heart


Omg that can't be same discussion I encountered a few months back when searching Crane's poem and some guy said something to the extent of: "He's eating his heart? That's ****ed up, the guy must be on PCP or something!"

EDIT: It's not, but I think there was some other discussion on another poetry website which inspired the same absurdity.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Omg that can't be same discussion I encountered a few months back when searching Crane's poem and some guy said something to the extent of: "He's eating his heart? That's ****ed up, the guy must be on PCP or something!"
> 
> EDIT: It's not, but I think there was some other discussion on another poetry website which inspired the same absurdity.


People often talk about science illiteracy, but art/literature illiteracy is a major problem too. It's scary.

----------


## OrphanPip

There's no need to take the Bible literally to still be able to attack the ideas in it. And we can't ignore that large portions of it, especially in the New Testament, are indeed intended to be taken literally. Also, in the last 2000 years, until recently, taking the stories as literal truth has been the norm.

Attacking a book which many people claim as a source of some sort of spiritual truth for its lack of consistency is perfectly reasonable. Besides the fact that much of what you can take away from the Bible metaphorically is either entirely irrelevant to how we should live or quite easily up to debate and that in itself raises the question of why we should care about what the Bible means. The fact of the matter is that the only way someone can justify the politicization of their interpretation of the Bible as valid is through the claim to an obvious literal interpretation. Thus, attacking literal interpretations is an important thing to do, and these were accepted by the majority not too long ago. At the least, making sure someone is aware of how absurd and silly the Bible is on a literal level should make a reader aware of how uncertain and subjective other readings that avoid the literal interpretation are.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> There's no need to take the Bible literally to still be able to attack the ideas in it. And we can't ignore that large portions of it, especially in the New Testament, are indeed intended to be taken literally. Also, in the last 2000 years, until recently, taking the stories as literal truth has been the norm.


I agree partly Pip. I think it is important that we define what we mean by a "literal" reading: Such a reading I would simply define as one that approaches the Bible without any context at all and reading things as they are on their surface.

The NT is different (and IMHO a weaker work than the immense OT) because it has a more definitive narrative line and _mythos_. There is the "hero" who goes out on his "journey" (a literal journey through the land, a metaphorical journey through men's minds, etc) and he has a tragic end but "reuniting" with his home (Heaven) just like so many other hero epics since The Odyssey. Joseph Campbell goes into this deeper in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces.

All of this presented, the NT indeed can be read more literarly because it has more of a story confined by temporal limits. The OT goes through generations of people in an almost impersonal (but still profound and moving) way. It also is a mix of sayings and poems, epics, mythology, generational history and dialogs (Job is arguably a philosophical dialog). Because of this immense variety, it is hard what one must take literarly or with other methods.

Also, it is probably the worst misfortune of history that these religious texts have resulted in genocide, political oppression, etc. One must be wise in how one interprets the Bible and rely on their own judgement in the end.




> Attacking a book which many people claim as a source of some sort of spiritual truth for its lack of consistency is perfectly reasonable.


The only problem is that it was never meant to be consistent because it is a highly edited canon of books. It's more of a virtual culture or library than an actual book.

Anyway I think we can all agree that people have done insane things in the name of the Bible. Whether if we should blame the text or the people who carried out the atrocities is hard to discern since the Bible is such a complex and enigmatic text and we know very very little about the people who wrote the scriptures.

But we know that this is not the first time people have taken texts and abused them absurdly: The Nazi's propagated Nietzsche even though he was about as anti-fascist a thinker as possible and he was disgusted by the Antisemitism of his day, or how the Soviets abused the writings of Marx in order to create their own totalitarian society in which the proletarian was repressed and not liberated (though it is arguable that Marx kind of went in that direction in his late works). The list is endless.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> There's no need to take the Bible literally to still be able to attack the ideas in it. And we can't ignore that large portions of it, especially in the New Testament, are indeed intended to be taken literally. Also, in the last 2000 years, until recently, taking the stories as literal truth has been the norm.
> 
> Attacking a book which many people claim as a source of some sort of spiritual truth for its lack of consistency is perfectly reasonable. Besides the fact that much of what you can take away from the Bible metaphorically is either entirely irrelevant to how we should live or quite easily up to debate and that in itself raises the question of why we should care about what the Bible means. The fact of the matter is that the only way someone can justify the politicization of their interpretation of the Bible as valid is through the claim to an obvious literal interpretation. Thus, attacking literal interpretations is an important thing to do, and these were accepted by the majority not too long ago. At the least, making sure someone is aware of how absurd and silly the Bible is on a literal level should make a reader aware of how uncertain and subjective other readings that avoid the literal interpretation are.


Among Jews, taking the Bible literally word-for-word, without interpretation, has never been the norm. 

Also nice false dichotomy: "Besides the fact that much of what you can take away from the Bible metaphorically is either entirely irrelevant to how we should live or quite easily up to debate and that in itself raises the question of why we should care about what the Bible means."

It assumes for example that literature need teach morals, but of course, literature does more than just proscribe, it describes. It's mimesis. For example, take Genesis 1. It's not the literal creation that matters, but the symbolism behind that is interesting and still relevant. 

The symbolism:

1) The universe is orderly. 

2) human beings are different than other animals in our ability to think and reason.

These are descriptive elements that I think are certainly relevant to how we view ourselves today. It's not telling someone to do anything. It's instead describing what the essential characteristics of the world and human beings are, which I think are actually pretty accurate.

Even the proscriptive parts like, "Be fruitful and multiply" have a very strong resemblance to the evolutionary imperative to continually reproduce and pass on our genes. 

One, of course, could raise the same objections about The Iliad or even Shakespeare: that our morality and ideas have moved so far beyond these works. Do we still fight wars? Are soldiers still kept long terms away from home? Do people still choose bravery and prestige (being awarded purple heart) over keeping in the back lines, doing their time in the service, and going home to spend a long happy life with their family (Achilles' dilemma)?

It's profoundly disingenuous to pretend ancient literature whether its the Bible, the Iliad, Beowulf, or Shakespeare is incapable of speaking to us today and to the issues that most plague us today.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> It assumes for example that literature need teach morals, but of course, literature does more than just proscribe, it describes. It's mimesis.


I very much like this. It is a very bad mistake to make by saying that "the Bible doesn't _teach_ us anything morally good". Of course the NT does have a more clearly defined moral teaching; but the OT (and one of its greatest virtues) does not clearly judge things to a total certainty. Even the infamous objections in Leviticus about crawfish ans whatnot are descriptions of the Israelite's laws and the laws of being in Yahweh's covenant (I may be wrong though because Leviticus was tedious reading after the epic sweep of Exodus).

One of the great things I get out of reading the OT as a whole (especially Job and Ecclesiastics) is learning to be able to bear the absurdity and wrath of the world/Yahweh and to find happiness in our works.

Ecclesiastics 3 possesses a message and poetry that seems to transcend even morality and/or religious sentiment in its utter simplicity and concreteness:




> To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
> A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
> A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
> A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
> A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
> A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
> A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
> What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
> I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
> ...

----------


## OrphanPip

> Among Jews, taking the Bible literally word-for-word, without interpretation, has never been the norm.


That's fine but they have not been in the majority in Europe, and the fact is that most European interpretations of the Bible have taken large swaths of the Bible as literal fact.




> Also nice false dichotomy: "Besides the fact that much of what you can take away from the Bible metaphorically is either entirely irrelevant to how we should live or quite easily up to debate and that in itself raises the question of why we should care about what the Bible means."
> 
> It assumes for example that literature need teach morals, but of course, literature does more than just proscribe, it describes. It's mimesis. For example, take Genesis 1. It's not the literal creation that matters, but the symbolism behind that is interesting and still relevant.


No it doesn't assume that literature need teach morals, it assumes that when literature is subjective that any morals it does teach are up to debate and thus the work's importance for issues of morality is moot. My central point was that the Bible is not useful as a tool for proscribing moral tales. I don't disagree that the Bible can tell us plenty about how the Hebrews viewed the world, but I think that is something entirely irrelevant when it comes to how we should live today. I stand by the point.




> The symbolism:
> 
> 1) The universe is orderly. 
> 
> 2) human beings are different than other animals in our ability to think and reason.
> 
> These are descriptive elements that I think are certainly relevant to how we view ourselves today. It's not telling someone to do anything. It's instead describing what the essential characteristics of the world and human beings are, which I think are actually pretty accurate.


I say so what, we could get the same sense from any number of ancient writing. This is just a product of how humanity thinks, not of any special quality of the Bible. I also think both those points are entirely debatable, and we should not take them at face value.




> Even the proscriptive parts like, "Be fruitful and multiply" have a very strong resemblance to the evolutionary imperative to continually reproduce and pass on our genes.


Eh, I think that's the anthropic fallacy. The "evolutionary imperative" is just a product of evolution, nor is it universal or even justifying the proscriptive parts.




> One, of course, could raise the same objections about The Iliad or even Shakespeare. But our morality and ideas have moved so far beyond these works. Do we still fight wars? Are soldiers still kept long terms away from home? Do people still choose bravery and are awarded purple hearts over keeping in the back lines, doing their time in the service, and going home to spend a long happy life with their family (Achilles' dilemma)?


I would raise the same points if someone tried to use Shakespeare to justify trying to deny me the right to marry or adopt, or tried to justify putting me in jail. The Bible has been used for those things in the past. I would tell someone they're being quite ridiculous if they think there is something special about the ideas in Shakespeare.




> It's profoundly ignorant to pretend ancient literature whether its the Bible, the Iliad, or Shakespeare is incapable of speaking to us today and our issues today.


It's not about its incapability to have common elements with us today, it's the idea that somehow these elements are profound or special, or that they can be justifications for telling others how they can live.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Orphanpip,

I agree we should raise questions if someone is trying to deny another's rights by reading Shakespeare. Nevertheless, I wouldn't agree that Shakespeare magically loses its literary value or its ability to tell us about life and his wonderful insight into people's behaviors and desires should a cult form around Shakespeare sometime in the near or far future (interestingly I had an idea to write a SF story with that very premise).

As for your points about subjectivity, all reactions to literature are partially subjective. Literature informs our morality in a more roundabout way by helping us think through life by holding a mirror up to it (mimesis) and engaging characters that are themselves reflections of us (a collective us) in a situation that matches issues in our own lives, usually in an exaggerated way. But it rarely ever says, "do this." I realize the Bible at times does say, "Do this." Nevertheless, it doesn't always and one should try and have a more sophisticated approach to reading it, than just, "Wow, people are 878 years old in this story, that's absurd because people don't really grow that old" and then think they said something intelligent. 

The Bible can still offer a basis of good morals that are relevant to living in the modern world: the golden rule, helping out your neighbors, being kind to strangers, etc. I think all of these are good values that are found in the Bible. I would agree none of these rules are exclusive to the Bible, and yes, other parts in the Bible contradict them at times. Still, it's one route towards those values among many. I realize this speaks to your point that the book is so subjective that one can cherrypick as they please for good or bad. Nevertheless, I was raised Jewish, and I consider those values to be an authentic part and a reflection of my upbringing in that religion-culture.

----------


## Varenne Rodin

I have to say, I love this discussion. This is very mentally stimulating.

----------


## YesNo

> I think it's irrelevant whether the New Atheist read the Bible literally, misunderstand it, or are mean to believers. They still fill a valuable social role of being in vocal opposition to religion and as active advocates for secularism. 
> 
> The idea that atheist are only concerned with the Bible is nonsense also, I am far more concerned with the vast injustices inflicted by Islam. It just so happens that Buddhist don't seem to be actively involved in trying to **** with my life. Christian and Islamic fundamentalism stands as a real threat to me if their ideas manage to take hold where I live, so I just happen to be more concerned with them.


I think I mentioned that atheists seem only concerned with Christians and not with other religious traditions. From what you say, I can see why that may be the case: Christians are the ones most in your face on the other side. So I stand corrected. Christians can be very annoying.

----------


## Alexander III

I think that to eaither strongly believe that there is a god, or that there is no god; is naive. Quite frankly there could be a god just as likley as there could be no god. And then the irony is that that god, if he does exists, will be so different to our notions of god that we would be unable of realizing that it was a god, god may seem more like no-god than our imaginations on the nature of god.

And I think we often forget the limitations of science. Science is a human product and thus its limitation is mankind, it can go only so far as man can take it. And if we consider how small and short lived we are compared to the universe and existence which is infinite and eternal, well then a prokaryotic cell is just as likely to understand Human society as we are to understand the true and essential nature of the universe, reality and god.


* My entire post is made with the sentiments that God and Religion are two separate entities which should not be confused.

(I made this post in another sub-section on litnet but I thought it was relevant here as well)

----------


## YesNo

> I think that to eaither strongly believe that there is a god, or that there is no god; is naive. Quite frankly there could be a god just as likley as there could be no god. And then the irony is that that god, if he does exists, will be so different to our notions of god that we would be unable of realizing that it was a god, god may seem more like no-god than our imaginations on the nature of god.


I like to think of the issue as whether one experiences the universe as "friendly", "indifferent" or "unfriendly" rather than whether the person believes a God exists or not. 

Alternatively, one could ask which is true: (1) Your body has consciousness, or (2) Your consciousness has a body.

Edit:

Personally, I think my consciousness has at the moment a body rather than my body has consciousness. That could be developed into either a theistic or atheistic theology. I also think the universe is "friendly". 

I suspect that both Christians and atheists would likely say that their bodies have consciousness. The atheists would say this consciousness is destroyed upon death. The Christians would say it is not, but they need a God to save them from the consequences of this. Depending on whether they believe in "devils", the Christians might say the universe is both "friendly" and "unfriendly", but I would expect the atheists to say it is "indifferent" or random.

----------


## Ecurb

> I would raise the same points if someone tried to use Shakespeare to justify trying to deny me the right to marry or adopt, or tried to justify putting me in jail. The Bible has been used for those things in the past. I would tell someone they're being quite ridiculous if they think there is something special about the ideas in Shakespeare.
> .


I'll grant that the Bible has been used as a justification for oppression. However, "The Bible" is also a symbol for "traditional (Christian) morals". After all, Christians no longer refrain from eating shellfish. 

It's reasonable to rail against the oppression of traditional moral codes. It is also reasonable to respect them. The notion that any of US can (given our brilliant liberal values and scientific knowledge) do better is questionable. We think that where we disagree with Christian values we are right (obviously, we wouldn't disagree if we DIDN'T think we were right), but, like Lenin and Stalin, we may have our own moral blind spots of which we are unaware.

In addition, it seems to me that anti-Christianity is a form of self hatred. I don't see many people railing against Greek Mythology, or Buddhism, or despising Asgaard. OrphanPip is correct in asserting that for modern Westerners these dead or Eastern faiths offer no threat, but Christianity does. However, Christianity also offers us Westerners OUR OWN mythology, that speaks to us out of our own traditions; out of the other art and literature with which we are familiar; out of our own peculiar moral values.

Some atheists disparage God by calling Him a human invention. But even if God is a human invention, He has made us, just as we have made Him. This may seem confusing, but think of (as just one example) language. No doubt people invented and developed language. But language also invented and developed us: without it we would be very different animals. Same with God. God DID make us -- just like it says in the bible -- albeit in an indirect way. 

I remember when my son was first born, his mom and I visited my parents in Chicago for Christmas. My son was not two months old, and one day his mother and I went to the Chicago Art Institute. It was the first time she had left my son for more than a couple of hours.

Every time she saw paintings of Baby Jesus (and there are lots of them), she started lactating. I remember thinking that the Christian Christmas myth suggests that on one Christmas a child was born who would save mankind from its sins, and grant us all eternal life. ALL parents feel our own children will save us from our sins and grant us eternal life. The myth makes an archetype out of that universal feeling. 

Merry Christmas!

----------


## OrphanPip

> I'll grant that the Bible has been used as a justification for oppression. However, "The Bible" is also a symbol for "traditional (Christian) morals". After all, Christians no longer refrain from eating shellfish.


Please, the Bible IS used as a justification for oppression, this is not a thing of the past. The only reason its effects are limited is because we have internalized the ideas of secularism, and in many cases have institutionalized them.




> It's reasonable to rail against the oppression of traditional moral codes. It is also reasonable to respect them. The notion that any of US can (given our brilliant liberal values and scientific knowledge) do better is questionable. We think that where we disagree with Christian values we are right (obviously, we wouldn't disagree if we DIDN'T think we were right), but, like Lenin and Stalin, we may have our own moral blind spots of which we are unaware.


Unrelated, merely because some things in the Bible can be reasonable does not justify it's status as a moral guide. What good is any sort of moral compass if it only occasionally steers us in the right direction.




> In addition, it seems to me that anti-Christianity is a form of self hatred. I don't see many people railing against Greek Mythology, or Buddhism, or despising Asgaard. OrphanPip is correct in asserting that for modern Westerners these dead or Eastern faiths offer no threat, but Christianity does. However, Christianity also offers us Westerners OUR OWN mythology, that speaks to us out of our own traditions; out of the other art and literature with which we are familiar; out of our own peculiar moral values.


Yes, a mythology that tells us we are sinful, that has lead to hundreds years of very real oppression against people like me. Clearly, I should be willing to forgive that nonsense because of pretty paintings. Moreover, the idea that the Bible is not an adequate moral guide and is dangerous when it is taken seriously in that way is not mutually exclusive from the idea that it s culturally significant. The point that Christianity has influenced Christians is moot. It's tautological to argue that Christianity should be important because it's important to those influenced by Christianity.

And what does it say to argue that it is our traditions, that there is a universal Western tradition that Christianity speaks to. Does a book that condemns me for who I sleep with speak to me the same way it speaks to you. If I reject the Bible as a meaningful text does it make me less Western?




> Some atheists disparage God by calling Him a human invention. But even if God is a human invention, He has made us, just as we have made Him. This may seem confusing, but think of (as just one example) language. No doubt people invented and developed language. But language also invented and developed us: without it we would be very different animals. Same with God. God DID make us -- just like it says in the bible -- albeit in an indirect way.


Same tautological argument as above. This says nothing about whether or not God has made us well, or that continuing to use the ideas of desert nomads as applicable moral guides for today is somehow a reasonable position.




> I remember when my son was first born, his mom and I visited my parents in Chicago for Christmas. My son was not two months old, and one day his mother and I went to the Chicago Art Institute. It was the first time she had left my son for more than a couple of hours.
> 
> Every time she saw paintings of Baby Jesus (and there are lots of them), she started lactating. I remember thinking that the Christian Christmas myth suggests that on one Christmas a child was born who would save mankind from its sins, and grant us all eternal life. ALL parents feel our own children will save us from our sins and grant us eternal life. The myth makes an archetype out of that universal feeling. 
> 
> Merry Christmas!


This says nothing about Christianity being special, there is just as much archetypal stories in any of Aesops fables, or any number of Greek myth. I also doubt all parents feel that way, because plenty of parents go around abusing and abandoning their children.

Edit: What matters here is not whether or not religious text can have profound effects on individuals, it would be absurd to argue otherwise. 

The dangerous idea is that these text somehow provide something objective that we can take away and that we can be sure of. That there is something special about the Bible that sets it apart from any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity, or even that any artistic production can have that authority. The important thing to get through the heads of all theist is that their religious views are not adequate reasons to be telling others how to live.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> The dangerous idea is that these text somehow provide something objective that we can take away and that we can be sure of. That there is something special about the Bible that sets it apart from any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity, or even that any artistic production can have that authority. The important thing to get through the heads of all theist is that their religious views are not adequate reasons to be telling others how to live.


Of course, most of us haven't really been arguing any of that, but okay, sure.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Of course, most of us haven't really been arguing any of that, but okay, sure.


That is all I have been defending the New Atheist for, the position of the New Atheist is necessary to stand in the way of that perspective of religion. And I think it would be naive to believe that isn't how most people take religion. Just look at how religion is used politically in the US, Africa, and the Middle East. 

New Atheist fill an important role of criticism against those dangerous ideas, and they are indeed dangerous.

And even when people aren't actively involved in religious preaching you can see how they use religion to try and control others. Ecurb's post equated Christianity with a Western identity, this in itself is an attempt to exclude non-Christians from some constructed sense of Western identity. 

I also disagree that anyone here hasn't been attempting to point to the Bible's worth on the basis of its ability to reveal something important about humanity. What does it say to claim the Bible gives special insight, but to instill the Bible with a sense of authority.

----------


## Ecurb

My point is that the Bible (or, more generally, Judeo-Christian ethics) IS our moral compass. We can try to run from that fact, but we cannot avoid it any more than we can avoid the fact that the English language is the medium through which we think. Our morals (and Im an atheist, and Im including myself in our) would be very different were it not for Christianity. They might be better, or they might be worse  but judging the Christian moral compass from the outside is impossible, because even atheistic morals are culturally constructed, and rely on a long history of moral and ethical thought that is inextricably interwoven with Christian ethics.

Also, you dont seem to understand my point. You write: This says nothing about Christianity being special, there is just as much archetypal stories in any of Aesops fables, or any number of Greek myth. Thats certainly true  but I argued that Christianity is special (to us) because it is OUR religious tradition. We are further removed from Greek myths, and their influence has ebbed over the centuries. The Christian stories are OUR stories  not only more influential than Greek myths, but also more resonant to the Western-educated mind. To a lesser extent, Id also suggest that Greek myths are more influential and resonant to Westerners than Hindu myths.

As far as what constitutes an adequate reason to tell others how to live, why is Christianity any worse than a great many other motives? It, at least, has stood the test of time. Obviously, a great many religious AND atheistic people tell other people how to live, and, unless they use force, we need not pay any more attention to the Pope than to Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless, if we believe in freedom, we must also believe in the freedom to tell others how to live (if not in the freedom to force them to comply). 

Finally, there obviously IS something that sets the Bible apart from any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity That something is the influence it has had on Western thought, and the influence Western thought has had on it. Surely a work that has influenced the hearts and minds of untold millions of brilliant thinkers might provide greater insight into humanity than some random work of fiction that nobody has ever read. Why do so many people love the Bible? Why has it been so influential? Wouldnt the answers to these question provide insights into humanity? A lack of interest in what "insights' might be found in the Bible suggests a lack of curiosity that is anti-intellectual.

----------


## OrphanPip

> My point is that the Bible (or, more generally, Judeo-Christian ethics) IS our moral compass. We can try to run from that fact, but we cannot avoid it any more than we can avoid the fact that the English language is the medium through which we think. Our morals (and I’m an atheist, and I’m including myself in “our”) would be very different were it not for Christianity. They might be “better”, or they might be “worse” – but judging the Christian moral compass from the “outside” is impossible, because even atheistic morals are culturally constructed, and rely on a long history of moral and ethical thought that is inextricably interwoven with Christian ethics.


It's not impossible. Looking at any society, you can find essentially identical moral values nearly everywhere. You're ignoring the fact that much of what you're likely considering Christian morality is either inherent to humanity, or predates Judeo-Christian culture by a great deal of time. Moreover, it is hardly an argument merely to state something is inextricably interwoven, please I invite you to tell me what aspect of my morals can not be explained without a Christian framework.




> Also, you don’t seem to understand my point. You write: “This says nothing about Christianity being special, there is just as much archetypal stories in any of Aesops fables, or any number of Greek myth.” That’s certainly true – but I argued that Christianity is “special (to us)” because it is OUR religious tradition. We are further removed from Greek myths, and their influence has ebbed over the centuries. The Christian stories are OUR stories – not only more influential than Greek myths, but also more resonant to the Western-educated mind. To a lesser extent, I’d also suggest that Greek myths are more influential and resonant to Westerners than Hindu myths.


Yet, this still says nothing of why we should care or accept what they say. Why would this mean we should think them special, merely because they have been repeated so often we have internalized them? This argument is still tautological.




> As far as what constitutes an “adequate reason to tell others how to live”, why is Christianity any worse than a great many other motives? It, at least, has stood the test of time. Obviously, a great many religious AND atheistic people tell other people how to live, and, unless they use force, we need not pay any more attention to the Pope than to Joseph Stalin. Nonetheless, if we believe in freedom, we must also believe in the freedom to tell others how to live (if not in the freedom to force them to comply).


Because it lacks any sort of reasoned argument, I think any arbitrary prescription absurd. To quote a philosophy prof I had once, if the Bible says it is wrong to steal, is it wrong to steal because God says it or merely because there is something about stealing that makes it wrong. We should be able to defend why we think we should be able to direct the lives of others, we should have a reason more than some book said so. Of course, this is a position of Liberalism, but I'd be willing to defend Liberalism in another thread not here.




> Finally, there obviously IS something that sets the Bible apart from “any other fictional work for providing insight into humanity…” That something is the influence it has had on Western thought, and the influence Western thought has had on it. Surely a work that has influenced the hearts and minds of untold millions of brilliant thinkers might provide greater “insight into humanity” than some random work of fiction that nobody has ever read. Why do so many people love the Bible? Why has it been so influential? Wouldn’t the answers to these question provide “insights into humanity”? A lack of interest in what "insights' might be found in the Bible suggests a lack of curiosity that is anti-intellectual.


Power structures, continual enforcement of the ideas by people that accept it as a given and so propagate ideas that lie on weak foundations. I don't have a lack of interest, I have read the Bible. I disagree with it, and I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing special about the book beyond its ability to reveal the cultural ideas of those interpreting it or those who wrote it. It gives us nothing about how people really should live that can not be reasoned far better without it.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> That is all I have been defending the New Atheist for, the position of the New Atheist is necessary to stand in the way of that perspective of religion. And I think it would be naive to believe that isn't how most people take religion. Just look at how religion is used politically in the US, Africa, and the Middle East. 
> 
> New Atheist fill an important role of criticism against those dangerous ideas, and they are indeed dangerous.
> 
> And even when people aren't actively involved in religious preaching you can see how they use religion to try and control others. Ecurb's post equated Christianity with a Western identity, this in itself is an attempt to exclude non-Christians from some constructed sense of Western identity. 
> 
> I also disagree that anyone here hasn't been attempting to point to the Bible's worth on the basis of its ability to reveal something important about humanity. What does it say to claim the Bible gives special insight, but to instill the Bible with a sense of authority.


Well, while I have argued the Bible has worth and can reveal something important about humanity, I haven't necessarily claimed other literature cannot do this or that the Bible is more special than other literature necessarily. Of course, it has a special place in my heart because it's my culture's myths rather that some other culture's. 

Ecurb's post annoyed me a little bit too for the exact same reasons though.

----------


## Ecurb

The idea that Christianity in general or the Bible in particular lacks any reasoned argument is ludicrous. The arguments reasoned from (and in) the Bible fill thousands upon thousands of volumes. Your prejudices are showing. Perhaps you think no argument with which you disagree is reasoned, but thats mere hubris. Any philosophical or theological reasoned argument must begin with certain premises that cannot be proved. The Bible (and Christian theology) is no different. 

My argument is not tautological. Im simply saying that most people are interested in what makes us what we are  and the Bible and Christianity are a big part of that. This is not tautological, its egotistical, in a normal, healthy sort of way. Were all interested in ourselves. Ill grant that some people reject that approach, and are more interested in Buddhism or Native American Religion. Thats fine. But I think its easier to gain a depth of understanding about Western thought than about modes of thinking with which we are less familiar. At least we know the basic grammar of Western thought. 

In addition, we do NOT find identical moral values everywhere  your assertion that we do is simply incorrect. Loving ones enemy is not a virtue for the Yanamamo. 

Obviously, you think that you can explain all aspects of your morals without a Christian framework. Perhaps you can  but explanations that ignore the cultural and historical underpinnings on which your (and every other Western persons) morals are based are surely more limited than those that do not. 

In addition, the notion that we can reason our way to a moral code is limited. Why is deducing a moral code somehow superior to discovering one through (for example) analogical reasoning? 

One more thing: stylistically, The Bible (although diverse) has some sections that are paragons of simplicity in story telling. Tolstoy thought the story of Joseph and his brothers the idea work of prose -- although, of course, Thomas Mann took the 2 page story and reworked into a many volume book.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> In addition, we do NOT find identical moral values everywhere  your assertion that we do is simply incorrect. Loving ones enemy is not a virtue for the Yanamamo.


That may be because Yanamamo had no geographical contact with any Western/Eastern religions for most of its existence.

And actually, yes, we in fact _do_ find the same moral values everywhere across the globe, though with obvious variations.

It first must be noted that just as Christianity is indebted to Judaism, so is Islam and both of those more "modern" religions are derivative of the Hebrew Bible.

Just take the Golden Rule for example: In Ancient Egypt we have: "That which you hate to be done to you do not do to another", in Greece according to Epictetus "What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others"; in Bahai "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee"; in Buddhism "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"; in Christianity "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise"; in Confucianism "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you"; in Islam "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself"; in Judaism "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary"; in Taoism "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss"; in Zoroastrianism "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself", etc......

----------


## OrphanPip

> The idea that Christianity in general or the Bible in particular lacks any reasoned argument is ludicrous. The arguments reasoned from (and in) the Bible fill thousands upon thousands of volumes. Your prejudices are showing. Perhaps you think no argument with which you disagree is reasoned, but thats mere hubris. Any philosophical or theological reasoned argument must begin with certain premises that cannot be proved. The Bible (and Christian theology) is no different.


Yes, and when someone chooses to actually engage in a reasoned defense of the ethical argument they are trying to make they should be called on to defend them. When we are given a book like the Bible where people can not agree, even amongst believers, what exactly it is trying to say as a moral guide, I think we'll find it falls short as a defense for a moral argument. Pointing to the Bible and merely expecting it to stand as a moral guide in and of itself is clearly not a reasoned argument. If someone wants to reason why something is morally right or wrong, they should be able to defend that position in a way that is not an appeal to authority, which is what the Biblical argument is. Neither is a bulk of literature on a subject any testament to the worth of that subject.




> My argument is not tautological. Im simply saying that most people are interested in what makes us what we are  and the Bible and Christianity are a big part of that. This is not tautological, its egotistical, in a normal, healthy sort of way. Were all interested in ourselves. Ill grant that some people reject that approach, and are more interested in Buddhism or Native American Religion. Thats fine. But I think its easier to gain a depth of understanding about Western thought than about modes of thinking with which we are less familiar. At least we know the basic grammar of Western thought.


None of this is justification for thinking the Bible is somehow a worthwhile source of any special insight into humanity. Nor does it in anyway justify the Bible's use in justifying political decisions, as it so often is. Do you think your personal interest in the Bible somehow justifies the Catholic Church's endorsement of life imprisonment for homosexuals in Uganda? 




> In addition, we do NOT find identical moral values everywhere  your assertion that we do is simply incorrect. Loving ones enemy is not a virtue for the Yanamamo.


I disagree, we even find this behavior amongst bonobo chimpanzees. We just like to think we're special and different.




> Obviously, you think that you can explain all aspects of your morals without a Christian framework. Perhaps you can  but explanations that ignore the cultural and historical underpinnings on which your (and every other Western persons) morals are based are surely more limited than those that do not.


This isn't even an attempt to address what I said. You just restated that my morals must be of a Christian source, it's outright begging the question. Neither is Christianity's influence even a testament to it's worth in itself for anything. 




> In addition, the notion that we can reason our way to a moral code is limited. Why is deducing a moral code somehow superior to discovering one through (for example) analogical reasoning?


Because it allows room for debate and rapprochement. Moreover, I would go beyond that to say a moral code that respects individual autonomy is far superior to anything found in the Bible. 




> One more thing: stylistically, The Bible (although diverse) has some sections that are paragons of simplicity in story telling. Tolstoy thought the story of Joseph and his brothers the idea work of prose -- although, of course, Thomas Mann took the 2 page story and reworked into a many volume book.


So? For the purposes of its worth as a moral guide, I don't care if the Bible is well written.

----------


## DanielBenoit

I think I am going to say this and then I'll be done: The Bible does not particuarly have to be a moral guide in order for it to have value. As a moral guide, yes, I would take extremely little of what is said in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus etc. as ways to govern my life. That is why we can't just do what fundamentalists do and say "everything in the Bible is Absolute Truth and the word of God." You have to pick and choose and rely on your own judgement because the Bible is anything but a complete text written by authors with the same opinion.

As for the argument concerning Christian morals as being the foundation of Western civilization: I would first argue that since the Old Testament is not a Christian text(s) then we should refer to Biblical morals as Judeo-Christian morals. Secondly, the Bible is so vast and so diverse that there is indeed great reason in this argument because philosophers, politicians (for good or for bad), and just the basic mass of time has received an inheritance of various, often contradictory elements from the Bible (just take the controversy over divorce which divided Catholics and Protestants). I certainly think that our society today is far more influenced by Proverbs and Matthew than Leviticus or Revelations (thank God), though all four have been immensely influential throughout our history.

I'm not going to argue that the Bible (at least the Hebrew Bible) is a democratic or egalitarian text. Our liberal democratic values we have today come more from Greece than from the Bible, which is our second major inheritance (we must remember that the Founding Fathers of the US studied Athenian democracy). 

I think Christianity is an interesting case because more and more often I believe Nietzsche was right when he said "The last Christian died on the cross", for Christ's "legacy" has been so immensely distorted, edited and redone that he is an enigma. We can't even trust the supposed writers of the four Gospels who came very late after Christ had died for none of them write in the language of Christ, Aramaic (there has never been found an "Armaic Gospel). Besides only a random quote of Aramaic here and there, the Christ of the gospels speaks in Greek, which only puts more doubt in the accuracy of their texts because certainly one would think that if one was writing quotes from the Messiah that you would at least write what he said in his very own words.

Anyway, our Christian inheritance is virtually Pauline Christianity and it has indeed had a significant impact on our society.

In the end I would argue that due to the seeming universality of certain fundamental morals, ones that basically hold together all civilizations, that whatever is found in the Bible can easily be replaced by what is found in the _Tao Te Ching_, not because they are any means the same, but because both religions ended up teaching much of the same morals (with very different metaphysical systems though).

Like I said, our democratic moral come from our Greek inheritance as is evidenced by the immense influence of Greek thought on philosophy in general. Rousseau, Locke, Marx, Mill are children of the Greeks and not of the Hebrews.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

Daniel, while I'm not in total agreement of everything said here, I do appreciate your openness and respect of the subject. It seems that there are many who show a complete intolerance of a vast religion based on what a few fundamentalists have done or said. I'm not sure what defines a fundamentalist, but anyone who would force or oppress another based on their own belief system should be stopped. But that goes for anyone...even those who want to eradicate religion because it disagrees with their lifestyle. You have expressed yourself in a very respectful and mature manner. Thank you.

----------


## The Atheist

> Anyway, our Christian inheritance is virtually Pauline Christianity and it has indeed had a significant impact on our society.


Bingo!

I often refer to people as Paulians rather than christians, because I see so little of Jesus' teachings used by the vast majority of those who would call themselves christian.

----------


## Ecurb

Obviously, a great many moral rules are shared by a great many cultures. In addition, I agree with DBenoit that the Jewish and Christian moral precepts were not developed in a vacuum, and owe much to other Mediterranean and Babylonian cultures. The Yanamamo are a good example of a society that differs because, as Benoit points out, they have been so isolated.

However, there are major differences as well as similarities between moral codes . In particular, one distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that the former was a tribal religion, and the latter a world religion. To many tribal people, "thou shalt not kill" means, "thou shalt not kill your relatives (everyone in the tribe being related)." Christainity (as is not surprising given Roman influence and an increasingly global economy) made some of these precepts more universal, as well as positing that the very nature of one's humanity was more universal.

OrphanPip appears to be arguing against a naive and literalistic view of Christianity. No, I don't think gay people should be imprisoned for life. But he continues to misunderstand my point. He says, "None of this is justification for thinking the Bible is somehow a worthwhile source of any special insight into humanity.' But surely a book that has profoundly influenced so many people IS a worthwhile source of special insight into humanity. If we are intereted in humans, we can learn about them by studying what they have found to be important. Heck, I'd even say that Mein Kampf provides insight into human nature, because it was so influential (although far, far less influential than the Bible, as well as of far less literary merit).

"Moral guides' need not be logical arguments or sets of moral rules. They can be (for example) stories. Are the stories (which we were discussing in another thread) of King Arthur "moral guides"? Of course they are. That's what I was getting at when I suggested that analogical reasoning can help direct our moral compass just as logical reasoning can.

----------


## YesNo

> In particular, one distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that the former was a tribal religion, and the latter a world religion. To many tribal people, "thou shalt not kill" means, "thou shalt not kill your relatives (everyone in the tribe being related)." Christainity (as is not surprising given Roman influence and an increasingly global economy) made some of these precepts more universal, as well as positing that the very nature of one's humanity was more universal.


If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade? 

And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?

----------


## The Atheist

> If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade? 
> 
> And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?


That's exactly what I meant when I said that most self-proclaimed christians do not follow the rules Jesus allegedly gave them.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade? 
> 
> And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?


I think you misunderstood. What Ecurb was saying is that compared to isolated tribal religions like Yanamamo for example, Christianity expanded its grasp because of its political power in post-Constantine Europe, hence its moral and metaphysical notions became more universal. But I think that this in itself is a testament to the fact that even though a moral code is accepted and revered all throughout a continent, doesn't mean that it's going to be obeyed.

Also one must remember that such moral laws like "thou shalt not kill" have been interpreted and reinterpreted endlessly since their creation. One could argue that "thou shalt not kill" referred to the Israelites and only the Israelites, since they were Mosaic law. Theologists have for centuries justified wars because they argue that "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not do murder" and thus killing can be justified if you're not the belligerent.

Constantine was known to have said something like "Christianity is the perfect state religion" and indeed it is because its law is much more open-ended than Hebrew law because Christ was such an ambiguous character and loved speaking in parables and obscure phrases; hence his character could easily be manipulated into a man of religious war, as it of course has and still is to this day.

----------


## Ecurb

> If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade?


I don't know. Why don't you ask him?

(I was suggesting that Christianity made moral rules more universal not because there are no exceptions or nuances to the rules of Christian ethics, but because everyone qualifies as "human", which wasn't always the case in tribal religions. That's what allowed the so called "world religions" like Christianity and Islam to spread so rapidly. Judaism, as a tribal religion, did not proselytize)

The sins of the prophet, by the way, have no bearing on the truth or falsehood of the prophecy.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Obviously, a great many moral rules are shared by a great many cultures. In addition, I agree with DBenoit that the Jewish and Christian moral precepts were not developed in a vacuum, and owe much to other Mediterranean and Babylonian cultures. The Yanamamo are a good example of a society that differs because, as Benoit points out, they have been so isolated.
> 
> However, there are major differences as well as similarities between moral codes . In particular, one distinction between Judaism and Christianity is that the former was a tribal religion, and the latter a world religion. To many tribal people, "thou shalt not kill" means, "thou shalt not kill your relatives (everyone in the tribe being related)." Christainity (as is not surprising given Roman influence and an increasingly global economy) made some of these precepts more universal, as well as positing that the very nature of one's humanity was more universal.


Not to mention the fact that Shadow's reading of the story of Noah a couple weeks back in our Bible studies thread would suggest that the Hebrews certainly did have a conception of the worth of non-Hebrews.

It means nothing at all it's all babel on top of what is essentially a universal biologically determined moral code. For example, in a recent study of chimps, a chimp was given the option between pushing a button that would give just itself a treat, or a giving itself and another chimp a smaller treat. Chimps naturally favour sharing, they also naturally favour compassion for other members of their group, and caring for the elderly, and not arbitrarily killing members of their group.

I say let's look at Christian society and see without all the grand talk how they really have behaved. They have killed and enslaved foreign populations with a fervour just as any other human society has, and they have punished unnecessary killing (when not by those in a position of power) just like any other society.

There is nothing special about Christian morality.

Besides my point wasn't that all moral systems are identical, it was they are practically identical. You find more variety around things which are completely arbitrary and likely not related to any biological factors. Thus, why killing is almost universally prohibited within group, but prohibiting eating shellfish seems unique to the Jews. 




> OrphanPip appears to be arguing against a naive and literalistic view of Christianity. No, I don't think gay people should be imprisoned for life. But he continues to misunderstand my point.


Hardly, Christianity has been used to do this just this year in Uganda. I'm not taking any sort of literalistic view because the text itself is taken in such arbitrary fashion that it is practically irrelevant to determining how Christians behave. I need not look at the text at all to understand why Christianity needs to be kept away from the state, I just need to look at what is happening in Central Africa, and what Southern Evangelicals attempt in the US. Or even the recent rise of the harshly conservative nationalist groups in Austria and France, which also have close ties to traditional Christian groups. Mine is not a complaint against the naive and literalistic view of Christianity, it is a complaint against the real harm and threat of the religion. Are moderate allegorical traditions of Christianity doing anything to stop this plague of rising fundamentalism? The answer is no, instead they are whittling away bit by bit. I also don't think its unfair to complain about these Christian groups, especially when they contain the Catholic church and its near 1 billion parishioners. The Catholics don't even take the Bible literally, yet they still continue to do harm through their resistance to condom distribution and their tacit support of criminalizing homosexuality. Don't get me started on the abortion thing either.




> He says, "None of this is justification for thinking the Bible is somehow a worthwhile source of any special insight into humanity.' But surely a book that has profoundly influenced so many people IS a worthwhile source of special insight into humanity. If we are intereted in humans, we can learn about them by studying what they have found to be important. Heck, I'd even say that Mein Kampf provides insight into human nature, because it was so influential (although far, far less influential than the Bible, as well as of far less literary merit).


Ha, yet psychological insight from a study of human anthropology is quite different from the insight people usually claim for the Bible. Even so, your own statement of Mein Kampf's ability to provide insight into human psychology testifies to why there is nothing special about the Bible. Other than the political power structures that have propagated it and continue to propagate a mythos of its innate value.




> "Moral guides' need not be logical arguments or sets of moral rules. They can be (for example) stories. Are the stories (which we were discussing in another thread) of King Arthur "moral guides"? Of course they are. That's what I was getting at when I suggested that analogical reasoning can help direct our moral compass just as logical reasoning can.


Bad moral guides certainly can be. Obviously the Bible attempts to be a moral guide, the problem is that it is a bad one, especially in a society which values any principles of liberty.

A moral argument should be reasoned, otherwise you've got a moral proclamation, and a proclamation lies on a logical fallacy, the argument to authority.

----------


## Ecurb

> It means nothing at all it's all babel on top of what is essentially a universal biologically determined moral code. For example, in a recent study of chimps, a chimp was given the option between pushing a button that would give just itself a treat, or a giving itself and another chimp a smaller treat. Chimps naturally favour sharing, they also naturally favour compassion for other members of their group, and caring for the elderly, and not arbitrarily killing members of their group.
> .


I dont dispute your facts: I dispute your reasoning. Given the example of chimps (which I havent read but Ill take your word for it) why would you infer that the only possible reason for the chimps behavior is a universal biologically determined moral code? Ill grant that without some selfless behavior, mammals could not propagate  all female mammal mothers routinely offer scarce resources to their offspring. Nonetheless, I wonder: would a chimp kept in complete isolation from birth exhibit the same behavior? If not, isnt it likely there is a cultural component to the behavior? Mightnt it vary from one group of chimps to another? In fact, among many mammals, females raised in isolation lack basic mothering skills -- so even these essential skills are partially culturally constituted (or at least learned from watching experienced mothers). 

The one universal moral code sometimes cited for humans is the incest taboo. Freud wrote an entire book about it. Reductionists (like OrphanPip) often cite incest taboos as biologically determined, because they reduce the risk of birth defects. However, based on the best available evidence, this is incorrect. Although incest taboos do (slightly) reduce the risk of birth defects, that appears NOT to be an acceptable explanation for them.

The reason: in many cultures, the incest taboo takes the following form: a person may NOT marry his or her parallel cousin, but MUST marry his or her cross cousin. A parallel cousin is a mothers sisters child, or a fathers brothers child. A cross cousin is a mothers brothers child, or a fathers sisters child. What is going on here? Obviously, the biological disadvantages are identical regardless of which cousin is married.

Since this form of the incest taboo (often called marriage rules) is so common, it seems there must be some other reason for the rules. For those who have studied these societies, the reason seems clear. Parallel cousins are generally in the same clan. Cross cousins are members of different clans. By marrying between clans, cousins can create economic and political alliances that are almost surely helpful to the children the marriage produces, and almost surely increase the descendant-leaving success of the married couple. Given that the biological closeness of parallel and cross cousins is identical, this cultural, economic and political explanation is far more reasonable than the biological one, which is falsified by the facts. 






> A moral argument should be reasoned, otherwise you've got a moral proclamation, and a proclamation lies on a logical fallacy, the argument to authority.


Obviously, arguments should be reasoned. But there are ways of arriving at moral precepts other than argument. I offered one: analogical reasoning (in pop-culture-speak this would involve emulating role models). The Christian ethos specifically advocates this method, suggesting that believers emulate Christ (What would Jesus do?). 

In addition, the fact that argument from authority is a logical fallacy does not mean that it is never acceptable to accept authority. Why would it? All of us often accept authority  which is why we think the speed of light is C (I dont know about you, but Ive never measured it). One good thing about Biblical authority is that it has, at least, stood the test of time. I may not trust Christianity implicitly, but I respect it more than I do Scientology.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> If "thou shalt not kill" is more universal for Christians why did George Bush start the Iraq war this past decade? 
> 
> And why was he supported by Christians for reelection even when the weapons of mass destruction argument was shown to be fabricated and the presence of torture made known in the prisons?


The passage is better translated in the NKJ version as "You shall not murder." However, that particular passage was given to the Israelite nation. Jesus commented on this command in His sermon on the mount, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment. But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment."

The question posed however cannot be discussed properly since it would take this discussion into a political argument. But the actions in and about the war was to crush an oppressor, Saddam Hussein, which is very much a godly act...to overt oppression of the innocent (just as OP has considered to be important).

----------


## The Atheist

> But the actions in and about the war was to crush an oppressor, Saddam Hussein, which is very much a godly act...


I don't recall Jesus saying it was ok to attack bad guys, so can you please point me to the passage where he agreed that starting a war can be a godly act?

I seem to recall Jesus more saying "if thine enemy smite thee, turn your other cheek and let him smite you again on that side".

----------


## DanielBenoit

> The passage is better translated in the NKJ version as "You shall not murder."


The NKJ is really nothing more than a modernization of the KJV and is more the equvilent to the modernizations of Shakespeare since it can't be called a legitimate "new" translation because of its reliance on the outdated sources of the King James Version, not utilizing the new discoveries of the past 400 years in Biblical manuscripts.

Plus, like I said in my other post, normative theologists have for a while insisted that "thou shalt not kill" really means "thou shalt not murder". It is probably best if we go back to the Hebrew "original" (which isn't really an original, but closer to _a_ original than KJV) instead of trusting re-translated English versions of an already imperfect English translation.




> The question posed however cannot be discussed properly since it would take this discussion into a political argument. But the actions in and about the war was to crush an oppressor, Saddam Hussein, which is very much a godly act...to overt oppression of the innocent (just as OP has considered to be important).


Even though that oppressor was one that we supported and supplied with weapons for years. . .

----------


## Ecurb

I'm no expert on Bible translations -- but I sort of like the King James. Maybe the translators were divinely inspired (or at least just as divinely inspired as the original authors)! I'm not being anti-intellectual -- I do see the value of scholarship and more "correct" translations. However, I also think that old fashioned English might be more appropriate stylistically than modern English. It emphasizes the age of the text -- I'm sure the source text of the Bible is old fashioned to Greek and Hebrew speakers, too. 

I'll grant that for devout Christians "correct" translations might be more important.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Even though that oppressor was one that we supported and supplied with weapons for years. . .


Not a place for political discourse. An evil tyrant, no matter who originally was in league...is still an evil tyrant and oppressor.

----------


## YesNo

> I'll grant that for devout Christians "correct" translations might be more important.


The comment about translations reminds me of a book I read a few years ago by Brian Moynahan, *God's Bestseller: William Tyndale, Thomas More and the Writing of the English Bible*.

It is likely the case that translations mattered more in the past. The two words that I remember being important were "church" which had to mean the "Catholic Church" and "charity" which had to mean "giving charity to the Catholic Church" if you didn't want to get into trouble.

There may have been even more red-hot button words, but those are what I remember at the moment.

What I found amazing is that Thomas More actually burnt people at the stake  :Yikes: , but that didn't stop him from being canonized by Catholics in the 20th century.  :Yikes:   :Yikes: 

Hmmm. So how does all that fit in with the superior morality of Christianity? Of course, maybe Catholics aren't Christian. I wouldn't know.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> I'm no expert on Bible translations -- but I sort of like the King James. Maybe the translators were divinely inspired (or at least just as divinely inspired as the original authors)! I'm not being anti-intellectual -- I do see the value of scholarship and more "correct" translations. However, I also think that old fashioned English might be more appropriate stylistically than modern English. It emphasizes the age of the text -- I'm sure the source text of the Bible is old fashioned to Greek and Hebrew speakers, too. 
> 
> I'll grant that for devout Christians "correct" translations might be more important.


Well I would argue very strongly that not only is the KJV a masterful translation, but one of the great pieces of literature in itself. Though that does not mean it is an accurate one. Many of the translators didn't have the manuscripts that we have today and much has been added and taken away. That said, of all of the more "correct" translations I've read parts of, none of them can compare to the KJV in literary value, which is most likely due to William Tyndale, whose translation ended up making up about 85% of the KJV.




> Not a place for political discourse. An evil tyrant, no matter who originally was in league...is still an evil tyrant and oppressor.


Well I didn't bring it up. And yes it is good to know the origin of the tyranny in order to prevent more of it. The truth is that the U.S. under its supposed "pro-democracy" stance, really has promoted and installed dictatorships whenever necessary in the name of fighting "communism" and for our own political gain.

You don't crush oppresors by starting wars in the countries they oppress; you don't support them in the first place.

----------


## DanielBenoit

*Double post sorry*

----------


## IceM

To respond to the original question:

I've been an atheist for three years and was a devout Catholic for fourteen before, and even when I was a Catholic, I didn't see anything wrong with them. Of course, I'm 17, so for the first 14 years of my life, I just viewed atheism as those looking for God but needing better reasons to pursure him. Now, I'm a little smarter than that.

Is atheism militant? Sure, just in the same way that religion is becoming militant. There is this fear that if one view dominates, the minority will be marginalized and oppressed. My evidence: my years in the Catholic Church. Atheism was preached as an equivalent of satanism, but I knew better. I think it's this fear that continues to drive much of this perception of militantism. Are there militants? Of course, on both sides. However, evidence has shown us that one side is much more willing to incriminate the other of crimes that both are guilty of. Either side can be considered militant because it has such radical members, yet anyone with common sense can tell you a radical sect of a greater whole does not taint the whole.

Perhaps this springs out of ignorance. Not all atheists believe in science, nor do all theists blindly accept the "Word of God" without actual reasoning. It perhaps is this underlying desire to show one's absolute commitment while cloaking underlying doubts that spawns such an absolutist idea. Then again, maybe peer pressure has an effect too. Saying "I'm not sure if God exists" is held with much more contempt than taking a side.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> What I found amazing is that Thomas More actually burnt people at the stake , but that didn't stop him from being canonized by Catholics in the 20th century.  :yikes.


That's because he objected to the divorce of Henry VII to Catherine of Aragon; quite a Catholic position.

----------


## The Atheist

> Atheism was preached as an equivalent of satanism, but I knew better.


Still is, in many cases. 

I use this name reasonably universally on internet discussion boards and I am frequently asked if I'm a Satanist.

I often answer yes, just to reinforce the absurdity.

----------


## DanielBenoit

> Still is, in many cases. 
> 
> I use this name reasonably universally on internet discussion boards and I am frequently asked if I'm a Satanist.
> 
> I often answer yes, just to reinforce the absurdity.


Well I'm an agnostic so I must believe both God and Satan have their good qualities  :Biggrin:

----------


## OrphanPip

> I dont dispute your facts: I dispute your reasoning. Given the example of chimps (which I havent read but Ill take your word for it) why would you infer that the only possible reason for the chimps behavior is a universal biologically determined moral code? Ill grant that without some selfless behavior, mammals could not propagate  all female mammal mothers routinely offer scarce resources to their offspring. Nonetheless, I wonder: would a chimp kept in complete isolation from birth exhibit the same behavior? If not, isnt it likely there is a cultural component to the behavior? Mightnt it vary from one group of chimps to another? In fact, among many mammals, females raised in isolation lack basic mothering skills -- so even these essential skills are partially culturally constituted (or at least learned from watching experienced mothers).


I don't dispute the fact that culture effects morality, what I dispute is the idea that it is the determining factor. No behavioral phenotypes have direct relationships to the genotype, there is indeed a complex relationship between the genes and the environment. Yet, when we see relatively identical behaviors across disparate cultures the reasonable conclusion is that the genetic influences are powerful, or that the nebulous origin of the cultural influence is very old. Thus, why I would contend most of what we consider to be Christian morals are merely slight reworkings, and often mere meaningless talk, surrounding ideas and impulses that have been around a lot longer.

I'd also like to make it clear that the biological impulses themselves are not sufficient reason to justify the moral prescriptions that arise from them, an is does not make an ought.

[/quote]
The one universal moral code sometimes cited for humans is the incest taboo. Freud wrote an entire book about it. Reductionists (like OrphanPip) often cite incest taboos as biologically determined, because they reduce the risk of birth defects. However, based on the best available evidence, this is incorrect. Although incest taboos do (slightly) reduce the risk of birth defects, that appears NOT to be an acceptable explanation for them.

The reason: in many cultures, the incest taboo takes the following form: a person may NOT marry his or her parallel cousin, but MUST marry his or her cross cousin. A parallel cousin is a mothers sisters child, or a fathers brothers child. A cross cousin is a mothers brothers child, or a fathers sisters child. What is going on here? Obviously, the biological disadvantages are identical regardless of which cousin is married.[/quote]

Incest is really only significantly deleterious for siblings and parent-child relations. I would say anyone trying to make that argument doesn't know their biology very well. 

Moral codes are obviously manifestations of organized social control, once again it is not that culture doesn't effect how these manifest, but that a biological impulse is at the core of all of them.




> Since this form of the incest taboo (often called marriage rules) is so common, it seems there must be some other reason for the rules. For those who have studied these societies, the reason seems clear. Parallel cousins are generally in the same clan. Cross cousins are members of different clans. By marrying between clans, cousins can create economic and political alliances that are almost surely helpful to the children the marriage produces, and almost surely increase the descendant-leaving success of the married couple. Given that the biological closeness of parallel and cross cousins is identical, this cultural, economic and political explanation is far more reasonable than the biological one, which is falsified by the facts.


Yet, those are also biological factors. You see the same behavior amongst prairie dogs, and any number of group living animals. A population is strengthened by regularly out-breeding. Of course, the desire for political and economic control is related to biology as well. 





> Obviously, arguments should be reasoned. But there are ways of arriving at moral precepts other than argument. I offered one: analogical reasoning (in pop-culture-speak this would involve emulating role models). The Christian ethos specifically advocates this method, suggesting that believers emulate Christ (What would Jesus do?).


Those would be very bad ways to reach moral decisions when it comes to organizing a society. What you end with is someone declaring a preference, rather than a reason.




> In addition, the fact that argument from authority is a logical fallacy does not mean that it is never acceptable to accept authority. Why would it? All of us often accept authority  which is why we think the speed of light is C (I dont know about you, but Ive never measured it). One good thing about Biblical authority is that it has, at least, stood the test of time. I may not trust Christianity implicitly, but I respect it more than I do Scientology.


No, an argument from authority fallacy is not saying that it is wrong ever to accept authority. It says that it is wrong to say something is right merely because of X authority. It would be fallacious to claim the speed of light is c (should be lower case) merely because physicist say it is. It is c because we are capable of measuring it as so, and having some trust in the accuracy (based on the reasonable knowledge that the scientist present us the how and why of what they say) of the scientist is not claiming that the scientist must always be right.

An argument from authority: Murder is wrong because God says so.

These arguments are weak, because there is no logical reason to accept God's authority as valid. I've already addressed the subjective nature of Bible interpretations as an even bigger problem. Instead of havings appeals to God, we get appeals to one guy's interpretation of what God says. It's quite honestly ridiculously. Just replace God with your neighbour Joe and see if those arguments make sense to you. 

The only reason Biblical authority has stood the test of time is because of political structures, I don't even see where it logically follows that time suggest legitimacy or veracity. Though, I'll certainly acknowledge people are more willing to accept older superstitions over newer superstitions. Probably why Muslims claim that the Qu'ran is the original word of God, and thus older, despite actually being newer than the Bible.

----------


## Ecurb

> No, an argument from authority fallacy is not saying that it is wrong ever to accept authority. It says that it is wrong to say something is right merely because of X authority. It would be fallacious to claim the speed of light is c (should be lower case) merely because physicist say it is. It is c because we are capable of measuring it as so, and having some trust in the accuracy (based on the reasonable knowledge that the scientist present us the how and why of what they say) of the scientist is not claiming that the scientist must always be right.
> 
> An argument from authority: Murder is wrong because God says so.
> 
> These arguments are weak, because there is no logical reason to accept God's authority as valid. I've already addressed the subjective nature of Bible interpretations as an even bigger problem. Instead of havings appeals to God, we get appeals to one guy's interpretation of what God says. It's quite honestly ridiculously. Just replace God with your neighbour Joe and see if those arguments make sense to you. 
> .


I think I learned once how the speed of light was first measured. However, I've forgotten. Nonetheless, I'm perfectly willing to accept that it is approximately 186,282 miles per second. I also accept that Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average is .367; that Rome wasn't built in a day; and that Pluto is no longer a planet.

In addition, the notion that "there is no logical reason to accept God's authority as valid" is a mere unsupported assertion. I can think of several reasons, of which I'll offer only one: God is a metaphor for something like, "the good of mankind". Of course He doesn't really exist -- but a great deal of human wisdom has been incorporated into religious works and their precepts. In addition, those works and precepts (like the Bible) that have persisted and spread may very well have some value. After all, if they were deleterious to human wellfare, we might suppose that competing creeds would spread in their place. No one individual can reason his way to an ethos as well as the combined wisdom of the centuries embodied in certain religious works, and tested by evolution and time. Therefore is it logical to accept God's authority as valid.

That's only one "logical reason" to accept God's authority -- I could invent a dozen more. Of course you (and I, for that matter) may dispute some of the above premises -- but it's a reasonable and logical argument (I could put it in the terms of formal logic, if I wanted, but why bother.).

----------


## OrphanPip

By that point though you've already gone beyond the appeal to authority and sought another reason for why the ideas that God apparently embodies are somehow valid. It demonstrates why the appeal to God alone is not sufficient, why the Bible is not a sufficient moral guide within and of itself.

Edit: Your particular example though seems an example of argumentum ad populum.

----------


## Ecurb

Good grief! Spare me from logical fallacy experts! 

Besides, isn't naming the "logical fallacy" of which one's interlocutor is guilty a form of "argument from authority"? OrphanPip is hoist on his own petard! Uh oh! Now I'm hoist on MY own petard! It's a never-ending circle! Let me out! Let me out!

----------


## OrphanPip

> Good grief! Spare me from logical fallacy experts! 
> 
> Besides, isn't naming the "logical fallacy" of which one's interlocutor is guilty a form of "argument from authority"? OrphanPip is hoist on his own petard! Uh oh! Now I'm hoist on MY own petard! It's a never-ending circle! Let me out! Let me out!


It's in no way an argument from authority, it's merely short hand for what is recognizable as a fallacious argument.

----------


## Ecurb

Of course it's an "argument from authority". The "authorities" have established the recognized "logical fallacies". Naming the well-known fallacy of which the other person is supposedly guilty is simply calling on the support of those authorities. 

(I give up.) Fiat justitia, et ruat mundus, by the way, since we are speaking in Latin.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Of course it's an "argument from authority". The "authorities" have established the recognized "logical fallacies". Naming the well-known fallacy of which the other person is supposedly guilty is simply calling on the support of those authorities. 
> 
> (I give up.) Fiat justitia, et ruat mundus, by the way, since we are speaking in Latin.


Hardly, the fact that they are logical fallacies is not derived from the authority of those who named them, but that they have been argued and demonstrated as such.

Edit: But sure, let's just leave it at this.

----------


## Ecurb

> Hardly, the fact that they are logical fallacies is not derived from the authority of those who named them, but that they have been argued and demonstrated as such.
> 
> Edit: But sure, let's just leave it at this.


That's correct. Just like the fact that Ty Cobb had a .367 lifetime is not (I assume) derived (strictly) from authority -- although personally, I got the information from the MacMillan Baseball encyclopedia, and I believe it because I have no reason to doubt the authority. Nonetheless, naming the logical fallacy rather than pointing out the logical error is clearly an appeal to authority. 

Also, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logical reasoning. We know most of what we know because we have authoritative sources for that knowledge -- if Isaac Newton discovered much it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants (or was that someone else?). The notion that everything must be argued from first principles and that nothing can be accepted as authoritative is sophistry. Were that the case, we couldn't argue for anything. 

Argument from authority is NOT fallacious. Why would it be? If I say that I think that Ty Cobb batted .367 because I saw it in the baseball Encycloedia, that's an entirely reasonable argument. I may be wrong -- but my argument is logical and reasonable. The formal logic would go:

P1) The baseball Encyclopedia keeps accurate records of players' statistics.
P2) The B. Enc. states that Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.

Conclusion: Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.

Where's the logical flaw? Perhaps one of the premises is wrong, but the logic is flawless. I'll grant that argument from FALSE authority is iffy (which is probably what you meant in saying the Bible argues from authority). After all, if God is the actual creator of all moral rules of right and wrong, and the bible is the revealed word of God, appealling to His revealed Word is hardly fallacious. To make any sort of logical argument we must accept some starting premises. On whose "authority" are these accepted?

----------


## OrphanPip

> That's correct. Just like the fact that Ty Cobb had a .367 lifetime is not (I assume) derived (strictly) from authority -- although personally, I got the information from the MacMillan Baseball encyclopedia, and I believe it because I have no reason to doubt the authority. Nonetheless, naming the logical fallacy rather than pointing out the logical error is clearly an appeal to authority. 
> 
> Also, you are demonstrating a lack of understanding of logical reasoning. We know most of what we know because we have authoritative sources for that knowledge -- if Isaac Newton discovered much it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants (or was that someone else?). The notion that everything must be argued from first principles and that nothing can be accepted as authoritative is sophistry. Were that the case, we couldn't argue for anything. 
> 
> Argument from authority is NOT fallacious. Why would it be? If I say that I think that Ty Cobb batted .367 because I saw it in the baseball Encycloedia, that's an entirely reasonable argument. I may be wrong -- but my argument is logical and reasonable. The formal logic would go:
> 
> P1) The baseball Encyclopedia keeps accurate records of players' statistics.
> P2) The B. Enc. states that Ty Cobb hit .367 lifetime.
> 
> ...


You're misunderstanding what the appeal to authority means, and why it is fallacious. Your example is not fallacious because you are not claiming the batting average is truth merely because the encyclopedia says it is, you are claiming that the encyclopedia can be reasonably trusted so it is fair to believe the fact. If you claimed that the batting average was that merely by virtue of the encyclopedia's authority you would be committing a logical fallacy. Obviously, the veracity of the batting average is a fact that exists outside of the authority of the encyclopedia and does not derive from the encyclopedia itself.

The appeal to morality in the Bible is different. Because it relies on the premise that the Bible's authority is the source of the truth of the claim. This is fallacious because it assumes that authority makes truth, something demonstratively false.

Edit: Not to mention the fact of how you could consider an interpretation of the Bible authoritative when we've already established that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation.

----------


## Ecurb

> The appeal to morality in the Bible is different. Because it relies on the premise that the Bible's authority is the source of the truth of the claim. This is fallacious because it assumes that authority makes truth, something demonstratively false.
> 
> Edit: Not to mention the fact of how you could consider an interpretation of the Bible authoritative when we've already established that it is highly subjective and open to interpretation.


This reasoning is not "fallacious" at all, although it may be incorrect. Not all arguments that are incorrect are fallacious. Obviously, if God is properly the "AUTHOR" of all moral rules, than his "authoritative statements" of what those rules entail ARE the best way to discover moral truths.

----------


## YesNo

What does morality have to do with religion anyway?

----------


## The Atheist

> What does morality have to do with religion anyway?


This:

People who follow religion have enforced their morality onto society for thousands of years.

----------


## Alexander III

> This:
> 
> People who follow religion have enforced their morality onto society for thousands of years.


Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years. What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.

(when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)

----------


## The Atheist

> Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years.


Communism not all that highly regarded, is it?




> What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.


Certainly, but religion's been a great enabler of oppression for much longer than any other ideology, and as with the Communism example, gets a lot better press.




> (when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)


 :Smilielol5: 

True!

----------


## YesNo

> Communists all over the world have forced their morality onto society for a hundred years. What Im saying is that Religion is not inherently the problem. It's like saying the reason we have murder is because of guns, not true you can replace that gun with a sword or knife or poison and we still have the murder. Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.
> 
> (when I say religion, I mean the big three monotheistic ones, It's kinda hard to oppress a society with Buddhism or Taoism.)


Yes, religions make up just one set of excuses used to bully other people. Other excuses would pop up to take their place if the current three monotheistic religions became marginalized.

I am beginning to think that one reason to classify these three religions based on the Genesis (J-authored) story of Abraham as _primitive_ is because they are overly concerned with (1) belief and (2) morals rather than self-realization. I suspect other traditions use less belief and need morality as one might need a healthy diet, that is, as a starting point, not an ending point.

----------


## AuntShecky

Here's a beautifully written essay by a professed atheist on the need for humility:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...certainty.html

Ms Cupp writes:
"The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."

and as an illustration:

"I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Human nature is the problem here, Religion, Communism, fascism and a million other ideologies are all interchangeable as tools of oppression.


Religion, Communism, fascism and .....atheism?

You make a valid point...

----------


## The Atheist

> Ms Cupp writes:
> "The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."
> 
> and as an illustration:
> 
> "I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."


I think Ms Cup has drawn a beautiful strawman. 

I keep asking for evidence that these "mean spirited" atheists actually exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence. I don't know of atheists that hassle the bereaved or turn up and laugh at religious funerals or ceremonies. 

Refusal to give religion a free pass is not "being mean".

In the case of Immaculee, I'd simply suggest that she would have found something else to believe in had she not been indoctrinated with her god-belief. Herself maybe.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I think Ms Cup has drawn a beautiful strawman. 
> 
> I keep asking for evidence that these "mean spirited" atheists actually exist, but I'm still waiting for evidence. I don't know of atheists that hassle the bereaved or turn up and laugh at religious funerals or ceremonies. 
> 
> Refusal to give religion a free pass is not "being mean".
> 
> In the case of Immaculee, I'd simply suggest that she would have found something else to believe in had she not been indoctrinated with her god-belief. Herself maybe.


Just peruse your own posts...but I doubt that you be able to see the religious intolerance within them. The Bible speaks of those who have seared their own consciences. I wish that I would be able to give you evidence that you'd be able to understand, but none exists. The problem does not lie within the evidence, but the perspective of the critic.

----------


## The Atheist

> Just peruse your own posts...but I doubt that you be able to see the religious intolerance within them.


Being intolerant of religion is not "being mean". I will admit to attacking religion, but it isn't done to be mean to theists. That was the point I was making. Religion is usually attacked by atheists because left unchecked, we know for a fact that religions will try to enforce their beliefs in the classroom and in public arenas.

I would class tolerating religion as giving it a free pass, which is what the author seems to be pleading for.

Quite amsuing, really, all these people pleading for religion to be given a special place. Should I give the same free pass to homeopaths, UFO believers, mediums and psychics? 




> The Bible speaks of those who have seared their own consciences. I wish that I would be able to give you evidence that you'd be able to understand, but none exists. The problem does not lie within the evidence, but the perspective of the critic.


Well, I can only disagree with that. Saying that the evidence isn't in a format I can understand is just a cop out.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Religion is usually attacked by atheists because left unchecked, we know for a fact that religions will try to enforce their beliefs in the classroom and in public arenas.


You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?

----------


## Drkshadow03

> You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?


But evolution isn't a belief in the way you're thinking as it is evidence-based. It has stood up to challenges against it and shown itself to be true up to this point, nor is it atheist-enforced. I want evolution taught in my classrooms and Creationism kept the hell out.

----------


## The Atheist

> You mean like atheists enforce their beliefs of evolution in the classrooms?


 :Smilielol5: 

Oddly, I don't have any problem with teaching of peer-reviewed science. Especially ones that have been peer-reviewed to extreme lengths, like evolution.

____________________________________


I've now had time to go through the article critically and would make the following comments:




> What spiritual quest are they on, except to put an abrupt end to those like my father's? For them, the science is settled, the data are conclusive and the book (no, not the Good Book) has been written. Time for everyone else to pack up and move on to other business, like, presumably, accumulating wealth and fulminating at the sight of the nearest Christmas tree.


Where are atheists who suggest accumulation of wealth?

This is an outrageous strawman argument. I would like to see evidence that any atheist has ever suggested accumulation of wealth as an alternative to religion.

The christmas tree comment isn't just wrong, it's stupid. The German tradition of christmas trees has only a tenuous connection to christ, which has long been superceded by commercialism. I have never heard an atheist railing against christmas trees and every atheist home I've been into this christmas has a christmas tree.




> Though more than 95% of the world finds some meaning in faith, God-hating comic Bill Maher shrugs this off as a "neurological disorder."


>95% is a false claim.

Even Adherents, a religious organisation, lists agnosticism at 16% worldwide.

I feel that's a little low, given China alone, where a high percentage of the population does not practice any form of religion, but as the numbers at Adherents already negate her argument, I'll leave it there.




> While the neoatheists pay only cursory attention to dismantling arguments for God, they spend most of their time painting his followers as uncultured rubes.


Assertion without foundation, which is no doubt why she has again failed to provide evidence. There are certainly examples of atheists attacking theists' intelligence, but saying it takes up "most of their time" is totally dishonest.




> The truth is, folks like Maher and Silverman don't want to know about actual belief - in fact, they are much more certain about the nature of the world than most actual believers, who understand that a measure of doubt is necessary for faith. They want to focus on the downfall of a gay pastor or the Nativity scene at a mall.


Again, this is completely fallacious to the point of fantasy.

Almost no atheists claim certainty, and Richard Dawkins' well-known 6.9/7 comment regarding certainty embodies this precisely for the vast majority of atheists. To claim that atheists talk of certainty and theists of doubt is a travesty of reality.

Poor article, badly written, using several fallacious arguments, actual falsehoods and argument from personal assertion.

Thanks, Aunt Shecky, for the link, because it goes right to the heart of my OP. She has created a strawman of atheism to attack, which is a pretty easy target in 90% theistic USA.

I couldn't have found a better example!

----------


## YesNo

> Here's a beautifully written essay by a professed atheist on the need for humility:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...certainty.html
> 
> Ms Cupp writes:
> "The militant atheist wants nothing more than to spoil the believer's spiritual journey. That's both mean spirited and radically unenlightened."
> 
> and as an illustration:
> 
> "I wonder what they'd say to someone like Immaculee Ilibagiza, a survivor of the Rwandan genocide who says that her faith in Jesus Christ got her through 91 days of hiding in a 3x4 foot bathroom while her family was murdered outside. Would they tell her she was crazy? Delusional? To just deal with it? I would hope not - but I am not sure."


I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey. Cupp's own article seemed "radically unenlightened".

----------


## The Atheist

> I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey.


That's a very good point too.

I often ask christians why they get angry at atheism when their personal pal just happens to run the entire universe.

What are they really afraid of?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I don't see how the "mean spirited" comments of either atheists or Christians can "spoil" someone's spiritual journey. Cupp's own article seemed "radically unenlightened".


Then the comments about "Christian fundamentalists" are without any legitimacy. Most of the issues that many atheists have are about the opinions of "Christian fundamentalists". Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone? That would also mean that BOTH evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone?



There's a fundmental and important distinction between questioning ideas and attacking people. All ideas should be constantly and rigorously tested and retested. They should never be left alone.

And as the ideas have to be expressed by people, people tend to be involved in that process. 

That doesn't mean that the people involved are being attacked. It's possible to simultaneously be happy for people to have their own opinions and also to want to talk about the ideas that support those opinions.

I honestly don't understand why some people - of many persuasions - don't want to have their ideas questioned, but that's their choice of course. The rest of us, on the other hand, might want to carry on with that exchange.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I honestly don't understand why some people - of many persuasions - don't want to have their ideas questioned, but that's their choice of course. The rest of us, on the other hand, might want to carry on with that exchange.


Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. I've raised the question many times, but it is never answered. Why do we continue to teach in our schools that it takes millions or billions of years for coal to form in nature, when scientists now know for a fact that it only takes decades? There are SOME who don't want to address truth, but they revel in their theories....theories that don't match the evidence.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. I've raised the question many times, but it is never answered.


Intelligent design is not science, not only that the major proponents of it, like Michael Behe, have been shown countless times to be outright liars that are just taking advantage of the scientifically illiterate by using just enough scientific jargon to confuse the layman, even though everything they say has been thoroughly debunked. 

Teach ID at home if you like, but science courses should teach science.




> Why do we continue to teach in our schools that it takes millions or billions of years for coal to form in nature, when scientists now know for a fact that it only takes decades? There are SOME who don't want to address truth, but they revel in their theories....theories that don't match the evidence.


That's patently nonsense, it does take millions of years for coal to form, on another note there haven't even been complex plants around for a billion years. Not only that, but coal formation requires extended anaerobic conditions, i.e. they have to occur in marshes, lakes or bogs. The early stages of coal formation, which can occur in a few decades, is peat, which makes a far less effective fuel. 

Have you ever been to a strip mine where they mine coal, the depth coal is found at couldn't even be possible if it only took decades. Stuff from a few decades back, without disturbance, would only be under a couple feet of ground at most. Not to mention the fact that coal formation requires decaying plant material to originally be under water.

----------


## The Atheist

> Then the comments about "Christian fundamentalists" are without any legitimacy. Most of the issues that many atheists have are about the opinions of "Christian fundamentalists". Why don't we all just have our own opinions and leave each other alone? That would also mean that BOTH evolution and creationism should be taught in schools.


This is a horrible suggestion, and I would fight it to my death.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief. 

As to leaving each other alone, that's a goal I'd love to see realised, but it would require theists to keep their faith to themselves, and I will wait until that happens before I put down the artillery.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Yet there is currently an ongoing movement to stifle the discussion of religious matter in any public school. The "new" "militant" atheism doesn't want any discussion of "intelligent design". They want to monopolize the discussion and the evidences. .



So would it be better if nothing was taught in schools that anyone anywhere disagreed with? Or should everything be taught in schools that someone somewhere feels ought to be?

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Because so-called 'Intelligent design' works in reverse to defeat itself

'Why do we have two legs?'
'One for the accelerator and one for the brake'

'Why do we have two ears?'
'So our spectacles don't fall off'

'Why do we have two eyes?'
''In case we poke ourself in one by a burnt stick, and what could be better than that?'

----------


## JuniperWoolf

My biology teacher DID teach us about intelligent design in highschool. Of course, he first taught us about natural selection, mutation and evolution but after he was done each section of study he always went over the social implications of what we learned and after evolution we learend about the "intelligent design controversy." He was a great guy, he didn't say "and then some people believe in THIS nonesense," he just let the facts speak for themselves. It's important to know what other people believe in, this is as close to allowing intelligent design into a science classroom as I will condone.

----------


## AuntShecky

> ____________________________________
> 
> 
> I've now had time to go through the article critically and would make the following comments:
> 
> 
> 
> Where are atheists who suggest accumulation of wealth?
> 
> ...



*Both sides* could use a little dose of *healthy doubt* once in a while:

"There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds."
--Tennyson [/COLOR][/

----------


## The Atheist

> There you go with your "strawman" again.


Trust me, I hate the term myself, but it's the only thing which fits in these cases. The premises are made up, and made up for the sole purpose of supporting an argument.

What else can I describe it as?

If you can find some evidence that any of the premises are true, fire away.




> Although I have no doubt that some atheists are not materialistic, *the absence of spirituality would create a vacuum*, one would think, which must be filled-- if not with the desire to accumulate wealth, then with something else.


I have bolded the appropriate part, because you're falling into exactly the same error. Who says it will create a vacuum? Why would it create a vacuum? 

You are making up things to suit your argument.




> The Christmas tree...


My primary point - which you didn't answer - was that I have never heard of atheists complaining about christmas trees. 

The idea is made up.




> How do we know this? Are we assuming that no Chinese harbor religious beliefs simply because they do not practice religion publicly? ( Doing so would be risking bodily harm by the State.)


Again, you're missing the main point. The numbers used in the article were made up. I gave you a religious organisation's estimate, which proved her wrong. Whether or not the number is higher, it is unarguable that she made up the "95%". 




> I thought the examples cited by the author (including the woman who survived while witnessing the murders of her family, as well as the author's own father) were effective and emotionally moving examples.


Of what? That people believe in god/s with all of their being? 

I already knew that, and many suicide bombers have confirmed it since then.

The stories may have moved me more had I been sure they were true. When I read an article which has glaring dishonesty, I find it hard to be moved by the emotional bits - they're probably as false as the data used.




> Well, many of them publicly behave as if they had all the answers, giving the impression that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs (or lack of them)is intellectually "juvenile," to use Dawkins's term.


I find it hard to disagree with Dawkins on this one. The idea that religion is merely human construct is so obvious that it is often hard not to be too dismissive. 

Let's agree that's one area where militant atheism could improve itself.




> It would be much better if both schools of thought would at least attempt to have respect for the other's opinion.


I won't agree with that, though. I will never be able to respect theism, nor do I believe that I should. I don't respect people who believe in psychics, astrology or alien lizards running the planet earth, so I think seeking respect is the wrong approach.




> Even though there may be camps of fundamentalist fanatics, the proponents of atheism do not have to emulate their tactics.


This is another of those made-up ideas.

In what way do atheists behave like fundies? Do they tell those who disagree they're going to hell? Do they have atheist exorcisms, exorcising the spirit of Jesus? Do they pay for television stations to broadcast daily messages to the faithful?

I see a lot of conflating atheism and fundamentalism, but I think it's highly dishonest.




> *Both sides* could use a little dose of *healthy doubt* once in a while:


I repeat that atheists actually exercise a lot more doubt than you're suggesting.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief.


True...it is your belief that... 
...everything came from nothing
...life came from non-life
...consciousness came from unconsciousness
...intelligence came from non-intelligence
...morality came from amorality

But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Although I have no doubt that some atheists are not materialistic, the absence of spirituality would create a vacuum, one would think, which must be filled-- if not with the desire to accumulate wealth, then with something else.
> 
> Among famous atheists Karl Marx derived his philosophy from Hegel's dialectical materialism.


This is a bit silly Shecky. You're conflating very different meanings of materialism. Dialectical materialism is a theory from Marxism about capitalism's tendency to work towards maximum efficiency in a way that is self-destructive to the capitalistic system. I.e. The move of factories towards robotic workers that puts factory workers out of work, and in turn creates less customers for the factory would be an example of dialectical materialism. 

I just don't get what this has to do with the accumulation of wealth replacing any spiritual thing for atheist.

And really let's look at Calvinist, who used to see material wealth as a sign of God's Grace, thus they were very actively involved in the accumulation of material wealth. I don't see why atheist would be more likely to look for satisfaction in wealth than religious people.

Most scientist are atheist, most scientist are not working in fields likely to get them rich. 

If we're talking about philosophical materialism, obviously this is a worldview many atheist are likely to support, but this has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. It just means that you believe the world around us is real and understandable and there is no supernatural.

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

----------


## MarkBastable

> True...it is your belief that... 
> ...everything came from nothing
> ...life came from non-life
> ...consciousness came from unconsciousness
> ...intelligence came from non-intelligence
> ...morality came from amorality
> 
> But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.



........er......


Tea, anyone?



Actually, while the kettle's boiling, I would like to ask a question. Given that so many of us believe that science _does_ support evolution, solidly, consistently and pretty much definitively, then - if you're right, Bienvenue - all of us are either gullible or in some way involved in the promotion of this nonsense. 

The latter group - those perpetuating the falsehood - would have to be quite small in order to keep it quiet, so do you suggest that the vast majority of us are stupid? 

I mean, _you've_ seen through it all, so we must at the very least be less bright than you.

----------


## The Atheist

> True...it is your belief that... 
> ...everything came from nothing
> ...life came from non-life
> ...consciousness came from unconsciousness
> ...intelligence came from non-intelligence
> ...morality came from amorality


Nope, I don't have any belief in those things. As I say consistently, the only belief I have is that reality exists.

By evaluating the evidence available, I think they are most likely true - except for the top one - it's theists who believe a god made the universe from nothing, most rationalists think the big bang had some substance behind it.




> There are NO facts that support evolution.


That is so wrong I won't bother arguing against it - there have been thousands of textbooks which detail the physical evidence of evolution.




> If we're talking about philosophical materialism, obviously this is a worldview many atheist are likely to support, but this has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. It just means that you believe the world around us is real and understandable and there is no supernatural.


Good spot - it never occurred to me that that was the problem.

----------


## Ecurb

> If we're talking about philosophical materialism, obviously this is a worldview many atheist are likely to support, but this has nothing to do with the accumulation of wealth. It just means that you believe the world around us is real and understandable and there is no supernatural.


As with The Atheist's "It isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact vs belief...." there are hidden postulates in this statement. 

The "real" world might be most completely understandable through fasting and meditation, or it might be understandable through observation, induction, and experiment. What OrphanPip and The Atheist mean to say (I think, correct me if Im wrong) is that the world is real and that it is best understood through observation, induction, and experiment. In other words, it is best understood through the use of scientific methods and techniques.

If thats what they are saying, I agree with them both (although I dont necessarily distrust non-scientific approaches as much as the do). However, if they are saying that everything in the world IS understandable through the scientific method, then they are either mistaken, or making a gigantic leap of faith. Obviously, there are plenty of things that we dont understand, and some that we may never understand, or that may not lend themselves to scientific explication.

Let me give an example of what Im talking about**:

The Christian says, Who can know the Mind of God? He means that the Mind of God is incomprehensible to puny humans, we can only approach knolwedge of it through stories and metaphors.

Ths materialist might reasonably say, Who can know what lies beyond the boundries of the known universe? After all, those things moving away from us at the speed of light are not only unknown, but unknowable. Does this mean they are not real (as OrphanPips comment would suggest)?

----------


## OrphanPip

> Let me give an example of what Im talking about**:
> 
> The Christian says, Who can know the Mind of God? He means that the Mind of God is incomprehensible to puny humans, we can only approach knolwedge of it through stories and metaphors.
> 
> Ths materialist might reasonably say, Who can know what lies beyond the boundries of the known universe? After all, those things moving away from us at the speed of light are not only unknown, but unknowable. Does this mean they are not real (as OrphanPips comment would suggest)?


The premise is a bit more nuanced than that though, if something is immaterial, in the sense of the supernatural, then it is never measurable and has no effect on the material world, thus the question of its existence is inaccessible and can be effectively ignored.

The philosophical materialist would say that all that meaningfully exists for us is discernible through observation of its effects, either directly or indirectly. This doesn't say that things which we haven't measured don't exist, but it postulates that things which we haven't found to exist that do exist should still have effects that would be observable if we knew how or could get to them.

----------


## Ecurb

I suggest that there are a great many things that are immaterial (so in one sense they are supernatural, although I doubt that OrphanPip would call them supernatural). Among them are such things as consciousness, ideas, beliefs, etc. Of course, as OrphanPip suggests, these immaterial things do have observable effects, although its difficult to tell what those effects are, since it's difficult to observe connections between the abstract concept of consciousness and how it affects observable reality. So while scientific approaches often offer the most enlightening methods of looking at things, other approaches (philosophy, literature, religion, etc.) may be more enlightening methods of looking at some things. 

Here's one example: Philosoher differentiate between "experiential knowledge" and other forms of knowledge. A scientist may be able to describe the physics behind one's ability to ride a bicycle, but his "knowledge" of how to ride a bike is different from that of the Tour de France professional (who may know nothing about physics). One has the "experience" of bike riding, and "knows" something the other does not. Similarly, the religious mystic, who spends his life meditating and flagellating himself may know something about the religious experience that is a complete mystery to the student (scientist) of religion. The mystic may not be able to measure this knowledge nor the scientist observe it, but the mystic has a form of experiential knowledge that a great many people have said is enlightening. Even if it is not particularly enlightening, at least from Orphanpip's and The Atheists point of view, it remains a form of knowledge they do not have  just like the bike riders knowledge of bike riding is a form of knowledge that non-riders dont share. 

(p.s. I couldn't resist the "flagellating himself" bit.)

----------


## Rores28

> True...it is your belief that... 
> ...everything came from nothing
> ...life came from non-life
> ...consciousness came from unconsciousness
> ...intelligence came from non-intelligence
> ...morality came from amorality
> 
> But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.


I think the biggest problem with this line of reasoning is that invoking a deity to fill these "knowledge gaps" if they are in fact gaps, is actually more problematic than an explanation sans deity, for the simple reason that it always generates the question of where/how the deity originated. Therefore the atheistic explanation is still preferred.

Beyond this though you attempt to tie the existence of emergent properties or hierarchical structures with a need for belief in god (or maybe just a non-atheistic explanation).

A single person in a stadium cannot perform the wave by standing up. Even two or three people couldn't pull it off. However a whole stadium full of people, standing up at the correct time can. Here a wave comes from a non-wave, yet most of us would not find this metaphysically mind-blowing. Likewise organs come from tissues which come from cells etc.. A heart is not made of little hearts, yet it has properties absent from the individuals cells of which it is composed. Likewise for the examples you've listed (minus the ex nihilo thing), so I just don't find those leaps ontologically troubling.

I think the universe coming from nothing is really the "Big" question. The debate of the existence or non-existence of a More Powerful Being is really I think at the heart a question of "Why is there stuff rather than no stuff." A question which the big bang doesn't exactly answer either.


edit - Also can you elaborate on what you mean when you say that there are no facts that support evolution.

----------


## OrphanPip

> I suggest that there are a great many things that are “immaterial” (so in one sense they are “supernatural”, although I doubt that OrphanPip would call them “supernatural”). Among them are such things as “consciousness”, “ideas”, “beliefs”, etc. Of course, as OrphanPip suggests, these immaterial things do have observable effects, although it’s difficult to tell what those effects are, since it's difficult to observe connections between the abstract concept of “consciousness” and how it affects observable reality. So while scientific approaches often offer the most enlightening methods of looking at things, other approaches (philosophy, literature, religion, etc.) may be more enlightening methods of looking at some things. 
> 
> Here's one example: Philosoher differentiate between "experiential knowledge" and other forms of knowledge. A scientist may be able to describe the physics behind one's ability to ride a bicycle, but his "knowledge" of how to ride a bike is different from that of the Tour de France professional (who may know nothing about physics). One has the "experience" of bike riding, and "knows" something the other does not. Similarly, the religious mystic, who spends his life meditating and flagellating himself may “know” something about the religious experience that is a complete mystery to the student (scientist) of religion. The mystic may not be able to measure this knowledge nor the scientist observe it, but the mystic has a form of experiential knowledge that a great many people have said is “enlightening”. Even if it is not particularly enlightening, at least from Orphanpip's and The Atheist’s point of view, it remains a form of knowledge they do not have – just like the bike rider’s knowledge of bike riding is a form of knowledge that non-riders don’t share. 
> 
> (p.s. I couldn't resist the "flagellating himself" bit.)


Thoughts are in no way immaterial, they are a result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions.

Subjective observations tell us little about anything other than the individual making the observations.




> This reasoning is not "fallacious" at all, although it may be incorrect. Not all arguments that are incorrect are fallacious. Obviously, if God is properly the "AUTHOR" of all moral rules, than his "authoritative statements" of what those rules entail ARE the best way to discover moral truths.


Also, I might as well respond to this now.

No, it's still fallacious. Such a conception then becomes a prescriptive discussion of the moral rules, rather than a justification of them. If God is the source of moral truth, then the appeal to the authority merely tells us what the prescriptions are and not why something is morally true. 

Then even if we were to accept the premise that God was the source of moral truth, we're back to the problem of subjectivity and the issue of the inaccessibility of authorial intent.

----------


## AuntShecky

The main idea I was/am trying to promote is a healthy dose of humility on all sides.

Characterizing those who have the gift of faith as
intellectually inferior-- or conversely, condemning non-believers to hell-- is incredibly arrogant. It doesn't help one's argument if the person promoting it is insufferably smug, or believes his mind is greater than the likes of Teilhard or Martin Buber or Paul Tillich, among other great scholars of the twentieth century.

Some--_ some_!--of the so-called "militant" atheists give this condescending impression with their zealous quest to pronounce those whose open minds allow for a possibility -- a _possibility_ of a reality beyond the limits of the here and now and beyond the current abilities of human perceptions. Many scientists, including Einstein, took similar position in their respective theories-- quantum theory, string theory,parallel universes, and the like, as none of these can be "proven" through the senses. 

Faith, by its very definition, is "the substance of things hopeful, the evidence of things unseen." If indisputable empirical evidence, measurable and perceptible by the senses, is right in front of us, and we therefore "believe,"
then what we have is no longer "faith."

----------


## Alexander III

"Characterizing those who have the gift of faith as
intellectually inferior"

I dont think anyone does that, I mean lets face it only an intellectually inferior person would think that. Newton and Darwin two great minds of science were not only religious but deeply religious, very deeply.

----------


## YesNo

> True...it is your belief that... 
> ...everything came from nothing
> ...life came from non-life
> ...consciousness came from unconsciousness
> ...intelligence came from non-intelligence
> ...morality came from amorality
> 
> But NONE of that comes from facts. *There are NO facts that support evolution.* Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.


The part that I found interesting I put in bold.

I don't know about the facts supporting evolution. I suspect that theory will advance and improve, but I think I found a fact proving that Creationism is not what happened.

Here are my assumptions: Creationism maintains that the Genesis account was literally true and the amount of time from that initial creation to the present was also calculated to be something under 10,000 years. That means, the universe is only 10,000 years old.

The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy ) Since we can see it, light must have been traveling longer than the assumed lifetime of the universe to reach us.

At this point I should state the obvious, but I will refrain from doing so.

I don't want to sound like an "atheist". From my perspective, consciousness came first; we are part of it; and we can relate to that consciousness from either an atheistic or a theistic perspective. Either way is fine. But the idea that the Genesis account of creation is literally true does not make any sense and there is more than evolution that stands in its way.

----------


## Ecurb

No doubt consciousness IS the result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions. However, just because something is caused by material processes does not mean that thing is material itself. You might as well say that God is the result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions. Can we thus infer that God exists as a real thing? 

Also, the word fallacy (as used in this context) means logical error." Such fallacies are often referred to as logical fallacies. Ill grant that theres another, more colloquial use of the word "fallacious" that means, unsound or incorrect. To rephrase my objection to your claiming that arguing morals based on the word of God is fallacious, such an argument may be unsound or incorrect, but it is not necessarily illogical or invalid. 

Premise 1: God is the infallible and correct author of all moral rules.
Premise 2: The Bible is the infallibly true and accurate Word of God.

Conclusion: Moral rules stated in the Bible are the infallibly correct ones.

You may not agree with the premises (or the conclusion), but the logic is valid.

----------


## OrphanPip

No, it's fallacious in the sense of formal logic. That conception is tautological because you are saying the moral rules in the Bible are the same moral rules stated by God.

If the Bible is the true word of God.
And the true word of God makes moral truth.
Then the true word of God makes moral truth.

It's circular.

Secondly, it doesn't explain why murder is wrong. If I were to accept the premise that God's word is accurate for determining moral truths, it still doesn't explain why murder is wrong.

If the question is why is murder wrong, the use of a prescription from an infallible authority is still fallacious.

Otherwise we are discussing morality as prescription, either morality has reason for why it is right or wrong, or morality is a prescription, merely things you should or shouldn't do because someone in authority says so.




> No doubt consciousness IS the result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions. However, just because something is caused by material processes does not mean that thing is material itself. You might as well say that God is the result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions. Can we thus infer that God exists as a real thing?


No, but the idea of God is a real thing.

----------


## Rores28

> The part that I found interesting I put in bold.
> 
> I don't know about the facts supporting evolution. I suspect that theory will advance and improve, but I think I found a fact proving that Creationism is not what happened.
> 
> Here are my assumptions: Creationism maintains that the Genesis account was literally true and the amount of time from that initial creation to the present was also calculated to be something under 10,000 years. That means, the universe is only 10,000 years old.
> 
> The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy ) Since we can see it, light must have been traveling longer than the assumed lifetime of the universe to reach us.
> 
> At this point I should state the obvious, but I will refrain from doing so.
> ...


I don't find arguments of this ilk particularly persuasive. First you are limiting your argument against the existence of a deity to relatively few religions. Secondly, within those religions God is seen as all powerful, so this fact scarcely offers any opposition, as the believer will always point out that God could have just made the universe appear that way.

----------


## Ecurb

All logic is circular. The premises can always be restated as the conclusion. That's how logic works. 

In logic, a circular argument has a specific meaning: the conclusion restates ONE of the premises. In all logical arguments the conclusion restates two or more premises. 

Also, Religion does explain why murder is wrong -- because obedience to the Law of the Lord is His first commandment, and His will determines right and wrong. In addition, there is no scientific way to determine "evil". "Bad", yes; "evil" no. Neitzsche once said, "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."

As far as "God" vs. "Consciousness", its probably not a good analogy. My point is simply that there are many things that exist (we sense them and can talk about them) but cannot be readily observed or measured, or if they can, cannot be as well understood in that way as in more subjective and personal modes of understanding. Consciousness is one of them. For anyone who is interested, heres a link: 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

----------


## Rores28

> Thoughts are in no way immaterial, they are a result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions.


While I'm not exactly ready to commit to calling them immaterial, saying they are simply the result of cognitive processes is a little dismissive.

When 510nm wavelength hits your retina it causes a conformational change in your cells which sends a signal through your optic nerve to areas in your brain associated with vision creating a unique neuronal pattern..... then you see green. 

But where is the green if it is material. The greeness or qualia you are aware of occupies no spatial dimension. Nor could you find greeness by opening up someone's head and looking at their brain while you flooded their retina with 510nm light

If you say that green is your a specific brain pattern it seems to be missing the point. If this were true I might be equally valid in calling the reactions taking place in your cone cells green, or calling the light itself green. While it seems clear that greenness occurs by an intricate interplay of light and nervous system pattern, calling the light and pattern green, doesn't seem sufficient.

----------


## OrphanPip

> All logic is circular. The premises can always be restated as the conclusion. That's how logic works. 
> 
> In logic, a circular argument has a specific meaning: the conclusion restates ONE of the premises. In all logical arguments the conclusion restates two or more premises.


No, if the argument is circular, it's not actually demonstrating anything because it is attempting to prove the premise it begins with. You can't prove something with itself, otherwise you are merely stating something as a tautology, which is not an argument at all.




> Also, Religion does explain why murder is wrong -- because obedience to the Law of the Lord is His first commandment, and His will determines right and wrong. In addition, there is no scientific way to determine "evil". "Bad", yes; "evil" no. Neitzsche once said, "I have destroyed the distinction between good and evil, but not that between good and bad."


Not effectively, that would be begging the question, and then you're making a prescriptive distinction of morality. I don't care if there is a scientific way to determine morality, there are far more effective ways to determine moral systems that don't rely on arbitrary prescriptions which are often oppressive. I've already said before that the harm principle advocated by classical Liberals is by far the best starting point for a moral system. I don't actually think that moral truth, good or evil exist at all; the concept of morality is merely an extension of the innate human desire to create systems of normative behavior that are a requisite part of forming complex social structures. For that reason I support the use of debate and dialogue to produce ethical systems that do the least damage and allow us to function as a society. Religious systems that begin with the preconception that their way is inherently right by divine ordination are not conductive to the effective running of a nation that respects the individual and doesn't accept arbitrary oppression. 




> As far as "God" vs. "Consciousness", its probably not a good analogy. My point is simply that there are many things that exist (we sense them and can talk about them) but cannot be readily observed or measured, or if they can, cannot be as well understood in that way as in more subjective and personal modes of understanding. Consciousness is one of them. For anyone who is interested, heres a link: 
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/


They're still a product of physical processes and thus are within reach of materialism. Subjectivity has no true meaning beyond that of the individual, you can not determine the truth of any experience or existence beyond your own through subjective means. Of course, we're social creatures that have to interact with others if we want to live so we have to bring in subjective things at times, but we should always be skeptical of conclusions drawn from subjective experiences. It's fun to share ideas and experiences too.

----------


## OrphanPip

> While I'm not exactly ready to commit to calling them immaterial, saying they are simply the result of cognitive processes is a little dismissive.
> 
> When 510nm wavelength hits your retina it causes a conformational change in your cells which sends a signal through your optic nerve to areas in your brain associated with vision creating a unique neuronal pattern..... then you see green. 
> 
> But where is the green if it is material. The greeness or qualia you are aware of occupies no spatial dimension. Nor could you find greeness by opening up someone's head and looking at their brain while you flooded their retina with 510nm light
> 
> If you say that green is your a specific brain pattern it seems to be missing the point. If this were true I might be equally valid in calling the reactions taking place in your cone cells green, or calling the light itself green. While it seems clear that greenness occurs by an intricate interplay of light and nervous system pattern, calling the light and pattern green, doesn't seem sufficient.


You're conceptualizing it incorrectly. It isn't the wavelengths at all that create the perception, but your brain's interpreting those initial impulses and sorting them into accessible information as green through patterns of impulse, conformational changes of neurons, and production of certain proteins. It is not that green has an objective existence as something outside of us, but the processes that produce our conceptualization of green in our brain are material.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The part that I found interesting I put in bold.
> 
> I don't know about the facts supporting evolution. I suspect that theory will advance and improve, but I think I found a fact proving that Creationism is not what happened.
> 
> Here are my assumptions: Creationism maintains that the Genesis account was literally true and the amount of time from that initial creation to the present was also calculated to be something under 10,000 years. That means, the universe is only 10,000 years old.
> 
> The Andromeda galaxy is 2.5 million light years away. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy ) Since we can see it, light must have been traveling longer than the assumed lifetime of the universe to reach us.
> 
> At this point I should state the obvious, but I will refrain from doing so.
> ...


If God created the stars in the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, and He did so for this reason. In Genesis 1:14, "Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." If God made these stars (and all stars) for man's use, then He could (and would) have made the trail of light between the stars and the earth. That doesn't prove anything.

----------


## Rores28

> You're conceptualizing it incorrectly. It isn't the wavelengths at all that create the perception, but your brain's interpreting those initial impulses and sorting them into accessible information as green through patterns of impulse, conformational changes of neurons, and production of certain proteins. It is not that green has an objective existence as something outside of us, but the processes that produce our conceptualization of green in our brain are material.


Hmmm. Maybe I didn't explain myself well because that is my conception of it.

The processes that produce our conception of green is material yes. But green itself is a little more slippery, for the reasons stated in my previous post. Because green is only ever a qualia it ceases to exist in the same way as something like a block of wood or even the light that gives rise to it.

Once again I'm not ready to say yet that thoughts are "immaterial" but there does seem at present to be something fundamentally different about them.

----------


## Rores28

> If God created the stars in the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, and He did so for this reason. In Genesis 1:14, "Then God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." If God made these stars (and all stars) for man's use, then He could (and would) have made the trail of light between the stars and the earth. That doesn't prove anything.


See how I predicted this..

----------


## YesNo

> As far as "God" vs. "Consciousness", its probably not a good analogy. My point is simply that there are many things that exist (we sense them and can talk about them) but cannot be readily observed or measured, or if they can, cannot be as well understood in that way as in more subjective and personal modes of understanding. Consciousness is one of them. For anyone who is interested, heres a link: 
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/


I enjoyed the link. This sentence from the article seems close to what I think might be the case, but the more I read it the more I wonder if I even understand what it is saying:

_Similarly one could regard consciousness as referring to a component or aspect of reality that manifests itself in conscious states and creatures but is more than merely the abstract nominalization of the adjective conscious we apply to them._

I also consider this consciousness to be conscious enough to be "friendly".

----------


## YesNo

> See how I predicted this..


I think you are right.  :Smile: 

Have you seen the *Matrix* trilogy? Maybe we are just in the matrix dreaming all of this while the machines are using us as fuel cells.

----------


## The Atheist

> Thoughts are in no way immaterial, they are a result of cognitive processes determined by electrochemical reactions.


Yet again, you've saved me the trouble. Abstract thought is not immaterial.




> The main idea I was/am trying to promote is a healthy dose of humility on all sides.


I often tell people who ask that kind of change to get the theists to agree first. If churches and religions stayed the hell out of everyone else's lives, I don't think atheists would be at all militant, but when we have the proven examples of churches trying to force their beliefs onto young minds, militant atheism actually becomes an essential anchor on theistic aspirations.

Write to the churches and get an agreement to stop evangelising, attacking gay rights and abortion and stop trying to get Noah into the classroom and we'll talk again.

Tolerance is a two-way street, and given the history of religion/s, it's their turn to make the first move.




> See how I predicted this..


10 points for Gryffindor! (Not a hard prediction.)

----------


## cyberbob

> True...it is your belief that... 
> ...everything came from nothing
> ...life came from non-life
> ...consciousness came from unconsciousness
> ...intelligence came from non-intelligence
> ...morality came from amorality
> 
> But NONE of that comes from facts. There are NO facts that support evolution. Science does not support your beliefs. But you'll just deny it...that doesn't really make your case though.


God isn't an alternative to any of those beliefs, though. If the universe requires an explanation for its existence, and that explanation is God, then what explanation is there for God?

Why is God above needing an explanation? If he is infinite and unbound by any rules of Science then why can't the universe be infinite and the rules of Science by which it is bound just not be clear to us yet? The theory of God doesn't answer anymore questions than it raises, therefore it's a useless theory.

------------------------------

And your claim that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution is utterly wrong. Fossils alone provide plenty of proof that evolution is true, yet they comprise only a small portion of the proof that we do have for evolution.

The fact that all animals have almost identical DNA (when compared to other living things like plants or bacteria) shows that we are all related. Recurring traits in animals that are seperated by whole continents is also evidence of evolution. Some of these animals were once one before their continents drifted apart, and in some cases the similar traits of both animals evolved independently because of either similar environments, or different environments that called for the same traits, or same traits that happen to be useful to both animals but in different ways.

I don't know where you got the idea that evolution isn't supported by science because it is. If you don't quite understand how evolution works I'd be happy to explain it to you in detail if you'd like. Just PM me and I'll show you how it really does make complete sense and there's nothing about life on Earth that can't be explained through evolution and natural selection.

----------


## manolia

> If God created the stars in the Andromeda galaxy that is 2.5 million light years away, and He did so for this reason. In Genesis 1:14, "Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years." If God made these stars (and all stars) for man's use, then He could (and would) have made the trail of light between the stars and the earth. That doesn't prove anything.


Do you find this explanation satisfying?
The previous poster mentioned just one galaxy which happens to be the closest spiral galaxy to our milky way. How about the approx 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe? God had a strange sense of decoration it seems. And why did he put the Andomeda galaxy in a collision course with milky way i wonder.

I tend to respect peoples' beliefs although one thing i find difficult to come to terms with while talking to my theist friends is that they seem to have an answer for everything and the answer is always the same.

----------


## Rores28

> Do you find this explanation satisfying?
> The previous poster mentioned just one galaxy which happens to be the closest spiral galaxy to our milky way. How about the approx 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe? God had a strange sense of decoration it seems. And why did he put the Andomeda galaxy in a collision course with milky way i wonder.
> 
> I tend to respect peoples' beliefs although one thing i find difficult to come to terms with while talking to my theist friends is that they seem to have an answer for everything and the answer is always the same.


Arguments like this will convince the the peeps that sorta believe in Christianity because thats how they were raised, but it isn't at all convincing in the larger framework. The two problems with this and all arguments of this sort are that scientific explanations of the universe do not disprove the existence of creation they only offer and alternative explanation, and also implicit in your explanation is Well if god did this then why this? So you've already met the theist on their grounds and you've already given them the only premise they need for explanation which you already disagree with. They are always going to point out that God is all-powerful and that he works in "mysterious ways" which you've given them by your question. It just wastes time and causes the debate to run into the ground faster.

I think the thing we should be pointing out is that the cognitive strategy which they use throughout nearly every other aspect of their life when seeking truth about the world, is greatly mutated or totally absent in this particular aspect. We should then press why they think this strategy appropriate here when they don't rely on it for basically any other thing they do. (Also plz don't come back at this with the I-called-my-friend-in-England-and-he-said-it-was-raining sophistry)

Likewise the flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one despite the fact that it seems to have lost popularity and as I've stated earlier the idea that God himself requires an explanation.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be pointing out all of the logical scientific explanation of phenomena just that they should be delineated in the context of disobliging the invocation of Creationism/God/Deity rather than the erroneous position of disproving.

----------


## Rores28

> And your claim that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution is utterly wrong. Fossils alone provide plenty of proof that evolution is true, yet they comprise only a small portion of the proof that we do have for evolution.


Careful here with wording.. the scrutinizing/cherry-picking theist will note that you used the word proof. Philosophically the position of science is that it cannot prove any theory or hypotheses only disprove them and mount ever more evidence for a particular hypothesis. You may think this is stupid and it is, but I've seen this happen and it usually slows and kills the debate as it turns into something retarded.

----------


## Rores28

> Yet again, you've saved me the trouble. Abstract thought is not immaterial.


Once again this is dismissive of the things that are going on with qualia.

----------


## Ecurb

> No, if the argument is circular, it's not actually demonstrating anything because it is attempting to prove the premise it begins with. You can't prove something with itself, otherwise you are merely stating something as a tautology, which is not an argument at all.


Think back to high school geometry. All logical proofs are derived from a very limited number of initial postulates. They prove nothing that cannot be inferred from the postulates, although, of course, the process of inference can sometimes be a complicated.

Major premise: All men are mortal. 
Minor premise: Socrates is a man. 
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premises. It is only when ONE premise is the same as the conclusion that an argument is properly referred to as "circular". 




> Subjectivity has no true meaning beyond that of the individual, you can not determine the truth of any experience or existence beyond your own through subjective means.


Reading this sentence is like swimming upstream. Try as I might, I never seem to get anywhere. If subjectivity has no "true" meaning, does that mean it has a "false" meaining? What does "that" in "that of the individual" refer to? The "meaning" of the individual? Aren't all our preceptions "subjective" to some extent. Does Orphan mean that he cannot believe his own eyes? The distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is never clear. 

For those interested, here's a link to an article on "qualia" (mentioned by Rores28 in his illustrative post):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Do you find this explanation satisfying?
> The previous poster mentioned just one galaxy which happens to be the closest spiral galaxy to our milky way. How about the approx 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe? God had a strange sense of decoration it seems. And why did he put the Andomeda galaxy in a collision course with milky way i wonder.
> 
> I tend to respect peoples' beliefs although one thing i find difficult to come to terms with while talking to my theist friends is that they seem to have an answer for everything and the answer is always the same.


If there is a God who is able to create all these things, don't you think that He would have a better handle on the workings of the universe than what we THINK is going to happen? Just look how often our scientists totally screw up their calculations. We can't even decide if there is global warming or global cooling. What we THINK we know is controlled by what we are told. There is a media that is controlled by an elitist ruling class, and people think that they are God by the way that they believe whatever is printed in a newspaper. Atheists have their own gods, they just won't admit it.

----------


## baaaaadgoatjoke

> If there is a God who is able to create all these things, don't you think that He would have a better handle on the workings of the universe than what we THINK is going to happen? Just look how often our scientists totally screw up their calculations. We can't even decide if there is global warming or global cooling. What we THINK we know is controlled by what we are told. There is a media that is controlled by an elitist ruling class, and people think that they are God by the way that they believe whatever is printed in a newspaper. Atheists have their own gods, they just won't admit it.


God works in mysterious ways. God knows what scientists can't. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that there isn't purpose. God knows if there's global warming, but he won't tell you. I know this with certainty because I read it in a Bible.

----------


## OrphanPip

> Think back to high school geometry. All logical proofs are derived from a very limited number of initial postulates. They prove nothing that cannot be inferred from the postulates, although, of course, the process of inference can sometimes be a complicated.
> 
> Major premise: All men are mortal. All A are B C is A C is B
> Minor premise: Socrates is a man. 
> Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
> 
> The conclusion is merely a restatement of the premises. It is only when ONE premise is the same as the conclusion that an argument is properly referred to as "circular".


"Premise 1: God is the infallible and correct author of all moral rules.
Premise 2: The Bible is the infallibly true and accurate Word of God.

Conclusion: Moral rules stated in the Bible are the infallibly correct ones." C 

Your argument is circular, let's simplify your premises to make them less obtuse.

Premise 1: God's moral rules are true.
Premise 2: The moral rules in the Bible are the same as those of God.
Conclusion: The moral rules in the Bible are true.

A is the rules of God
B is the truth of those rules
C is the Moral rules in the Bible.

Premise 1: A is B
Premise 2: C is A
Conclusion: C is B
But since C is A, this is restating A is B. Your premise assumes the truth of the conclusion.

Circular.

The socratese example:

All A are B
C is an A
Thus, C is B

This is non circular because it doesn't define C as synonymous with A.

Edit: Circular reasoning is used in math though, but that's referred to as "virtuous" circular reasoning because it is meant to infer tautological equivalencies.

----------


## AuntShecky

> "Characterizing those who have the gift of faith as
> intellectually inferior"
> 
> I dont think anyone does that, I mean lets face it only an intellectually inferior person would think that. Newton and Darwin two great minds of science were not only religious but deeply religious, very deeply.







This CNN article implies that indeed, this is the prevailing attitude of the New Atheists :

http://articles.cnn.com/2006-11-08/w...on?_s=PM:WORLD

the article states that the atheists' collective 
"_tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. [Sam] Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."_

Also, it has not escaped my notice that this thread, originally about the Militant Atheists, has veered off into dozens of different directions from anecdotes about "near death" experiences, speculation about the nature of human
consciousness, and questions about why the solar system and the rest of the universe aren't connected by a kind of intergalactic interstate highway system.

But since a few people brought up the sub-topic of perception (specifically the color green), I would like to add some thoughts on this very subject --albeit the chosen color is blue, not green-- from John Ruskin, whose essay formed a large portion of a recent LitNet posting by yours truly:

http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=58269


The first couple of sections of Ruskin's essay, "Of the Pathetic Fallacy" debunks the notions of "subjective" and "objective," two terms which Ruskin finds to be "the most objectionable words ever coinded by the troublesomeness of metaphysicians." In any event, Ruskin explains how a gentian can be blue regardless of whether a pair of human eyes sees it:

The word ' Blue', say certain philosophers, means the sensation of colour which the human eye receives in looking at the open sky, or at a bell gentian.

Now, say they farther, as this sensation can only be felt when the eye is turned to the object, and as, therefore, no such sensation is produced by the object when nobody looks at it, therefore the thing, when it is not looked at, is not blue; and thus (say they) there are many qualities of things which depend as much on something else as on themselves. . .

From these ingenious views the step is very easy to a farther opinion, that it does not much matter what things are in themselves, but only what they are to us; and that the only real truth of them is their appearance to, or effect upon, us. From which position, with a hearty desire for mystification, and much egotism, selfishness, shallowness, and impertinence, a philosopher may easily go so far as to believe, and say, that everything in the world depends upon his seeing or thinking of it, and that nothing, therefore, exists, but what he sees or thinks of.

Now, to get rid of all these ambiguities and troublesome words at once, be it observed that the word ' Blue' does not mean the sensation caused by a gentian on the human eye; but it means the power of producing that sensation; and this power is always there, in the thing, whether we are there to experience it or not, and would remain there though there were not left a man on the face of the earth.

(I'm assuming that this explanation would equally apply to any color, including green,Rores28 and Orphan Pip.)

----------


## OrphanPip

> (I'm assuming that this explanation would equally apply to any color, including green,Rores28 and Orphan Pip.)


I would have to disagree with Rushkin though, the colour is our conceptualization of our perception of certain wavelengths of light. The object has the ability to reflect those wavelengths of light, which only is recognized as a colour because our brain conceptualizes the wavelengths as such.

A dichromatic colour blind person's eyes still pick up the same wavelengths, but if they are missing the red-green rod pigment sees the world entirely in shades of yellow and blue (they can also distinguish between white and black). It is not that their eyes aren't receiving the same light the rest of us are, they just don't have the photoreceptors necessary to distinguish between as wide a variety of wavelengths. So the exact same wavelength reflecting from what is a green apple for you or me, is a yellow apple for them.

The wavelengths exists without us, but the idea of colour is a result of our brain structure and how it sorts out the wavelengths we see.

----------


## Ecurb

Wrong again, Orphan (although this is becoming a mere irrelevant sideline to the discussion at hand, and also although you seem to understand the nature of a circular argument, which I wasnt sure about before). Neither premise assumes the conclusion, because it is possible that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, and therefore (even given premise one) is NOT the proper arbiter of moral rules. Only BOTH premises lead to the proper conclusion. Your restatement of my syllogism is inaccurate. Your premise 2 (The moral rules in the Bible are the same as those of God.) is an inaccurate restatement of my premise, which, is that Some of the moral rules of God are restated in the Bible. 

Just as Socrates is a man does not mean the all men are Socrates, the proposition that the moral rules of the Bible are written by God does not mean that all the moral rules of God are written in the Bible. Socrates is a man does NOT mean Socrates = Man, and neither was my second premise a statement of equality. Let's restate in simpler terms:

All Moral rules derived from God are correct
The moral rules in the Bible are derived from God

therefore, the moral rules in the bible are correct.

----------


## Rores28

> Now, to get rid of all these ambiguities and troublesome words at once, be it observed that the word ' Blue' does not mean the sensation caused by a gentian on the human eye; but it means the power of producing that sensation; and this power is always there, in the thing, whether we are there to experience it or not, and would remain there though there were not left a man on the face of the earth.[/COLOR]
> 
> (I'm assuming that this explanation would equally apply to any color, including green,Rores28 and Orphan Pip.)


This position doesn't do much to address the metaphysical problem of qualia but instead seeks to redefine what color is in what I think is an interesting manner. Realize though that it takes two to tango as Pip has pointed out. If we define blue as that which has the power of producing it, then we would also define the resultant neural activity of the brain as blue since it seems equally necessary to produce the blue qualia. This is all good word fun I think but none of this is really what we mean when we say blue. Blue is an aspatial and irreducible entity. You may well tell me that a blue ball has a volume of 3L and that the ball is blue. What you can't tell me is the volume of blue, nor can you tell me what blue looks like.

I think it is a pretty cool thought though, and I appreciate the added touch of making the text blue  :Smile:

----------


## The Atheist

> Likewise the flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one despite the fact that it seems to have lost popularity ....


Nah.




> Once again this is dismissive of the things that are going on with qualia.


Are you suggesting qualia are not part of the material universe?

If so, what proposed mechanism do you use for their creation/existence?

Much as I'm no Dennett fan, his description of qualia as: "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us." is the one I stick with.

Perception takes place in the brain.

----------


## manolia

> Arguments like this will convince the the peeps that sorta believe in Christianity because thats how they were raised, but it isn't at all convincing in the larger framework.


That's true. I wasn't providing a strong argument. My response was tongue in cheek because i have heard many times about god putting stars in the nightsky for us to watch and blah blah blah when the said stars we see every night belong to our galaxy *only* and the vast majority of stars, the ones belonging to all the rest of the galaxies, (the number is enormous) can't be seen with a naked eye. 
(oh i see what you are getting at..god being all knowing knew all about telescopes and their invention  :Biggrin: )




> The two problems with this and all arguments of this sort are that scientific explanations of the universe do not disprove the existence of creation they only offer and alternative explanation


I don't agree with that.
A proper scientific explanation (when given) possibly something like the grand unified theory will be the end of religion. At least that's what i believe.




> Likewise the flying spaghetti monster argument is a good one despite the fact that it seems to have lost popularity and as I've stated earlier the idea that God himself requires an explanation.


Don't agree with that either. (Although i prefer Russel's teapot  :Biggrin: )

----------


## Rores28

> I don't agree with that.
> A proper scientific explanation (when given) possibly something like the grand unified theory will be the end of religion. At least that's what i believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't agree with that either. (Although i prefer Russel's teapot )


I can get down with the grand unified theory defeating the idea of deity. Although to some extent it seems to be circular (I'm sure in this thread I'll regret the use of that word.... :Smile: ) in that a grand unified theory by definition would defeat god. I don't think this is possible though with unenhanced human minds.


Why are you and The Atheist hating on Spaghetti Monster argument?

----------


## The Atheist

> Why are you and The Atheist hating on Spaghetti Monster argument?


Eh?

I have one as an avatar! (Different to the traditional FSM, but an FSM nonetheless, flying next to our house.)

----------


## jocky

This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.


You are absolutely right, but then again...with a miraculous creation what needs to be explained? God has powers beyond our comprehension. How can mere mortals understand the beginning of the universe?

----------


## YesNo

> This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.


The problem with the idea of the big bang, if it actually happened, which I think it did, is that people, including myself, think it was some sort of unique event. That uniqueness makes it unknowable, spooky and miraculous. But if it happened once, it probably happened many times in the past.

----------


## cyberbob

> You are absolutely right, but then again...with a miraculous creation what needs to be explained? God has powers beyond our comprehension. How can mere mortals understand the beginning of the universe?


If God cannot be explained then what is the point of believing in him? The theory of god is arbitrary, there is no reason why that one narrow explanation is better than any other inexplicably miraculous one.

For example, why can't we say that God was the universe back when it was a point of infinite mass and zero volume and he chose to explode himself, thus creating the universe? There is as much proof of this as there is that God is an omniscient being beyond our comprehension.

Or how do we know that the universe wasn't created in ANOTHER universe by scientists with technology far advanced from anything we have. If they found a way to harness enough energy, they could plausibly have created a baby universe which eventually expanded into ours.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

> the article states that the atheists' collective 
> "_tone is overtly confrontational rather than gently persuasive. [Sam] Harris talks of exerting so much pressure that it becomes "too embarrassing" to believe in God, while Dawkins describes the U.S. as living in a "theocratic Dark Age."_


You've got to understand their frustration, though. I mean, when you watch Fox or hear/read some of the willfully ignorant things that the new American far-right are saying, don't you feel that little twinge of reactionairy hostility? Honestly, I've spoken to so many people who think just like Bien that they could fill stadiums - we're not talking about a poor small group of nieve opressed eccentrics that believe that Jesus rode around on a velociraptor. There are so many of them that hostile rebuttal is actually necissairy if you don't want your kids being taught fairy tales from someone who knows absolutely nothing about basic geology because all professionals who understand their field of study before they decide to teach others are "elitist." It's maddening, how can you expect people to _not_ get angry?

The way I see it, when you're dealing with a group that is already too far off the healthy neutral social balance then sometimes you have to take a strong stance in favour of the opposite just to maintain _some_ balance. It results in polarization and there's a lot of anger and fighting involved, there are mobs created on the opposite side too which isn't exactly progress, but that's better than just going with it and allowing people to push laws that force teachers to teach creationism in biology class, outlaw gay marriage because they aren't given permission in a tampered-with book that's over a thousand years old and ban abortion even in rape cases and even very early because a jumble of undeveloped tissues has a "soul." That _is_ dangerous thinking which will cause harm to people if it isn't adressed in some way by _someone_. The "militant" atheists are irritating and agressive, but they fill a purpose, and that purpose is keeping the fundies from getting too much steam.

----------


## YesNo

> Neither premise assumes the conclusion, because it is possible that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, and therefore (even given premise one) is NOT the proper arbiter of moral rules.


The Bible is not the word of God anymore than our posts in this thread are. However, I suspect that the original writers wanted their contemporaries to think what they wrote was the word of God. They would likely be amused that some of us still do.

I find it more interesting to ask who wrote the earliest texts of the Bible and why. These are the texts in _Genesis_, written by J, and the historical texts in _Samuel_ and _Kings_ written by the Court Historian. They were written around the time of Solomon, almost 3000 years ago.

The ideas that I find most appealing at the moment come from two sources, the literary critic, Harold Bloom, and the historian, Baruch Halpern.

Bloom suggests that J was female. Reading Genesis in that way, I would have to agree it sounds like a female voice. This woman must have been powerful in Solomon's court and so he identifies her with Bathsheba. The idea of Bathsheba being the author leads one to Halpern's study to find out why she might have written _Genesis_.

Halpern's study of _Samuel_ and _Kings_ in _David's Secret Demons_ claims that these texts were written to encourage people to believe that Solomon was actually David's son and the legitimate heir when in fact he was not. What Solomon did was staged a military coup with the help of his mother and Nathan inside David's court. He made sure of his success by wiping out David's blood line and the Court Historian (Nathan?) and his mother, Bathsheba, created the history and stories to prop up his reign.

So these earliest texts were not really religious texts, but a form of early propaganda using God as needed to encourage belief and allegiance to the current rulers.

----------


## Ecurb

> The Bible is not the word of God anymore than our posts in this thread are. .


Are you sure? What an "inspired" post! It almost seems like.... a revelation!

My guess: the authors of the Bible had a great many purposes and motivations. In addition, the motives of the authors are not of primary importance to the value of the text.

----------


## Rores28

> Nah.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting qualia are not part of the material universe?
> 
> If so, what proposed mechanism do you use for their creation/existence?
> 
> Much as I'm no Dennett fan, his description of qualia as: "an unfamiliar term for something that could not be more familiar to each of us: the ways things seem to us." is the one I stick with.
> ...


1) What I am suggesting is all that I've said in my previous post. I'm not playing with the terms material and immaterial. The point of words as categories is to enhance understanding, in this case because the words are emotionally charged and in my opinion somewhat nebulous I think they only hinder it. There is something strange about qualia as compared to most other "things."

2) The most direct as yet observable mechanism is neuronal patterns.

3) I haven't actually read a Dennet book in full but I am obliquely familiar with his position. I just don't see how this quote resolves anything.

4) This sentence is too simplistic. Perception seems to *arise* from neuronal activity, specifically large scale impulse patterns in neural networks. But the activity is not the qualia. The neural activity isn't green and it isn't sad and it isn't hungry. Nor would we say that greeness we experience is a pattern. It is just green.

Also I've been wondering what that thing in your avatar was.... Is it photoshopped or did you actually physically construct a spaghetti monster?

----------


## Rores28

> This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.


The problem is that Christianity to an extent believes it can explain reality (all powerful mysterious ways etc...). Whereas science knows it is only every slowly whittling away at a better approximation of it. You've no doubt heard the dictum "Science creates more questions than it answers."

The other problem is that out of religion springs some arbitrary and frankly quite harmful prescriptions which have genuine sway in public policy.. abortion probably being the most salient. The discussion then seeks to (from the non-theist perspective) to attack the problem and I suppose convert the dogmatist to the rationalist.

----------


## Rores28

> You are absolutely right, but then again...with a miraculous creation what needs to be explained? God has powers beyond our comprehension. How can mere mortals understand the beginning of the universe?


God. God needs to be explained, as already voiced numerous times on this thread.

----------


## AuntShecky

> This is getting to be a right pain in the but. Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.


You're right about the "right pain in the but(t)," but you're also right when you say "*we just don't know."*

Professor Mikio Kaku, an expert in string theory, as well as the star of the Science Channel, said as much, adding that 100 years in the future we *still* won't know.

[QUOTE=Rores28;996029]The problem is that Christianity to an extent believes it can explain reality (all powerful mysterious ways etc...). Whereas science knows it is only every slowly whittling away at a better approximation of it. You've no doubt heard the dictum "Science creates more questions than it answers."QUOTE]

More likely it proves what G.K. Chesterton said that "the problem with Christianity is not that it's been tried and found lacking, but that it's found difficult and never been tried."

----------


## The Atheist

> This is getting to be a right pain in the but.


As it has been for all modern human history.




> Science can not explain the big bang...


Maybe. Enough Euros to save the Irish economy are being spent to find out, so anything's possible.




> ... and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.


Eh? You can't go around saying you don't know!

Agnosticism empowers the Mrs Jocky's of the world.

(But don't tell her I said that!)




> But if it happened once, it probably happened many times in the past.


Which would make it not unique in any way, wouldn't it?




> The "militant" atheists are irritating and agressive, but they fill a purpose, and that purpose is keeping the fundies from getting too much steam.


Brilliantly put.




> So these earliest texts were not really religious texts, but a form of early propaganda using God as needed to encourage belief and allegiance to the current rulers.


Plus ce change...




> 1) What I am suggesting is all that I've said in my previous post. I'm not playing with the terms material and immaterial. The point of words as categories is to enhance understanding, in this case because the words are emotionally charged and in my opinion somewhat nebulous I think they only hinder it. There is something strange about qualia as compared to most other "things."


Trouble is, if you don't categorise it as either material or non-material, you've created a whole new category. 

Why do you think qualia differ from any other thought pattern? Animals see and use colour, so it isn't even as though the idea relates solely to humans. I think the whole qualia argument is a philosphical red herring; thoughts, qualia, memes* - call them what you will - are the result of chemical & electrical processes in the brain in response to sensory input. 

I don't find qualia any stranger than thoughts which enable someone to commit murder. 

People like Dean Radin and the Parapsychological Institute will jump all over anything which is a genuine scientific field that admits to something - anything - being non-material, so not classifying qualia becomes a problem. 

As long as materialism rules, pseudoscientists find funding hard to get, which I think is a good thing. If we allow non-material abstracts into hard science, we're throwing away the key. All qualia really show is that we cannot examine a thought once it's been created by the brain.

One part of me says, why the hell would we want to anyway?

 :Biggrin: 

*I know they're not all the same, but they're in the same "group".




> 2) The most direct as yet observable mechanism is neuronal patterns.


Which would be material.




> 3) I haven't actually read a Dennet book in full but I am obliquely familiar with his position. I just don't see how this quote resolves anything.


It's not a resolution, just a stick in the sand so we're talking about the same thing.




> 4) This sentence is too simplistic. Perception seems to *arise* from neuronal activity, specifically large scale impulse patterns in neural networks. But the activity is not the qualia. The neural activity isn't green and it isn't sad and it isn't hungry. Nor would we say that greeness we experience is a pattern. It is just green.


That doesn't bear any concerns for me. It boils down to people having individual perception. All you're saying is, like a TV picture, we can see it, but cannot touch or capture it. It's just there, even though it doesn't physically exist, it's just a pattern in the LCD/plasma array.




> Also I've been wondering what that thing in your avatar was.... Is it photoshopped or did you actually physically construct a spaghetti monster?


That's the genuine article, a spontaneously-created FSM! Rainy day work.

 :Biggrin:

----------


## Rores28

> Trouble is, if you don't categorise it as either material or non-material, you've created a whole new category. 
> 
> Why do you think qualia differ from any other thought pattern?


Using something like green is just a simple example. Thought patterns hold the same intrigue for me, or rather the "experience of our thought patterns."




> Animals see and use colour, so it isn't even as though the idea relates solely to humans.


Whether or not experience or qualia is relegated solely to the human sphere doesn't make the existence less interesting to me.




> I think the whole qualia argument is a philosphical red herring; thoughts, qualia, memes* - call them what you will - are the result of chemical & electrical processes in the brain in response to sensory input.


I agree though that they a result of such processes. This doesn't preclude me from finding qualia themselves interesting. I may make you a painting of a spaghetti monster, whose most direct result is the motion of my hand and brush, but just because the motion of hand and brush is not interesting does not mean that the painting won't be.




> I don't find qualia any stranger than thoughts which enable someone to commit murder.


Nor do I. I find both equally strange.




> People like Dean Radin and the Parapsychological Institute will jump all over anything which is a genuine scientific field that admits to something - anything - being non-material, so not classifying qualia becomes a problem. 
> 
> As long as materialism rules, pseudoscientists find funding hard to get, which I think is a good thing. If we allow non-material abstracts into hard science, we're throwing away the key. All qualia really show is that we cannot examine a thought once it's been created by the brain.


I can see this idea being taken advantage of perhaps for arguments sake, but I don't see anyone providing money for this kind of research. There is just as yet, no technology, or scientific framework by which to evaluate it. Although people are pretty idiotic..




> That doesn't bear any concerns for me. It boils down to people having individual perception. All you're saying is, like a TV picture, we can see it, but cannot touch or capture it. It's just there, even though it doesn't physically exist, it's just a pattern in the LCD/plasma array.


I think this is really where we primarily disagree. I find this very interesting, you do not.




> That's the genuine article, a spontaneously-created FSM! Rainy day work.


That is some committed atheism.

----------


## OrphanPip

> All Moral rules derived from God are correct
> The moral rules in the Bible are derived from God
> 
> therefore, the moral rules in the bible are correct.


Fine if we want to accept this conception as formally logical, it doesn't follow from this conception that we have access to the truth of the moral rules in the Bible, even if we accepted both highly tenuous premises. 

The conclusion that the moral rules in the Bible are correct does not imply that we can properly interpret them or that the Bible actually is a useful tool of moral guidance. 





> Are you sure? What an "inspired" post! It almost seems like.... a revelation!
> 
> My guess: the authors of the Bible had a great many purposes and motivations. In addition, the motives of the authors are not of primary importance to the value of the text.


Unless someone is taking the position that the text should be used as a prescriptive guide that people should be forcefully coerced into following because it is infallible and its purpose direct and obvious.

----------


## Ecurb

We've finally reached an agreement, OrphanPip!

By the way, I remembered a fun New Yorker Review of Hitchens' book, from a couple of years ago. Here it is:

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critic...books_gottlieb

----------


## The Atheist

> I agree though that they a result of such processes. This doesn't preclude me from finding qualia themselves interesting.


I find the idea interesting enough, my only concern is that qualia aren't put into the non-material basket. 




> I can see this idea being taken advantage of perhaps for arguments sake, but I don't see anyone providing money for this kind of research. There is just as yet, no technology, or scientific framework by which to evaluate it. Although people are pretty idiotic..


Unfortunately, actual universities do provide funding for idiotic groups like the Parapsychological Institute, which is the problem. If they get any encouragement that non-material things exist, they'll be in with their hands out.




> That is some committed atheism.


Oh, plenty of people have said I should be committed!

 :Biggrin:

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> God. God needs to be explained, as already voiced numerous times on this thread.


It is only your opinion that God needs to be explained. How can finite minds explain an Infinite Being? How ignorant of a comment.

----------


## MarkBastable

> It is only your opinion that God needs to be explained. How can finite minds explain an Infinite Being? How ignorant of a comment.



Then again, it is only your opinion that God is an Infinite Being.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

> Science can not explain the big bang and Theology can not explain anything. How about we just don't know.



Science can and has explained the Big Bang beyond adequately.

Why bother saying 'I don't know' when there's interesting information at the touch of your fingertips?

And it's really easy to understand too:


In the very beginning the Universe was a very small very hot ball of pure energy - the stuff that atoms and elecrtricity and and light and gamma radiation and x-rays and magnetism and everything compressed so tightly under the weight of itself that it couldn't move

Energy doesn't naturally like to be compressed into this state and so a brief nanosecond after it found itself like this it exploded. The biggest explosion the Universe had ever seen.

Except for the explosion that happened about a bazillion trillion (just pick a really big number) aeons before that produced the previous Universe.

You heard right - the Previous Universe.

See, what happens is every time the plasma ball explodes (Big Bang) it at first expands exponentially (really fast) and creates almost infinitillium simple hydrogen and helium atoms that scatter all over the place, some (megagazillions) of these atoms cluster together (a natural state of matter within a vaccuum) to form huge gas clouds then very dense gas clouds, then very large gas planets and then when the pressure is too great they self combust.

But the matter and left over energy from the Big Bang keeps moving apart from itself relative to the power of the attraction (gravity), regardless how many suns are formed, explosions occur and how many planets and galaxies appear.

But the energy from the Big Bang is finite and the force which impels the Universe to expand, eventually will cease, and slowly slowly slowly everything will begin to attract everything else back toward the central hub and ultimately into a very small very hot ball of pure energy... ...

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Let's not pretend that the big bang is a simple and irrefutable theory, it isn't. It's a complex and barely gestated theory for which evidence is just starting to be accumulated. We don't even really know what matter _is_ yet, how can you say that the beginning of the universe is "really easy to understand?" On top of that, given what you've described the obvious next question is "how did things get like that - what started it, and what came before?" (not to mention the dozens of other questions that occur to pretty much every science undergrad who studies physics at some point).

----------


## cyberbob

Science CAN necessarily explain the big bang because it's a part of science.

Science exists beyond human knowledge. For example, in mathematics there may be conjectures which we may never prove but nevertheless either can or can't be proven. 

Math and science are man-made tools to explain what already is. Since every effect must have a cause, so then must everything have an explanation.

Our science can explain the events of the big bang. It may not be able to explain its origins (the pre-universe) but I believe if it can't, then another science with its own physical laws can.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Science is just a method used to arrive at an acceptable theory that we go by until the next theory comes around that can disprove the current one, it's not an entity. It's a process of gathering information then interpreting that information in a peer-reviewed and logical way, that's it. There's no "other science" or "our science." Saying that the big bang is "part of science" doesn't make sense, because science isn't a _thing_, it's just a method. 

If what you're saying is that everything that happens does indeed happen and everything that has happened has indeed happened, then "duh." As for some creature named science knowing something that we don't know yet, that's not how it works. Everything is understanable if we understand it, if we don't get something yet then it has yet to be described. There's no need to make it more complicated than that.

----------


## MarkBastable

> Science is just a method used to arrive at an acceptable theory that we go by until the next theory comes around that can disprove the current one, it's not an entity. It's a process of gathering information then interpreting that information in a peer-reviewed and logical way, that's it. There's no "other science" or "our science." Saying that the big bang is "part of science" doesn't make sense, because science isn't a _thing_, it's just a method. 
> 
> If what you're saying is that everything that happens does indeed happen and everything that has happened has indeed happened, then "duh." As for some creature named science knowing something that we don't know yet, that's not how it works. Everything is understanable if we understand it, if we don't get something yet then it has yet to be described. There's no need to make it more complicated than that.


Exackerlly. If God exists, he - or even the debate as to whether or not he does - falls within the scope of scientific enquiry. _Everything_ falls within that scope, because it's an approach - it's not a territory and it's not a conclusion.

----------


## Rores28

> It is only your opinion that God needs to be explained. How can finite minds explain an Infinite Being? How ignorant of a comment.


Yet you have just explained God as an infinite being. It looks like it may tacitly be your opinion as well.

Further, I may say that the universe is an infinite entity. And this does not require as many leaps as God is a infinite entity who created the universe a non-infinite entity.

If I'm an ornithologist and I tag a bird in Charlotte NC, and a few days later I take a trip to Atlanta GA and astoundingly run across the same bird with the same exact tag. What would my conclusion be?

Looks like the bird flew to Atlanta. I think any reasonable person would come to that conclusion. The conclusion most people would not come to is that that bird flew to Tampa, then Miami, then Savannah, where a fellow ornithologist caught the bird brought it to Atlanta in their car on a dare from their old college roommate and re-released it downtown. Any reasonable person would find this conclusion less likely.

It's not that these events couldn't have transpired its that their invocation is less preferred than the first scenario.

----------


## YesNo

> Are you sure? What an "inspired" post! It almost seems like.... a revelation!
> 
> My guess: the authors of the Bible had a great many purposes and motivations. In addition, the motives of the authors are not of primary importance to the value of the text.


The motives help the reader understand the text. When those motives can be seen to be devious, reading into the text something else in order to justify a belief is simply a misreading of it.

----------


## cyberbob

I think you misunderstood me. My fault since I made my post confusing.

What I meant was that whether or not we ever find the means to explain something like the big bang doesn't mean we can't. It's as explicable as anything else that follow the physical laws of the universe.

I said it was man-made and never said it was alive.

By "our science" I meant the physical laws that we observe in our universe. By "another science" I meant the possible physical laws of another universe.

----------


## YesNo

> You heard right - the Previous Universe.


Glad to hear that it didn't just happen once. 




> But the energy from the Big Bang is finite and the force which impels the Universe to expand, eventually will cease, and slowly slowly slowly everything will begin to attract everything else back toward the central hub and ultimately into a very small very hot ball of pure energy... ...


Is there entropy in this system? That is, can it wind down after a period of time and not go back to the state where it will explode again? Or is it a perpetual motion system?

I suspect it can wind down, so then there is something that must have started it. This pushes the actual beginning ever deeper into the past. 

The reason there must be some beginning, or some input from the outside, is because the universe is still going on now (since we are here). If it could wind down in a finite amount of time and the past is infinitely deep, it would have exhausted itself by now. Every finite length of time has already occurred.

----------


## cyberbob

Perpetual motion isn't possible in our current understanding of physics.

The universe probably will collapse into itself in a Big Crunch. Or it might expand indefinitely causing temperatures to drop to the point where no life will be able to exist. AKA a Big Freeze.

----------


## YesNo

> Perpetual motion isn't possible in our current understanding of physics.
> 
> The universe probably will collapse into itself in a Big Crunch. Or it might expand indefinitely causing temperatures to drop to the point where no life will be able to exist. AKA a Big Freeze.


That sounds reasonable.

There seems to be three explanations for what started it all in the first place:

1) Chance.

2) G-g-g-god.

3) Something that is not subject to the laws of entropy or we would have to then ask what started that cause.

----------


## IceM

I would like to challenge the idea that evolution in the biological sense does not exist, and that, even if it did, science does not prove this idea.

The stratigraphic history of the Earth, filled with fossils from the myriad of eras prior to the one we currently live in, tells the story of unfortunate species either unable to adjust to the changing environment or unable to live longer; and from this body of fossils a trained paleontologist is able to deduce the structural qualities of the life-form in question. I ask, for anyone whom challenges the notion of evolution, what makes one life-form more successful in surviving in a certain environment than anothers? (When I say surviving, I don't mean longer life-spans, I mean an ability to live in an ever-changing environment, although I know you can manipulate it to make both terms seem synonymous). Certain finches on the Galapagos islands had beaks too thick to puncture holes and eat larvae while others had beaks too thin to puncture the trees where larvae were living. Those poor birds, they died. Others that were able to live in the aforementioned environments lived. Why? What gave them the ability to exist in an environment that killed others? The short-answer of course, is genetics. Something about their cellular, deoxyribonucleic build-up gives these birds an inherent advantage whereas others have an inherent weakness. In the case of the finches, such advantages manifest themselves in either thicker or thinner beaks, depending on what the landscape of the island requires.

Let's begin on the premise evolution does not exist. I then ask you, what explains the difference between appearances in birds of similar species (oh wait, that's a contraption of evolution too, isn't it)? What explains the difference in appearances between two parents and their offspring? Evolution is most broadly considered change over time, regardless of the progress made or lost by that change. If two parents of different ethnicities (let us say, Asian and Mexican) engage in mating practices and have children, what explains the appearance of that child, who will inevitably possess facial characteristics of both races? Notice, evolution is noticable first and foremost through visual aide. Few could suggest an idea of evolution if everything looked the same. Yet it is this ability to distinguish notable differences that makes evolution noticable. Over successive generations there is a noticable change between what is and what was. What explains this mechanism?

Of course, evolution in a scientific sense aligns itself with a notion of changes in skeletal structure over time. But let us speak of it broadly. If evolution is change over time, and the appearances of offspring change from generation to generation--indicating a chance of some sort in the genetic makeup of the children--then there is a change occurring, yes? And as the different combinations of genetic sequences and chromosones enter the DNA pool, DNA changes are likely to continue to change, yes? If change occurs, and evolution is change over time, then evolution is occurring, yes? And if skeletal structures change, too, over time, evolution is occurring, for human form has changed from one stage to another.

Let us move to the premise that science cannot prove evolution. If we reject genetics and evolutionary theory as is necessary to reject the science behind it, I wonder if one too can reject history. Fossils are evidence of life in prior forms in a previous era. If contemporary skeletons of similar species demonstrate changes in skeletal structure in comparison to prior species, there is a change over time--an evolution in a broad sense. What causes this mechanism? Of course, as you observe the fossils, you realize there is still skeletal tissue remaining. We living creatures still have skeletal tissue. There must be some inherent connection between the qualities of that creature--perhaps embodied in the tissue?--that causes a contrast between the creatures of today. Notice I don't say genetics, but it is logical to assume there is something about the tissues that make them distinct.

Let us assume God played an active hand in creating the change. Notice, there is a still a change over time that causes that of tomorrow to be different from that of today. Is that still not evolution? Is there still no change that creates different creatures? Evolution still hence exists.

There's no need to reject evolution or be militant against science. While some may attempt to portray science and/or evolution as against God, this simply isn't the case. Science can only study that which lies in the known universe. It can only test hypotheses within the realm of possibility. If we act on the premise that there is a God, there is no scientific test to prove His existence; an entity beyond our dimension is also beyond our means of enquiry. Nor does evolution counterract His existence: is it not possible to say God created the means by which creatures evolved? Is it not possible to say God created the means by which the Big Bang gave birth to the universe? Ultimately, determining God through human reasoning is a guessing game; and while I will take no sides between atheists and theists, I find it incredulous for one to outright discredit science and evolution when they pose no threat under any circumstance to the existence of a supernatural entity.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Yes/No - your response is appropriate, but inconclusive

I wasn't posting a question in need of reply, but a fact

The Universe is the only perpetual motion system

The Universe is expanding still rapidly but with such dynamics of scale we cannot discern at the speed of our lifetimes and scientific means of measurement are hardly as old as the universe - a hundred years isn't a blink of an eye in cosmological terms, it's a complete nothingth


Put a start on the beginning of this Universe at the estimated (and very close 14 billion years, and you can put an end on it at about 100 billion years - give or take a few billion years (so far away it doesn't matter)

After every sun has finally died, and every galaxy has been consumed by its black hole, and every galaxy cluster has collapsed in on itself, and the power of the energy cannot push any more, then it shall have ceased to expand

And then the force of gravity will slowly (slowly at first I say) take over, black holes will eventually eat each other, and all scatty bits of matter be sucked in with increasing speed as their weight increases


It looks fantastic in reverse

----------


## JuniperWoolf

Why are you guys talking about astrophysics? Besides, you're totally oversimplifying things. It's like you got all of your information from an Eye Wonder book (zing!).

----------


## YesNo

> Why are you guys talking about astrophysics? Besides, you're totally oversimplifying things. It's like you got all of your information from an Eye Wonder book (zing!).


 :Biggrin: 

I'm pretty sure none of us are rocket scientists. 

I'm certainly not.

----------


## cyberbob

^^^ The universe is not a perpetual motion system. If it was then why would it stop expanding and collapse into itself?

If the Big Bang theory is true, and the universe had a finite past, then so too must it have a finite future. That is, it must eventually stop expanding, which will cause a Big Crunch.

Perpetual motion is probably not possible in our universe. No machine (including our universe) can produce more energy than it consumes. So if the universe had a definite, finite past then it MUST run out of energy and stop expanding. That is because nothing with a finite past can have infinite energy. So if the Big Bang theory is true, the universe will possibly end after it runs out of energy.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

@cyberbob

The system of Universe to Universe is a perpetual motion

The Universe does not run out of energy because all energy is not consumed

No more no less

Constant from Universe to Universe


The weight of Energy - An entire Universe worth

----------


## The Atheist

> There's no need to reject evolution or be militant against science. While some may attempt to portray science and/or evolution as against God, this simply isn't the case.


Most excellent post!

The RCC, Anglican and many other churches accept evolution, so thankfully your point is already understood by the majority of christians.




> The Universe is the only perpetual motion system


Sorry, but I must concur with other posters.

The things you're quoting are far from factual. They may well be right, although the laws of thermodynamics suggest not, but either way, the premises remain unproven.

----------


## manolia

> That sounds reasonable.
> 
> There seems to be three explanations for what started it all in the first place:
> 
> 1) Chance.
> 
> 2) G-g-g-god.
> 
> 3) Something that is not subject to the laws of entropy or we would have to then ask what started that cause.


For a discussion of this sort one has to take quantum mechanics into account, since mass and energy was compressed what takes place in a subatomic level can no longer be ignored. That and gravity.
But i agree that it has little to do with the OP.




> ^^^ The universe is not a perpetual motion system. If it was then why would it stop expanding and collapse into itself?
> 
> If the Big Bang theory is true, and the universe had a finite past, then so too must it have a finite future. That is, it must eventually stop expanding, which will cause a Big Crunch.
> .


Well that's only one model of the universe (it may be the prevailing model but i am not sure about that).
Have a look here, at the last image where Ω is explained.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_constant

----------


## OrphanPip

Here's a great presentation on current ideas on the origins of the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Don't worry, Dawkins is just doing the introduction.

----------


## IceM

I also would like to challenge the idea that the universe has a finite end on the premise that it had a finite beginning. 

I read somewhere that the edges of the universe is expanding at the speed of light in all direction. It seems a puzzling notion to consider. We don't know what lies beyond the edge of the universe. By all means, the forces responsible for creating the edges of the universe could be transforming extra-galactic life into matter for all we know. There is no way to test what lies beyond the Universe.

To assume that the expansion of the universe will someday end insinuates that the creative forces responsible for said growth will eventually terminate, or that the materials necessary for such growth will run out. But your logic relies on the assumption that the universe operates on the structure of a beginning-middle-end. This is highly unlikely. To even understand what lies beyond the universe requires an evolution of thought, from what is to what can be--and in the vast spectrum of things possible, those both within and beyond us, to assume such forces are limited to a specific limetime seems limited. Time, space, matter, God: these ideas are all infinite. "There is no vestige of a beginning, no sight of an end." Excluding God, the universe is a physical, or metaphyiscal, representation of the three infinte notions; how then do they all terminate? Under what circumstances can an infinitely expanding universe just implode and end? If matter exists, so too does the universe.

----------


## OrphanPip

Physicist think the net energy in the universe is 0, so it's entirely possible there was no matter, no space, and no time prior to the Big Bang. We also know from observation that the universe is actually accelerating in all directions, and it will eventually reach a point where light from other galaxies will no longer be able to reach us, it is possible in general relativity for galaxies to move away from us faster than the speed of light.

It's true we don't know what's happening beyond our universe, or even at the edges of our universe, but I don't think the question is all that relevant since we will never know what happens beyond our universe.

----------


## YesNo

> Here's a great presentation on current ideas on the origins of the universe.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
> 
> Don't worry, Dawkins is just doing the introduction.


Yes, Lawrence Krauss was very entertaining. 

The universe is flat!

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Such a relaxing thread

Why OrphanPip?

Beyond the Universe, Time

E=mc2



Don't try to encapsulate the universe as though it's a Galaxy within a Universe - look at it from the perspective of the Plasma Ball

And imagine the Plasma Ball to be all there is

----------


## YesNo

> Physicist think the net energy in the universe is 0, so it's entirely possible there was no matter, no space, and no time prior to the Big Bang. We also know from observation that the universe is actually accelerating in all directions, and it will eventually reach a point where light from other galaxies will no longer be able to reach us, it is possible in general relativity for galaxies to move away from us faster than the speed of light.


I rewatched some parts of the ending of Lawrence Krauss' talk that you linked earlier because, after sleeping on it, it made me wonder if I really heard right what he said and if it made sense. 

He says the following about the universe (starting 40:34): "The universe is flat. It has zero total energy and it could have begun from nothing."

This nothingness of the universe seems to support the Hindu/Buddhist idea that the universe is an illusion or "maya", basically, nothing. All one needs is an agent to even justify the view that the universe was created by God _from nothing_ which is what I think many Christians believe. Far from defeating theism, showing that the universe could have come from nothing actually supports those traditions. 

The data does not support Creationism, that is, a literal acceptance of J's version of creation in _Genesis_, since that has been contradicted by the 13.72 billion year age of the universe. But Creationism is a marginal and extreme belief. I think the majority of Christians could toss Creationism, if they haven't done so already.

The existence of a beginning (The Big Bang) and the new evidence that this beginning could have come from nothing (The Universe is Flat) falls right in line with theistic beliefs.

A steady state universe or one that MystyrMystyry has supported of the universe being a perpetual motion machine going eternally from big bang to big bust would be something more opposed to a general religious perspective. A theist would have to do more explaining if such a universe existed.

----------


## OrphanPip

I'm not sure it really falls in line with theistic views though. The fact that the universe came about from quantum fluctuations, that nothing needed to be created to create the universe so to speak, suggests that no outside source was needed to trigger the universe. It just exists so to speak, if nothingness exists at some point then a universe such as ours can come about by random chance. It defeats the argument that a God was needed to create the universe, if the universe had a net positive energy or was round we would have a problem of where the energy came from.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

One must dissect an atom to understand the proportion of nothingness in the universe

We're all used to seeing the diagram of an atomic cross-section of hydrogen - nucleus at the centre with electron circling around it

If the atom was life size (the size of the diagram) the distance of the electron to proton would be as Pluto is to the Sun

Atoms are mostly nothing

Likewise the space between planets and galaxies and Big Bang to Big Bang is mostly nothing

----------


## OrphanPip

> One must dissect an atom to understand the proportion of nothingness in the universe
> 
> We're all used to seeing the diagram of an atomic cross-section of hydrogen - nucleus at the centre with electron circling around it
> 
> If the atom was life size (the size of the diagram) the distance of the electron to proton would be as Pluto is to the Sun
> 
> Atoms are mostly nothing
> 
> Likewise the space between planets and galaxies and Big Bang to Big Bang is mostly nothing


There's actually a lot of something in between planets and galaxies, radiation primarily.

The Bohr-Rutherford atomic model is also highly oversimplified, in actuality there is a probabilistic cloud where the electron can exist at any given time around the nucleus.

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Thankyou for the clarification OrphanPip

I was referring to the way we think of the Universe in material terms

The radiation is electro-magnetic

and electrons, protons and neutrons are of course not material entities individually

----------


## The Atheist

> and electrons, protons and neutrons are of course not material entities


You need to shine up what you think "material" means, because they most certainly are material.

----------


## JuniperWoolf

That is exactly what "material" is, and nothing more (well, you can actually break that down a bit further hypothetically).

----------


## MystyrMystyry

> You need to shine up what you think "material" means, because they most certainly are material.


cheeky

----------


## jocky

> The problem with the idea of the big bang, if it actually happened, which I think it did, is that people, including myself, think it was some sort of unique event. That uniqueness makes it unknowable, spooky and miraculous. But if it happened once, it probably happened many times in the past.


How about this for the worst explanation ever? The Big Bang was created by Earthlings who in their ignorance created the Hadron Collider. At first the Earthlings cowered in fear as they realised the experiment cost more than the collapse of the whole Western economy. Stronger intellects intervened " the cause of science is more important than the survival of mankind " And so it goes on. Come on guys if anyone is capable of destroying life as we know it ,I reckon it is down to us? Unless God will save us.  :Biggrin: 




> You've got to understand their frustration, though. I mean, when you watch Fox or hear/read some of the willfully ignorant things that the new American far-right are saying, don't you feel that little twinge of reactionairy hostility? Honestly, I've spoken to so many people who think just like Bien that they could fill stadiums - we're not talking about a poor small group of nieve opressed eccentrics that believe that Jesus rode around on a velociraptor. There are so many of them that hostile rebuttal is actually necissairy if you don't want your kids being taught fairy tales from someone who knows absolutely nothing about basic geology because all professionals who understand their field of study before they decide to teach others are "elitist." It's maddening, how can you expect people to _not_ get angry?
> 
> The way I see it, when you're dealing with a group that is already too far off the healthy neutral social balance then sometimes you have to take a strong stance in favour of the opposite just to maintain _some_ balance. It results in polarization and there's a lot of anger and fighting involved, there are mobs created on the opposite side too which isn't exactly progress, but that's better than just going with it and allowing people to push laws that force teachers to teach creationism in biology class, outlaw gay marriage because they aren't given permission in a tampered-with book that's over a thousand years old and ban abortion even in rape cases and even very early because a jumble of undeveloped tissues has a "soul." That _is_ dangerous thinking which will cause harm to people if it isn't adressed in some way by _someone_. The "militant" atheists are irritating and agressive, but they fill a purpose, and that purpose is keeping the fundies from getting too much steam.


I have got to reply to your post and simply to let you know that Europeans do actually follow American current affairs. I always watch Glenn Beck and respect his intelligence and wondered how he would respond to the latest outrage. I should have known he would come out swinging and in a total state of denial. I will give him this he is a half decent historian but his conclusions are always flawed. I hope the American people ,and I know one or two, rise above it.

----------


## The Atheist

> How about this for the worst explanation ever? The Big Bang was created by Earthlings who in their ignorance created the Hadron Collider.


Can you imagine what Douglas Adams would have made of it all?

----------


## prendrelemick

^ He would've liked the Theory that every thing is held together by bits of string.

----------


## The Atheist

> ^ He would've liked the Theory that every thing is held together by bits of string.


 :Smilielol5: 

Quite right!

Although, maybe he already did; the earth was a string of sausages in Part V of the trilogy.

----------


## IceM

> To respond to the original question:
> 
> I've been an atheist for three years and was a devout Catholic for fourteen before, and even when I was a Catholic, I didn't see anything wrong with them. Of course, I'm 17, so for the first 14 years of my life, I just viewed atheism as those looking for God but needing better reasons to pursure him. Now, I'm a little smarter than that.
> 
> Is atheism militant? Sure, just in the same way that religion is becoming militant. There is this fear that if one view dominates, the minority will be marginalized and oppressed. *My evidence: my years in the Catholic Church. Atheism was preached as an equivalent of satanism*, but I knew better. I think it's this fear that continues to drive much of this perception of militantism. Are there militants? Of course, on both sides. However, evidence has shown us that one side is much more willing to incriminate the other of crimes that both are guilty of. Either side can be considered militant because it has such radical members, yet anyone with common sense can tell you a radical sect of a greater whole does not taint the whole.
> 
> Perhaps this springs out of ignorance. Not all atheists believe in science, nor do all theists blindly accept the "Word of God" without actual reasoning. It perhaps is this underlying desire to show one's absolute commitment while cloaking underlying doubts that spawns such an absolutist idea. Then again, maybe peer pressure has an effect too. Saying "I'm not sure if God exists" is held with much more contempt than taking a side.


In defense of the Catholic Church, this is a bald-faced lie. I don't ever recall them preaching on Atheism in my time as a Catholic, and I misrepresented them and harmed their image by saying this.




> I would like to challenge the idea that evolution in the biological sense does not exist, and that, even if it did, science does not prove this idea.
> 
> The stratigraphic history of the Earth, filled with fossils from the myriad of eras prior to the one we currently live in, tells the story of unfortunate species either unable to adjust to the changing environment or unable to live longer; and from this body of fossils a trained paleontologist is able to deduce the structural qualities of the life-form in question. I ask, for anyone whom challenges the notion of evolution, what makes one life-form more successful in surviving in a certain environment than anothers? (When I say surviving, I don't mean longer life-spans, I mean an ability to live in an ever-changing environment, although I know you can manipulate it to make both terms seem synonymous). Certain finches on the Galapagos islands had beaks too thick to puncture holes and eat larvae while others had beaks too thin to puncture the trees where larvae were living. Those poor birds, they died. Others that were able to live in the aforementioned environments lived. Why? What gave them the ability to exist in an environment that killed others? The short-answer of course, is genetics. Something about their cellular, deoxyribonucleic build-up gives these birds an inherent advantage whereas others have an inherent weakness. In the case of the finches, such advantages manifest themselves in either thicker or thinner beaks, depending on what the landscape of the island requires.
> 
> Let's begin on the premise evolution does not exist. I then ask you, what explains the difference between appearances in birds of similar species (oh wait, that's a contraption of evolution too, isn't it)? What explains the difference in appearances between two parents and their offspring? Evolution is most broadly considered change over time, regardless of the progress made or lost by that change. If two parents of different ethnicities (let us say, Asian and Mexican) engage in mating practices and have children, what explains the appearance of that child, who will inevitably possess facial characteristics of both races? Notice, evolution is noticable first and foremost through visual aide. Few could suggest an idea of evolution if everything looked the same. Yet it is this ability to distinguish notable differences that makes evolution noticable. Over successive generations there is a noticable change between what is and what was. What explains this mechanism?
> 
> Of course, evolution in a scientific sense aligns itself with a notion of changes in skeletal structure over time. But let us speak of it broadly. If evolution is change over time, and the appearances of offspring change from generation to generation--indicating a chance of some sort in the genetic makeup of the children--then there is a change occurring, yes? And as the different combinations of genetic sequences and chromosones enter the DNA pool, DNA changes are likely to continue to change, yes? If change occurs, and evolution is change over time, then evolution is occurring, yes? And if skeletal structures change, too, over time, evolution is occurring, for human form has changed from one stage to another.
> 
> Let us move to the premise that science cannot prove evolution. If we reject genetics and evolutionary theory as is necessary to reject the science behind it, I wonder if one too can reject history. Fossils are evidence of life in prior forms in a previous era. If contemporary skeletons of similar species demonstrate changes in skeletal structure in comparison to prior species, there is a change over time--an evolution in a broad sense. What causes this mechanism? Of course, as you observe the fossils, you realize there is still skeletal tissue remaining. We living creatures still have skeletal tissue. There must be some inherent connection between the qualities of that creature--perhaps embodied in the tissue?--that causes a contrast between the creatures of today. Notice I don't say genetics, but it is logical to assume there is something about the tissues that make them distinct.
> ...


Just some points of clarification here. While evolution and the Big Bang theoretically do not eliminate the existence of a god in general, for evangelicals who hold to a Young Earth creationism (or for anyone that does), the Big Bang and creationism are at odds. Also, evolution supposes an origin to life that the Old Testament fundamentally rejects. So, for people who hold the Bible to be inerrant (like myself), there is a sense in which evangelicals must reject evolution and the Big Bang in order to be consistent with the Old Testament narrative.

Glory to God in the highest.

----------


## newby

I find such statements rather dangerous. There are plenty religious philosphers extreme lucid, such as Leibniz and Thomas Aquinas.
Intelligence is not determined by what a person chooses to believe, I think that you generalized religion for meeting way too many people that are ''believers'' but never studied the bible - which also holds great knowledge, truth or not.

----------


## NikolaiI

I think you may have to fix your quotes IceM. It reads like you are quoting yourself.

----------

