Atheism

[panerd]

With all of threads people have started the last couple of days on their faith I thought we could at least have a thread dedicated to a few real simple questions that have always bothered me. Not really the theology arguments that both sides of the God argument normally have. These are more of questions that never get brought up.

Do you not agree that the world is made up of about 15% people who are convinced there is not a god 15% who are convinced there is and about 70% who don't give a shit but given the choice between eternal life and becoming worm food figure "Why not?"? While most of this 70% do attend services they only do it rarely and mostly to keep up appearances.

With that being said, when religious people say that 85%-90% of the world believes, are they really proud that a lot of that percentage is people who don't really care at all?

And a big criticism of atheists is that they think they are too smart. That they try to understand science. They they study. And this is somehow frowned upon? Having intelligence? Having a thirst for knowledge? How is this a criticism?

[CamEdwards]

With all of threads people have started the last couple of days on their faith I thought we could at least have a thread dedicated to a few real simple questions that have always bothered me. Not really the theology arguments that both sides of the God argument normally have. These are more of questions that never get brought up.

Do you not agree that the world is made up of about 15% people who are convinced there is not a god 15% who are convinced there is and about 70% who don't give a shit but given the choice between eternal life and becoming worm food figure "Why not?"? While most of this 70% do attend services they only do it rarely and mostly to keep up appearances.

With that being said, when religious people say that 85%-90% of the world believes, are they really proud that a lot of that percentage is people who don't really care at all?

And a big criticism of atheists is that they think they are too smart. That they try to understand science. They they study. And this is somehow frowned upon? Having intelligence? Having a thirst for knowledge? How is this a criticism?

No, I don't think 70% of the world have no cares or concerns about what happens to us when we die. In fact, I'd say that number's closer to 15%, though I don't think there's a good way of ever knowing that number.

I've also never heard a criticism of atheists as "They're too smart". Who the hell are you talking to, the Inbred Christian Mens Association?

You also seem to be equating atheism with having intelligence and a thirst for knowledge. Being an atheist does not automatically mean one is either intelligent or one who seeks knowledge.

Part of seeking knowledge is the understanding that you don't have all the answers. I wouldn't say someone whose mind is made up about the afterlife is automatically going to be openminded enough to keep seeking answers when he thinks he's already answered the question.

[st.cronin]

I think the most compelling criticism of atheism is that scientist's explanation for how the universe began is something like "there was a point that exploded for no reason that we've been able to figure out."

Atheists, I think, claim that we are all random occurences.

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm a great believer that very few people 'truly' believe in God ...

Just look at the Pope, he believes in God - but apparently believes in the power of bullets and physics even more as his pope-mobile has bullet proof glass ... ;)

Its one thing to be a believer in times of ease, its another to step out and truly believe when your life is at risk.

(Similarly but in reverse most 'Aetheists' will call out to God when deep in shit because they want to feel they have some hope/control even when all is lost ...)

[QuikSand]

Believers frequently lace their criticism of nonbelievers' views with heavy-handed use of words like random, chance, and luck. In my view, that really does more to betray their own inability to handle things like vast numbers and basic probability than it does convince me that there's really an argument there.

I suspect that many or most atheists simply don't claim to understand how the universe began. Confessing that we don't really have an explanation for that seems pretty reasonable to me (as if the often-used "arrogant" tag is misplaced on atheists in this particular sense). I think many atheists would argue that accepting this as an unanswerable (or at least thus far so) question is a far lesser gap to be breached than the many things they are expected to believe (and/or obey) by pretty much any organized religion.

[JediKooter]

Atheists simply have no belief in a god or gods. Nothing more, nothing less. That's it, that's what atheism is.

However, you can probably say that most atheists do agree with evolution, the big bang, and a host of other scientific categories.

[CraigSca]

Just look at the Pope, he believes in God - but apparently believes in the power of bullets and physics even more as his pope-mobile has bullet proof glass ... ;)


Marc,

You mentioned this example before in the other thread and I have to admit, I don't get it. If the pope's life has been threatened, why wouldn't he choose to protect himself as best he can?

It's like the story - and I'm sure I'll get this wrong - about the guy who's house is flooding and he's sitting on the roof to get above the water. He prays to God and asks for deliverance. A little while a boat comes by and he refuses to get on because God will save him. Later, another one comes by, he refuses to get on and eventually the water gets too high and he drowns. At the gates of heaven he asks God why He didn't save him from the flood and God says, "I sent you two boats - what more do you want?"

If I'm sick, I go to a doctor. Just because I do so doesn't mean I've no faith in God. It just means I'll use every means possible (and provided by God) to get myself healed.

[st.cronin]

Believers frequently lace their criticism of nonbelievers' views with heavy-handed use of words like random, chance, and luck. In my view, that really does more to betray their own inability to handle things like vast numbers and basic probability than it does convince me that there's really an argument there.

I suspect that many or most atheists simply don't claim to understand how the universe began. Confessing that we don't really have an explanation for that seems pretty reasonable to me (as if the often-used "arrogant" tag is misplaced on atheists in this particular sense). I think many atheists would argue that accepting this as an unanswerable (or at least thus far so) question is a far lesser gap to be breached than the many things they are expected to believe (and/or obey) by pretty much any organized religion.

Non-believers frequently lace their criticism of believers' views with heavy-handed words like obey. :D

I have no problem with this post, really. I do think a failure to explain where the universe came from is a significant gap in worldview.

[RendeR]

Non-believers frequently lace their criticism of believers' views with heavy-handed words like obey. :D

I have no problem with this post, really. I do think a failure to explain where the universe came from is a significant gap in worldview.


Obey would be heavy handed if the vast majority of religious doctrine were not laced with commands, commandments and expecations of obedience to the rules and stipulations of whichever sect one belongs. Look at the two major religions. Rife with "do this or else" litanies throughout their most precious texts and fables. Noting your smily there SC I'm assuming your comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek but I couldn't let it float by unresponded to.

For the second point you make I disagree altogether, why MUST we have a definition of "this is how the universe was created"? Believers follow creation in whatever form their doctrine's describe, but when non believers come up with alternate possibilities (equally as unprovable at this time as creation) its always a bigger issue than believing in a supreme being?

I keep hearing the "atheism is arrogant" statement in many peoples posts, to state that "There IS NO God" is indeed arrogant, however I feel that this is a twisting of most atheist's actual sentiments. most Athiest's tend to believe that "*I* do not belive there is a god" which generally in conversation gets shortened to the contested line previous.

Its not any more arrogant to believe there is NO god than there is to assume there is some supreme entity who created us, nurtured us and then proclaims "DO this or Else"

What is more arrogant? Beleiving there is no god, or assuming one truly knows anything about god's real intentions?

anyway, end interruption, please resume conversation =)

[panerd]

Non-believers frequently lace their criticism of believers' views with heavy-handed words like obey. :D

I have no problem with this post, really. I do think a failure to explain where the universe came from is a significant gap in worldview.

But neither explanation is really any different. The only difference between most believers and atheists is what happens after that fact. (Jesus, Mohammad, Virgin birth, Zeus, Athena, Noah's ark, Bodily decent into heaven) Those are better explanations than "I don't know?"

Can you imagine...

Teacher: "What causes you to feel love?"

Student 1: "A cupid shoots you."

Student 2: "I really have no idea. I can postulate theories about romantic attraction, chemistry, brain waves, and just dumb luck but I have no definite answer."

Teacher: "Well student 1 tried to explain it. We can refute everything he said, but at least he tried. Student 2 said he didn't know. So even though none of us really know and we all basically agree with student 2, student 1 must be correct."

[CamEdwards]

Marc,

I think most people of faith believe that life is a precious gift from God, and therefore we should take care of ourselves (our body is a temple and all that jazz). If we're good (or whatever you believe the qualifications are to enter Heaven) we'll have eternity in Paradise. But these years on earth are special and unique. It only makes sense that we would cherish the time that we have here.

[Daimyo]

I have no problem with this post, really. I do think a failure to explain where the universe came from is a significant gap in worldview.

Actually, knowing where the universe came from isn't all that valuable. I'm not sure how it would help anyone other than to satisfy curiosity. Besides, what point is there in "knowing" where it came from when you have no way to back up that knowledge other than faith?

[Raiders Army]

Most people argue in circular reasoning.

[JediKooter]

But neither explanation is really any different. The only difference between most believers and atheists is what happens after that fact. (Jesus, Mohammad, Virgin birth, Zeus, Athena, Noah's ark, Bodily decent into heaven) Those are better explanations than "I don't know?"

Can you imagine...

Teacher: "What causes you to feel love?"

Student 1: "A cupid shoots you."

Student 2: "I really have no idea. I can postulate theories about romantic attraction, chemistry, brain waves, and just dumb luck but I have no definite answer."

Teacher: "Well student 1 tried to explain it. We can refute everything he said, but at least he tried. Student 2 said he didn't know. So even though none of us really know and we all basically agree with student 2, student 1 must be correct."

Actually, the scientific evidence that 'we' have is much much much better than "god did it." People didn't know back in the 1600s that not having enough vitamin C causes scurvy. We now know why and what causes scurvy. Blood transfusions, electricity, agriculture, aerospace, the list goes on and on what people have discovered and using some form of the scientific method to test and confirm their hypothesis. It's a good thing that there are enough people in this world that did't stop at, "I don't know, god must have dont it" and just left it at that.

[Tekneek]

You mentioned this example before in the other thread and I have to admit, I don't get it. If the pope's life has been threatened, why wouldn't he choose to protect himself as best he can?

Aren't you supposed to believe that nobody dies before their time? That every death is part of God's plan? If that is the case, why would there be a need for any sort of protection/security scheme? If anything, it is a tacit admission that not every death or catastrophic event has anything to do with God's plan.

[st.cronin]

Actually, knowing where the universe came from isn't all that valuable. I'm not sure how it would help anyone other than to satisfy curiosity. Besides, what point is there in "knowing" where it came from when you have no way to back up that knowledge other than faith?

Its not just knowing where the universe came from. What does it mean that we are all presumably sentient? Does it matter whether I live well?

There's a whole host of questions/problems which, to me at least, are impossible to even think about when examined from a purely materialistic perspective.

[Tekneek]

I have no problem with this post, really. I do think a failure to explain where the universe came from is a significant gap in worldview.

I figure science will come up with that answer eventually. You need to remember that the Church once labeled people as heretics if they even tried to theorize that Earth was not the center of the universe. In time, science will answer nearly every question that religion tries to answer as long as we don't try to derail/destroy/prevent the funding of scientific research/progress.

If Congress had not killed the Superconducting Super Collider 15 years ago, who knows what we might have already figured out about the origins of the universe. The Large Hadron Collider would be redundant (and never built) if the US had gone through with it back then.

[st.cronin]

I figure science will come up with that answer eventually.

Just curious, what do you think the answer will look like?

[Tekneek]

Does it matter whether I live well?

Sure, if you want to live well and not be a menace to society. If you want to be a menace to civilized society, the rest of society will try to prevent you from causing them harm. It has little to do with religion and more to do with the safety and progress of civilization.

There's a whole host of questions/problems which, to me at least, are impossible to even think about when examined from a purely materialistic perspective.

It has nothing to do with materialism. If I only have one life, and that is it, and I can enjoy life to its fullest by interacting in a positive way with the rest of society, then I am going to do so. I don't need religion to tell me that killing everybody I meet is not the best way to make friends and influence people.

[Tekneek]

Just curious, what do you think the answer will look like?

No idea. I'm not going to presume I know those answers ahead of time.

[RendeR]

Just curious, what do you think the answer will look like?


For myself? I don't know, and i'm perfectly content not knowing. I don't need it to look a certain way or function a certain way or represent things a certain way.

Perhaps we non-believers have a faith, a faith that someday humanity will figure it out and that not knowing is really just fine and dandy.

Meh, its late, I'm tired, philosphizing is tangential.

[BrianD]

Its not just knowing where the universe came from. What does it mean that we are all presumably sentient? Does it matter whether I live well?

There's a whole host of questions/problems which, to me at least, are impossible to even think about when examined from a purely materialistic perspective.

I find it interesting that some people put so much stock in meaning while others really don't. Aside from some philosophical moments, I tend to not really care about meaning. I just live life as it comes and don't really look much deeper than that.

[CamEdwards]

So St. Cronin asks if it matters if he lives well and Tekneek's answer is "Sure, if you want to live well and not be a menace to society."

Does that mean living well only matters if you want to? I can't imagine that's a satisfactory answer for many people.

And I'll be up til at least 2 a.m.... and I LOVE to talk philosophy, as bad as I may be with my questions and answers. :)

[path12]

It's my impression that atheism and agnosticism get lumped together quite a bit. Personally, I'd consider myself agnostic rather than athestic.

[JediKooter]

I find it interesting that some people put so much stock in meaning while others really don't. Aside from some philosophical moments, I tend to not really care about meaning. I just live life as it comes and don't really look much deeper than that.

I have to agree with you on this.

[Honolulu_Blue]

A lot of interesting things being said here. I think painting atheists with a broad brush is any more fair or accurate than painting all "believers" with a broad brush. We've all come to where we are at for different reasons.

As for not knowing how the universe began... I have no idea. None. At all. I've read a few theories and some seem more plausible than others, but I am glad to know that there scientists working on trying to figure things out and trying to get answers to these questions. I mean if the prevailing view was just to shrug one's shoulders and say "God did it" then what would the point of all this research be?

I think there is a lot to be said for people who don't accept the simple answer - "God did it" or "it was God's will" - and strive to really try to understand why things happened or how they happened or how to make things better.

[path12]

In a way I admire people who can maintain a faith of any kind. I continually question and am not always confident that is a good thing.

[Toddzilla]

Point of clarification...

An atheist is one who is anti-theism. The atheist actively believes there is no god, they are not ambivalent about it. Atheists reject the notion of a supreme being.

An agnostic is one who doesn't take sides. They don't believe one way or the other.

[JediKooter]

I think it's very wise to question and be skeptical.

[JediKooter]

Point of clarification...

An atheist is one who is anti-theism. The atheist actively believes there is no god, they are not ambivalent about it. Atheists reject the notion of a supreme being.

An agnostic is one who doesn't take sides. They don't believe one way or the other.

Don't forget, we atheists like to eat or newborns raw. ;)

[Honolulu_Blue]

As for morality, I have argued on this board many times that I think morality is something separate from religion. There is just too much commonality among all the many different religions regarding how people should live their lives. I think morality came before religion and religions adopted moral teachings. It made an effective way to spread the word of "god" and was also effective in keeping people in line: "Don't steal or you'll go to hell." "Don't kill or you'll go to hell." "Don't eat pork because god said so." Etc. etc.

I didn't grow up an atheist. I was raised Catholic. After I was confirmed, I stopped going other than Easter and Christmas and the odd Sunday with the family.

About five or six years ago, however, I just started thinking about things one day and started thinking about it harder and harder. I read somethings, thought about it some more, talked to my wife about it and came to the conclusion that I didn't believe in God. The only reason I did was because I was raised that way and then never really ever thought about it after that.

Being an atheist certainly hasn't affected my moral code or how I live my life. I still do what I think is right, treat people kindly, give when I can, etc. I just do it because, well, it's the right thing to do. It's really not that complicated.

I think it does matter if I live good. Not because I am looking for some reward in the afterlife or afraid of some punishment if I don't, but rather because this is it. To me, this life is all I have. I still feel bad if I do wrong by someone and feel good if I do right. That hasn't changed at all.

I don't know why not believing in God would some how make life not worth living or give someone a green light to live amorally. I just never really equated the two. If anything, I sort of feel doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing - and nothing more - is even a bit more noble.

[path12]

An agnostic is one who doesn't take sides. They don't believe one way or the other.

I've always thought of it as that there very well may be a higher power of some sort, but do not presume to know. I guess that's the same thing.

[Groundhog]

With that being said, when religious people say that 85%-90% of the world believes, are they really proud that a lot of that percentage is people who don't really care at all?

When you are at a home football game, the guys in the team jerseys celebrating after a TD don't care if the random dude dressed in the same attire knows the names of every guy on the roster, or if he's just a fairweather fan. They are all rooting for the one team.

And a big criticism of atheists is that they think they are too smart. That they try to understand science. They they study. And this is somehow frowned upon? Having intelligence? Having a thirst for knowledge? How is this a criticism?

I think some academic atheists do at times have a tendency to come off as very high and mighty. But, at the same time, I can see why that is. When you have as great an understanding of how things work as some of these people do, it's must be very hard to talk non-derisively about folks who cover their eyes and ears to scientifc, verifiable facts - facts which have lead to the great medical and technological innovations we've seen throughout history (modern history in particular) - in the name of religious dogma.

If we didn't have people seeking answers behind what is written in the various religious texts, we'd all still be dying at age 35 of scurvy.

[Marc Vaughan]

Marc,
You mentioned this example before in the other thread and I have to admit, I don't get it. If the pope's life has been threatened, why wouldn't he choose to protect himself as best he can?

Ok according to original catholic doctrine not only is the Pope Gods main man on earth but he was also infallible (Papal infallibility) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)).

As such you'd expect that he would have faith that what God wants to happen would happen and that any bullets aimed at him would miss or be meant to hit him for some reason ... rather than hide behind a shield.

I realise your arguement of God gave him bullet proof glass to hide behind so he should use it has some merit in a practical sense, but by that arguement shouldn't Jesus have hired some body guards and avoided getting arrested?, St. Paul when imprisoned wouldn't be patiently sitting in his cell, he'd be looking for ways to escape .. after all that escape chance would have come from God etc., ditto for most of the original followers (most of whom met grissly fates).

Why is it that faith alone was enough in the bible - yet today if a christian was thrown in with a lion they'd argue that fighting the lion makes sense because god gave him the sword and it'd be stupid not to use it.

PS> I've heard the boat story before, but it still makes me smile to hear it again :D

[st.cronin]

Ok according to original catholic doctrine not only is the Pope Gods main man on earth but he was also infallible (Papal infallibility) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility)).

As such you'd expect that he would have faith that what God wants to happen would happen and that any bullets aimed at him would miss or be meant to hit him for some reason ... rather than hide behind a shield.

I realise your arguement of God gave him bullet proof glass to hide behind so he should use it has some merit in a practical sense, but by that arguement shouldn't Jesus have hired some body guards and avoided getting arrested?,


For Jesus, being crucified was actually part of the plan.

[Groundhog]

For Jesus, being crucified was actually part of the plan.

Poor Judas. :(

[st.cronin]

Poor Judas. :(

Yeah, well. That's that free will issue again.

[Icy]

As for morality, I have argued on this board many times that I think morality is something separate from religion. There is just too much commonality among all the many different religions regarding how people should live their lives. I think morality came before religion and religions adopted moral teachings. It made an effective way to spread the word of "god" and was also effective in keeping people in line: "Don't steal or you'll go to hell." "Don't kill or you'll go to hell." "Don't eat pork because god said so." Etc. etc.

I didn't grow up an atheist. I was raised Catholic. After I was confirmed, I stopped going other than Easter and Christmas and the odd Sunday with the family.

About five or six years ago, however, I just started thinking about things one day and started thinking about it harder and harder. I read somethings, thought about it some more, talked to my wife about it and came to the conclusion that I didn't believe in God. The only reason I did was because I was raised that way and then never really ever thought about it after that.

Being an atheist certainly hasn't affected my moral code or how I live my life. I still do what I think is right, treat people kindly, give when I can, etc. I just do it because, well, it's the right thing to do. It's really not that complicated.

I think it does matter if I live good. Not because I am looking for some reward in the afterlife or afraid of some punishment if I don't, but rather because this is it. To me, this life is all I have. I still feel bad if I do wrong by someone and feel good if I do right. That hasn't changed at all.

I don't know why not believing in God would some how make life not worth living or give someone a green light to live amorally. I just never really equated the two. If anything, I sort of feel doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing - and nothing more - is even a bit more noble.


You resumed my life and thoughts perfectly. I was also raised as catholic like every kid in Spain, where you must be catholic no matter what and where Catholicism is taught since you start to study up to the end of high school and you must study it and to past the tests if you want your studies title.

How aren't we all going to be Catholics in Spain if all us are forced to study it for like 10 years like we study maths, language etc? the brainwash is terrible and until now that there is some movement to remove it from the studies plan, it has been supported by our different governments that were too afraid of the church power.

At the end of that period, after i was confirmed, i had hundreds of doubts, and the fact that i was forced to blindly believe on what i was told for years without any doubt admitted made me also to research a lot, to read all that i could about religion, to talk with believers and not believers and to end reaching the same conclusion than you. I don't believe in god, i think we are not superior to any other animal in the world (besides more intelligent) an i think that once i die, there is nothing but worms.

Does it make me a worst person? i don't think so. Both the social rules and my own moral tell me what i should or shouldn't do to live in this world with other humans. Most of those moral principles are shared also by most of religions, others are totally against, but in resume i don't do the others what i don't want done to me and i give the others what they give to me.

I'm not afraid of death, i just thing it's a shame that our life's must end, but probably i also think it now that i enjoy life a lot, but probably once i'm so old, with health problems, not able to do what i like and depending from others to even do the more basic things, i guess i won't feel that bad about my life ending.

I can't understand how anybody can believe in a god that allows all the terrible things that happen in the world, when an high % of those terrible things are caused by a god believers that want the other god believers to think like them, when good and innocent people dies or have a miserable life while really bad people have a great living. If there is a god that causes all that, he should go to hell himself. If there is a god that allows that and that he could avoid it with his power, if he is only there watching like we watch our small creatures for fun in a game like spore, he should go to hell himself too for using us as his particular zoo.

Just seeing the power the catholic church has, the richness of Vatican (i have been there), the corruption of the Catholics high staff, the child's abuse by some catholic priests hidden by the catholic high staff, the wars inducted by the church power in the humans history, the death of thousands of innocent people in the name of god and tons of more things i could write for hours, makes me wonder how can anybody still believe that those persons/church or whatever you want to call it, are representing god in the earth and that he is happy with it.

I can keep writing for hours my reasons to be a non believer, the same way a believer could write too. I must admit i have some kind of hate to the catholic church specially, just for the years of lies and brain washing i have suffered since i was a kid, exactly the same way than communist regimes brain washed their kids or that sects do to dominate their members. It's like one day i woke up from the induced dream and realized how i was being lied, so i have a strong anger against those who did it.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I was thinking about this after I went to bed last night. There seems to be this notion that some how there'd be no reason, or at least, less of a reason to lead a "good life" if one doesn't believe in God or someone who doesn't believe in God would lack a moral compass.

I've never heard of anyone doing something horrible and then blaming it on the fact that "Well, I don't believe in God. What does it matter that I killed those people?" or something along those lines. While, on the other hand, you have people doing horrendous things throughout history in the name of God/religion.

If anything, one could argue that freedom from religion would allow you to become even a better person or have stronger convictions, since you are not bound certain religious teachings that steer one towards intolerance of others. (E.g., gays, people of other faiths, etc.)

(For the record, I am not saying that all religion teaches intolerance or that all people who believe in God are intolerant, but there are many out there who base their intolerance on their religion.)

[Tekneek]

Does that mean living well only matters if you want to? I can't imagine that's a satisfactory answer for many people.

Ultimately, if you are not causing harm to anybody else then I don't really care how you live or what you do. As long as you can fit within that criteria, you're living well enough to satisfy me.

[KWhit]

Great post HB. I tend to believe the notion that religion does more harm than good in the world.

I believe that morality is an evolved trait that is present in all of us. People who are naturally empathetic and generally treat others well will prosper (and therefore procreate at a much higher rate) than those that have absolutely no morals whatsoever.

People with no morals get into trouble with crime, etc at a young age and therefore will tend to not pass on their genes. And even if it isn't genetic at all, if they aren't raising children, then they have much less influence on the next generation.

So even if it is a totally learned behavior, the fact that the people with strong morals are more influential in society will tend to teach subsequent generations how to be.

It's too bad that morals and religion seem to be equated with each other so often by many people.

[KWhit]

Does that mean living well only matters if you want to? I can't imagine that's a satisfactory answer for many people.

The problem is that organized religion puts some very strange requirements in the definition of "living well."

[Ajaxab]

I keep hearing the "atheism is arrogant" statement in many peoples posts, to state that "There IS NO God" is indeed arrogant, however I feel that this is a twisting of most atheist's actual sentiments. most Athiest's tend to believe that "*I* do not belive there is a god" which generally in conversation gets shortened to the contested line previous.

Its not any more arrogant to believe there is NO god than there is to assume there is some supreme entity who created us, nurtured us and then proclaims "DO this or Else"

What is more arrogant? Beleiving there is no god, or assuming one truly knows anything about god's real intentions?

anyway, end interruption, please resume conversation =)

I think this is an excellent point. Neither side is arrogant for holding to a position they believe to be the truth. It's the manner of presentation that can often be arrogant. Unfortunately, it seems too many people get the two mixed up and see any truth claim as arrogant.

[Ajaxab]

I have a few more questions here. How does the typical atheist define good? Tekneek would define it as something along the lines of doing no harm to others. Would that be a fair definition? Also, how does the typical atheist define evil? Or if, in this framework there is no such evil, all the pain and suffering in the world (surely it doesn't all come from religion)?

[KWhit]

Tekneek's definition is pretty close to mine, but I would add that helping others less fortunate is a big part of my moral compass. I believe that empathy for others and their positions in life are very important and that I should help others when I can.

Evil is putting one's self above others to the extent that a person will inflict pain (physical, mental, economic, etc) on someone else in order to improve their own situation.

[KWhit]

Tekneek's definition is pretty close to mine, but I would add that helping others less fortunate is a big part of my moral compass. I believe that empathy for others and their positions in life are very important and that I should help others when I can.

Evil is putting one's self above others to the extent that a person will inflict pain (physical, mental, economic, etc) on someone else in order to improve their own situation.

Looking at this again.... I don't really like my definition of evil. That's close to it, but it depends on the degree of which one will step on other people to get ahead. I hate that kind of behavior and don't do it, but I'm not sure I'd really call it "evil."

[Marc Vaughan]

For Jesus, being crucified was actually part of the plan.

Yes I'm aware according to the bible that is the case - however Jesus cried out at the end asking why he'd been forsaken, implying that he wasn't aware of that ... thus according to your suggestions he should have been looking to drop the cross and leg it at the first opportunity when coming up the hill, i.e. looking for the 'out' he was expecting God to provide? (which doesn't make such a humble sacrifice story really ;) ).

Poor Judas.
This comes under the 'oddity' section - for Jesus to fulfil Gods 'plan' he had to be sacrificed ... although interestingly I believe there is a 'dropped' Gospel which has Judas down as a hero making this sacrifice willingly fully aware of what he was doing and being quite torn up at having to play the bad guy.

Reference:
The Lost Gospel of Judas--Photos, Time Line, Maps--National Geographic (http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lostgospel/?fs=www9.nationalgeographic.com)

[Tekneek]

Good? Do no harm. Evil? Doing harm.

There is a lot of chance in the world. Good people have harm done to them. Good people get terminal illness. Bad people get all that, too. There is no karma that makes sure that bad people get a disproportionate amount of cancer, thefts, layoffs, etc. Obviously people who spend more time with other bad people are more likely to be targeted, but in general the numbers depend more on where you are than whether you are good or bad. A lot of scumbag executives living in a gated community are less likely to end up the victim of crime than a bunch of good people living in a very poor community.

[Marc Vaughan]

definition of Good
I think a lot of the definition of Good and Evil is very hard to do without historic perspective (ie. looking back on the actual consequences of the event) and even then its impossible to know for sure the ultimate outcome of your actions.

For instance is someone runs over another person on purpose then that would be considered 'Evil' generally - however pan out a little and consider that the person he runs over was actually a paedophile and the person running him over knew he was on his way to commit another crime, at that point how would it be defined? ...

Similarly the butterfly effect can make a good deed turn bad or a bad deed turn good. For instance if while at school someone steals a book, now stealing is considered 'bad' - however that book then allows them to do better on tests and become a lawyer championing the poor .... now how do you define it?

Most people imho like black and white definitions because it makes them feel secure and life predictable - however generally things simply aren't that clear cut or simple imho.

[Tekneek]

Looking at this again.... I don't really like my definition of evil. That's close to it, but it depends on the degree of which one will step on other people to get ahead. I hate that kind of behavior and don't do it, but I'm not sure I'd really call it "evil."

I agree with your positions, but I wouldn't call them my base position. I think of "do no harm" as the baseline, and it works up from there. If you aren't doing harm to others, then you're meeting the minimum standard.

[Tekneek]

Most people imho like black and white definitions because it makes them feel secure and life predictable - however generally things simply aren't that clear cut or simple imho.

You do the best you can with the information available at the time, generally speaking. A lot of people don't try to weigh all the information, or put much emphasis on making the BEST decision, so...

[QuikSand]

Its not just knowing where the universe came from. What does it mean that we are all presumably sentient? Does it matter whether I live well?

There's a whole host of questions/problems which, to me at least, are impossible to even think about when examined from a purely materialistic perspective.

I think this raises a pretty provocative point about belief here.

There are quite a lot of people who will say that they believe in god and will say things to support that belief with words like "purpose" and "meaning" and the like. In essence, I suspect a lot of these people will (more or less) have contemplated the world with a god and the world without a god, and ultimately decide that they want to live in a world with a benevolent overseer, and therefore they elect to harbor those beliefs. Upbringing obviously plays a huge role here for many people, and this is an oversimplification, but this is a fair way to look at that decision for many, many people I think.

To be honest, I find this to be among the weakest argument for "believing" there can be. Someone (st.cronin?) in one of these threads argued that he feels proof of god when listening to Bach. To me, that's a perception that is perfectly incontestable -- I might not feel it myself, but at least that's a logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion (words fail me there, a bit). But the notion that many people implicitly weigh the world as it would be with or without a benevolent god and then choose the one they prefer and then claim to believe in that as though it were true is, to me, a decision made without any merit. I just don't think you choose to believe things like that.

Lots of people claim to believe (or more likely, claim to belong to a church or religious institution) out of practicality and prudence (which is, by the way, a criminally under-used word in this whole debate). They appreciate the sense of social well-being they get from attending services. They benefit from the well-intentioned messages delivered during services. They believe it strengthens their sense of community and family. They believe that it helps to give their lives meaning.

These are all lovely and noble consequences from attending a service, of from professing belief in a faith. They also have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the underlying claims of the faith, or the presence of the one being worshiped. Feeling good about believing is not itself evidence that the belief is true.

[CraigSca]

Aren't you supposed to believe that nobody dies before their time? That every death is part of God's plan? If that is the case, why would there be a need for any sort of protection/security scheme? If anything, it is a tacit admission that not every death or catastrophic event has anything to do with God's plan.

Perhaps it was God's plan for you to use the protection/security scheme.

[CraigSca]

I've never heard of anyone doing something horrible and then blaming it on the fact that "Well, I don't believe in God. What does it matter that I killed those people?" or something along those lines. While, on the other hand, you have people doing horrendous things throughout history in the name of God/religion.

If anything, one could argue that freedom from religion would allow you to become even a better person or have stronger convictions, since you are not bound certain religious teachings that steer one towards intolerance of others. (E.g., gays, people of other faiths, etc.)

(For the record, I am not saying that all religion teaches intolerance or that all people who believe in God are intolerant, but there are many out there who base their intolerance on their religion.)

I hate when people do this - but I have to tell you, this argument really gets old. There's evil in this world, but it's man's evil, not religion's (if you're speaking of the major religions in the world).

Just this century, freedom from religion worked wonders in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, etc., etc.

[Cork]

As someone who believes in God, I think the word that is missing from this thread is "Faith". For me, my faith in God is enough.

My take on the world is that God created the world and the universe. In doing so, he also created the laws of nature and science. He gave man "free will' which allows us to live as we see fit, but not with out consequences. If a man wishes to be pure evil, he can do so, but in the end he will pay for his actions. If a man wishes to follow the word of God and accept that Christ died for our sins, he will be rewarded for his actions.

As a hardcore believer in God, but also someone who is not all that high on organized religion, I also believe in evolution and most of what science preaches. I do not believe in the big bang theory or that we evolved from apes, but I do believe that organisms adapt and evolve over time. I also believe that most of the mysteries of the universe are waiting for man to discover. As an engineer, I embrace science and also embrace jesus Christ as my savior.

-Cork

[Ajaxab]

I think a lot of the definition of Good and Evil is very hard to do without historic perspective (ie. looking back on the actual consequences of the event) and even then its impossible to know for sure the ultimate outcome of your actions.

For instance is someone runs over another person on purpose then that would be considered 'Evil' generally - however pan out a little and consider that the person he runs over was actually a paedophile and the person running him over knew he was on his way to commit another crime, at that point how would it be defined? ...

Similarly the butterfly effect can make a good deed turn bad or a bad deed turn good. For instance if while at school someone steals a book, now stealing is considered 'bad' - however that book then allows them to do better on tests and become a lawyer championing the poor .... now how do you define it?

Most people imho like black and white definitions because it makes them feel secure and life predictable - however generally things simply aren't that clear cut or simple imho.

This is an interesting point. Can an act be inherently good irrespective of what follows from it? Can an act be inherently bad irrespective of what follows from it? I guess the question is whether or not we can separate the goodness/badness of an act from its consequences. I might be reading into your position here (forgive me if I am), but it seems you're suggesting it's extremely difficult to separate the two.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I hate when people do this - but I have to tell you, this argument really gets old. There's evil in this world, but it's man's evil, not religion's (if you're speaking of the major religions in the world).

Just this century, freedom from religion worked wonders in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge, etc., etc.

I have no intention in devling into this old debate: what was done Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was a result of "freedom from religion". There was a lot more going on there (e.g., what happened in Cambodia was more about Communism than anything to do with atheism, there is all sorts of questions regarding Hitler's religious beliefs and religion definitely played a role in Nazi Germany), just like there was a lot more going on when people were doing similar things "in the name of God."

[Ajaxab]

I think this raises a pretty provocative point about belief here.

There are quite a lot of people who will say that they believe in god and will say things to support that belief with words like "purpose" and "meaning" and the like. In essence, I suspect a lot of these people will (more or less) have contemplated the world with a god and the world without a god, and ultimately decide that they want to live in a world with a benevolent overseer, and therefore they elect to harbor those beliefs. Upbringing obviously plays a huge role here for many people, and this is an oversimplification, but this is a fair way to look at that decision for many, many people I think.

To be honest, I find this to be among the weakest argument for "believing" there can be. Someone (st.cronin?) in one of these threads argued that he feels proof of god when listening to Bach. To me, that's a perception that is perfectly incontestable -- I might not feel it myself, but at least that's a logical connection between the evidence and the conclusion (words fail me there, a bit). But the notion that many people implicitly weigh the world as it would be with or without a benevolent god and then choose the one they prefer and then claim to believe in that as though it were true is, to me, a decision made without any merit. I just don't think you choose to believe things like that.

Lots of people claim to believe (or more likely, claim to belong to a church or religious institution) out of practicality and prudence (which is, by the way, a criminally under-used word in this whole debate). They appreciate the sense of social well-being they get from attending services. They benefit from the well-intentioned messages delivered during services. They believe it strengthens their sense of community and family. They believe that it helps to give their lives meaning.

These are all lovely and noble consequences from attending a service, of from professing belief in a faith. They also have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the underlying claims of the faith, or the presence of the one being worshiped. Feeling good about believing is not itself evidence that the belief is true.

I think this is an excellent point that could be applied to the atheistic position as well. One could ascribe motives to the atheist in that they would prefer that there not be a god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions. I suspect a lot of these people will have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide they want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer and so they elect to harbor these beliefs. An upbringing in a secular home and secular educational system plays a huge role in this. Sure, it's an oversimplification.

Many of them claim to believe because they see their beliefs as practical and prudent. They like the sense of intellectual superiority they have over those dumb religious folks. They like the notion that they think they can justify their claims with rational arguments. They like feeling as though they are part of an intellectual elite. They believe it strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom.

These may be lovely and noble consequences of being an atheist, but they have no bearing on the validity of the atheistic position or the absence of a god. Feeling good about being an atheist is not evidence that the belief is true.

All this to say that both the religious and the atheistic may be shaped and influenced by feelings.

[Mac Howard]

I have no intention in devling into this old debate: what was done Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Cambodia's Khmer Rouge was a result of "freedom from religion".

No it wasn't (in fact Hitler was Christian). It was dedication to ideology which is the sibling of religion. Both religion and ideology rely on rigid, infallible dogma. Both rely on "holy" books (the bible, koran, Mein Kampf, Communist Manifesto) , both rely on charismatic leaders (Jesus, Mohamed, Hitler, Stalin etc).

The origins of the horrors of Fascism and Communism are very similar to those of religion. It is not lack of God, it is commitment to dogma and the demonisation of non-believers.

It's not so much religion itself that is responsible but the characteristics that are shared by both religion and ideology. It is when you believe that you have "the truth" and you insist on imposing that "truth" on non-believers that the "evil" begins.

[QuikSand]

I think this is an excellent point that could be applied to the atheistic position as well. One could ascribe motives to the atheist in that they would prefer that there not be a god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions. I suspect a lot of these people will have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide they want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer and so they elect to harbor these beliefs. An upbringing in a secular home and secular educational system plays a huge role in this. Sure, it's an oversimplification.

Many of them claim to believe because they see their beliefs as practical and prudent. They like the sense of intellectual superiority they have over those dumb religious folks. They like the notion that they think they can justify their claims with rational arguments. They like feeling as though they are part of an intellectual elite. They believe it strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom.

These may be lovely and noble consequences of being an atheist, but they have no bearing on the validity of the atheistic position or the absence of a god. Feeling good about being an atheist is not evidence that the belief is true.

All this to say that both the religious and the atheistic may be shaped and influenced by feelings.

I understand your little device, and it's fine. I'd even agree with you, that if all people were administered truth serum and forced to reveal their beliefs and the reasons for them... that anyone who claims to believe in no god for these specious reasons is equally contemptible as those on the side I'm after above.

I would reject the implied argument that this (non-believers inspired by their wishes for the world) is anywhere near as broad a motivation for non-believers as it is for believers, but that's a matter of opinion and judgment, and not simply logic.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think this is an excellent point that could be applied to the atheistic position as well. One could ascribe motives to the atheist in that they would prefer that there not be a god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions. I suspect a lot of these people will have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide they want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer and so they elect to harbor these beliefs.

While I can speak for anyone else, this position makes no sense to me at all. Why would one want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer? It's not that something I desire, it's just something I have to accept based on my observations in the world.

As for the first point, prefering there be no god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions, again I don't see that at all. I've never felt like I had a "Get out of Jail Free" card or felt any less of an obligation to do the right thing because I didn't have God looking over my shoulder or waiting to spank my bottom blue when I get to the "other side."


Many of them claim to believe because they see their beliefs as practical and prudent. They like the sense of intellectual superiority they have over those dumb religious folks. They like the notion that they think they can justify their claims with rational arguments. They like feeling as though they are part of an intellectual elite. They believe it strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom.

While I do believe it strengthens my sense of self and personal freedom (to some very limited extent), I don't think it has to do with anything about feeling a sense of intellecutal superiority (that just comes naturally for me, being a graduate of the University of Michigan and all. :D )


All this to say that both the religious and the atheistic may be shaped and influenced by feelings.

Unless you're a Vulcan, I think almost any decision a person makes is influenced, to some extent, by feelings.

Deciding not to believe in God wasn't driven by any desire to feel better about myself or feel superior to anyone. I simply thought long and hard about it and eventually came to the conclusion that, based on everything I have observed in the world, I just don't believe there is a god. It wasn't a happy day, a great day, a super important day, it was just a day.

Being an atheist really hasn't affected my life in any significantl way and really isn't that important a part of my identity.

[Marc Vaughan]

This is an interesting point. Can an act be inherently good irrespective of what follows from it? Can an act be inherently bad irrespective of what follows from it? I guess the question is whether or not we can separate the goodness/badness of an act from its consequences. I might be reading into your position here (forgive me if I am), but it seems you're suggesting it's extremely difficult to separate the two.

Generally I think Good and Evil are judged in three ways :-

Firstly by a society as a whole. If society believes that an act is good then it 'is' - as such America invading a sovereign country like Iraq is considered 'good' by many Americans despite the fact that in different circumstances they'd consider the same acts 'evil' (for instance Russia and Georgia).

The second way in which 'good' and 'evil' is judged is that personal view of an individual - this involves whether the person involved believed they were acting in a good or evil manner. Generally regardless of the action involved the vast majority of people will believe their intent and actions are 'good' (Hitler for instance believed he was a force for good).

The third way in which acts are judged are as history, that is retrospectively taking into account the consequences of the actions involved. For instance when Chamberlain came back from negotiation with Hitler declaring 'Peace in our time' his negotiations were considered initially as a good act - however history now see's it as being a weak attempt at appeasement of an evil opponent (apologies for the anglophilic analogy hopefully everyones aware of this quote).

Everyone lives their lives attempting to take into account all three manners in which acts are judged - often doing something they feel is 'wrong' because society judges it as being right (for instance a wife might stay with an abusive husband because they are in a church which tells her that divorce is wrong).

In my opinion its up to everyone to live life to the best of their ability and ultimately you have to take actions according to your own moral compass - I just try and remember that no one can ever force you to do something, ultimately its your decision to weigh the consequences and undertake the action (thus take responsibility for what you do).

(Hope that made some sort of sense ... rambled on a bit)

[Ajaxab]

While I can speak for anyone else, this position makes no sense to me at all. Why would one want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer? It's not that something I desire, it's just something I have to accept based on my observations in the world.

As for the first point, prefering there be no god so that they don't have to be accountable for their actions, again I don't see that at all. I've never felt like I had a "Get out of Jail Free" card or felt any less of an obligation to do the right thing because I didn't have God looking over my shoulder or waiting to spank my bottom blue when I get to the "other side."



While I do believe it strengthens my sense of self and personal freedom (to some very limited extent), I don't think it has to do with anything about feeling a sense of intellecutal superiority (that just comes naturally for me, being a graduate of the University of Michigan and all. :D )



Unless you're a Vulcan, I think almost any decision a person makes is influenced, to some extent, by feelings.

Deciding not to believe in God wasn't driven by any desire to feel better about myself or feel superior to anyone. I simply thought long and hard about it and eventually came to the conclusion that, based on everything I have observed in the world, I just don't believe there is a god. It wasn't a happy day, a great day, a super important day, it was just a day.

Being an atheist really hasn't affected my life in any significantl way and really isn't that important a part of my identity.

These are all good points HB. I was just responding to Quik's attribution of motives to the religious when it seems that similar kinds of motives could be equally attributed to the atheist as well. Your response suggests that motive attribution isn't a very good way to discuss things because it's flawed. I agree with you. You demonstrated that well here. I can't know the atheist's motives just as Quik can't know the religious person's motives. Maybe he's right about some religious folks just as maybe I'm right about some atheists. But attributing motives doesn't seem to be the best way to get us where we want to go.

[Ajaxab]

Generally I think Good and Evil are judged in three ways :-

Firstly by a society as a whole. If society believes that an act is good then it 'is' - as such America invading a sovereign country like Iraq is considered 'good' by many Americans despite the fact that in different circumstances they'd consider the same acts 'evil' (for instance Russia and Georgia).

The second way in which 'good' and 'evil' is judged is that personal view of an individual - this involves whether the person involved believed they were acting in a good or evil manner. Generally regardless of the action involved the vast majority of people will believe their intent and actions are 'good' (Hitler for instance believed he was a force for good).

The third way in which acts are judged are as history, that is retrospectively taking into account the consequences of the actions involved. For instance when Chamberlain came back from negotiation with Hitler declaring 'Peace in our time' his negotiations were considered initially as a good act - however history now see's it as being a weak attempt at appeasement of an evil opponent (apologies for the anglophilic analogy hopefully everyones aware of this quote).

Everyone lives their lives attempting to take into account all three manners in which acts are judged - often doing something they feel is 'wrong' because society judges it as being right (for instance a wife might stay with an abusive husband because they are in a church which tells her that divorce is wrong).

In my opinion its up to everyone to live life to the best of their ability and ultimately you have to take actions according to your own moral compass - I just try and remember that no one can ever force you to do something, ultimately its your decision to weigh the consequences and undertake the action (thus take responsibility for what you do).

(Hope that made some sort of sense ... rambled on a bit)

Thanks for the reply. These are tough questions to be sure.

[gi]

While it gets a bit 'atheist preachy' since the author is a former evangelist, Dan Barker's Losing Faith in Faith goes into some depth about non-believe and separating morality from religion among other topics coming up here. Link is: hxxp://www.ffrf.org/

Similar story with me too HB, former Catholic, now I'm an atheist. Process started in after a Christian Brother gave me an Ayn Rand book in High School. Good discussion, keep it up!

[Tekneek]

Perhaps it was God's plan for you to use the protection/security scheme.

Sure. It goes along with the wonderful saying of "God works in mysterious ways."

[Honolulu_Blue]

These are all good points HB. I was just responding to Quik's attribution of motives to the religious when it seems that similar kinds of motives could be equally attributed to the atheist as well. Your response suggests that motive attribution isn't a very good way to discuss things because it's flawed. I agree with you. You demonstrated that well here. I can't know the atheist's motives just as Quik can't know the religious person's motives. Maybe he's right about some religious folks just as maybe I'm right about some atheists. But attributing motives doesn't seem to be the best way to get us where we want to go.

Good points as well. Though, I think the difference between the two is that Quik's observation is based on what he's heard people explain as their actual motivation for their beliefs, whereas your examples seem to be based on inferences or possibilities. I mean, have you ever really asked an atheist why he or she is an athiest? Has their response ever been any of the following:

I prefer that there not be a god so that I don't have to be accountable for my actions;

I have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide I want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer;

I am an atheist because I like the sense of intellectual superiority I have over those dumb religious folks; or

I am an atheist because I like feeling as though I am part of an intellectual elite.

While it's not impossible that someone would be motivated by the above, it's not all that plausible either. (Maybe those last two, if the person happens to be a complete knob-head.)

Of all the possibile motives behind choosing to be an atheist (it's not an easy choice really), the only two that seem plausible are (1) the ability to justify my claims with rational arguments (the same way I try to justify pretty much everything else in the world and everything else I do, except for my love of the Detroit Lions, there is no rational explanation for this. At all) or (2) the belief some how strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom. I think both of these are, to some extent, at the heart of many peoples' beliefs in a great many things not just religion or faith. They are just sort of broad catch-all motivations.

[JediKooter]

I have a few more questions here. How does the typical atheist define good? Tekneek would define it as something along the lines of doing no harm to others. Would that be a fair definition? Also, how does the typical atheist define evil? Or if, in this framework there is no such evil, all the pain and suffering in the world (surely it doesn't all come from religion)?

Ajaxab. What is good and what is evil (bad) is very subjective, much like art. What is good art and what is bad art? It doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist, it's still going to be very subjective to each individual.

[Butter]

While I can speak for anyone else, this position makes no sense to me at all. Why would one want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer? It's not that something I desire, it's just something I have to accept based on my observations in the world.

Deciding not to believe in God wasn't driven by any desire to feel better about myself or feel superior to anyone. I simply thought long and hard about it and eventually came to the conclusion that, based on everything I have observed in the world, I just don't believe there is a god. It wasn't a happy day, a great day, a super important day, it was just a day.

Being an atheist really hasn't affected my life in any significantl way and really isn't that important a part of my identity.

+1

Thanks for saving me some typing.

[Bonegavel]

With all of threads people have started the last couple of days on their faith I thought we could at least have a thread dedicated to a few real simple questions that have always bothered me. Not really the theology arguments that both sides of the God argument normally have. These are more of questions that never get brought up.

Do you not agree that the world is made up of about 15% people who are convinced there is not a god 15% who are convinced there is and about 70% who don't give a shit but given the choice between eternal life and becoming worm food figure "Why not?"? While most of this 70% do attend services they only do it rarely and mostly to keep up appearances.

With that being said, when religious people say that 85%-90% of the world believes, are they really proud that a lot of that percentage is people who don't really care at all?

And a big criticism of atheists is that they think they are too smart. That they try to understand science. They they study. And this is somehow frowned upon? Having intelligence? Having a thirst for knowledge? How is this a criticism?

I just don't believe in the God of the Bible that was beaten into my skull for all those years. I totally believe that there could be a creator, but he/she/it hasn't decided to come forward yet (at least in a way that we understand).

I'm in the Infinite Possibilities Theory camp where anything could be true. I just choose to not believe in a creator that supposedly has all these horrible consequences for non-belief but yet chooses not to come talk to me in person. If this god did indeed create us, he would know what kind of brain we have and that a lot of us would need proof before believing. If he does indeed want sheep than I am happily not in his camp.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I just don't believe in the God of the Bible that was beaten into my skull for all those years. I totally believe that there could be a creator, but he/she/it hasn't decided to come forward yet (at least in a way that we understand).

I'm in the Infinite Possibilities Theory camp where anything could be true. I just choose to not believe in a creator that supposedly has all these horrible consequences for non-belief but yet chooses not to come talk to me in person. If this god did indeed create us, he would know what kind of brain we have and that a lot of us would need proof before believing. If he does indeed want sheep than I am happily not in his camp.

I've always been somewhat curious about that leap as well.

I think this sort of goes to the Theistic Evolution discussion as well. People say they observe something in nature, or a pattern of things, and say "Based on this observation, 'There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is.'" Thus, there is a God. (or, the earlier reference to knowing God exists everytime someone hears Beethoven).

It's the next step, that Bonegavel alludes to, that baffles me a bit.

It's sort of like:

I observe A (order in the universe), therefore I in believe B (a God/higher force).

I believe in B (God/Higher Force), therefore I believe in C (Catholicism/Protestanism/Judaism/insert whatever religion here).

Why Catholicism, for example? What does one observe in the world that makes the Catholic God any more believable or legit than any other God?

How does observing "too much order" in the Universe lead to a belief in Purgatory/Limbo? Or a belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament are to be believed any more than the prophecies in the Koran or any other religious text? Or that this God who created the Universe and all this order, then created a human son, sent him to Earth to absolve Humans of all their sins, let him die, and then had him resurrected three days later?

Maybe it just is a "Leap of Faith", but that seems inconsistent with the initial belief in God, which followed an "observed" phenomonen, which is how was believe in most things (e.g., earth is round, gravity, water is wet, etc.).

I understand Step 1. While I don't agree with it, I understand how someone could look at the universe, observe it, and come to the conclusion that "there is too much order for there not to be a God."

But how does what one observes in the universe lead one to believe in all that comes with believing in a religion. A lot of that stuff has nothing to do with observations at all.

I just find "Step 2" to be incredibly hard, if your foundation for believing in God truly is "Step 1", as some people claim it is.

I remember seeing some show on PBS and there was a Christian Scientist going on and on about how the order of the universe made it impossible not to believe in God and how the odds of life were so incredibly small there had to be a God, etc, etc.

But how do all those observations and odds and all that lead one to believe anything about God other than His existence?

[RendeR]

I think at the root of my disbelief, at the very core, is the reality of flawed creation.

If there were indeed a supreme being, of whatever shape, size, ability etc etc, there wouldn't be mistakes. There wouldn't be BAD design. There would be no "flaws". This, for me, is where religion simply fails. I cannot believe in something so inherently flawed as religion and its hypocrisies.

When I look seriously at religions world wide, I see double standards, I see racism, I see sexism, I see HUMAN failing. If there is a God and he was indeed all powerful, he simply wouldn't make mistakes, he wouldn't have these simple human failings.

The bible says that man is created in God's image. if thats true, then take a good long hard look at Man. Then tell me you still want to worship his creator.

I can't.

[Ajaxab]

Ajaxab. What is good and what is evil (bad) is very subjective, much like art. What is good art and what is bad art? It doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a theist, it's still going to be very subjective to each individual.

That seems like a dangerous position to me. Doesn't this potentially allow for any action to be conceivably good and any action to be conceivably bad? And whether it's good or bad coming down to whether a person thinks it's good or bad? I'm not sure this is what you are wanting to say, but this is how I'm hearing you.

[Ajaxab]

Good points as well. Though, I think the difference between the two is that Quik's observation is based on what he's heard people explain as their actual motivation for their beliefs, whereas your examples seem to be based on inferences or possibilities. I mean, have you ever really asked an atheist why he or she is an athiest? Has their response ever been any of the following:

I prefer that there not be a god so that I don't have to be accountable for my actions;

I have contemplated a world with god and a world without a god and ultimately decide I want to live in a world without a benevolent overseer;

I am an atheist because I like the sense of intellectual superiority I have over those dumb religious folks; or

I am an atheist because I like feeling as though I am part of an intellectual elite.

While it's not impossible that someone would be motivated by the above, it's not all that plausible either. (Maybe those last two, if the person happens to be a complete knob-head.)

Of all the possibile motives behind choosing to be an atheist (it's not an easy choice really), the only two that seem plausible are (1) the ability to justify my claims with rational arguments (the same way I try to justify pretty much everything else in the world and everything else I do, except for my love of the Detroit Lions, there is no rational explanation for this. At all) or (2) the belief some how strengthens their sense of self and personal freedom. I think both of these are, to some extent, at the heart of many peoples' beliefs in a great many things not just religion or faith. They are just sort of broad catch-all motivations.

These are fair points. Maybe part of the problem in trying to sort through this issue is that there are more outwardly religious people than there are outward atheists. And I have encountered more outwardly religious people than outward atheists.

But the motivations Quik attributed to the religious in that paragraph are not those that I have heard from many of the people I have encountered. I'm sure there are some who claim to believe because they like the well-intentioned messages and the social connections and networks that come with religious practice. But there are many who claim to believe out of a love for God and a sense of gratitude to this God who has saved them. These things motivate them to do the religious things they do.

Do these motives make their beliefs true? I agree with Quik on this in absolutely denying that this makes them true. People can feel fuzzy feelings and experience some sense of psychological well-being without there being any truth behind their explanation for these feelings.

[Cork]

I've always been somewhat curious about that leap as well.

I think this sort of goes to the Theistic Evolution discussion as well. People say they observe something in nature, or a pattern of things, and say "Based on this observation, 'There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is.'" Thus, there is a God. (or, the earlier reference to knowing God exists everytime someone hears Beethoven).

It's the next step, that Bonegavel alludes to, that baffles me a bit.

It's sort of like:

I observe A (order in the universe), therefore I in believe B (a God/higher force).

I believe in B (God/Higher Force), therefore I believe in C (Catholicism/Protestanism/Judaism/insert whatever religion here).

Why Catholicism, for example? What does one observe in the world that makes the Catholic God any more believable or legit than any other God?

How does observing "too much order" in the Universe lead to a belief in Purgatory/Limbo? Or a belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament are to be believed any more than the prophecies in the Koran or any other religious text? Or that this God who created the Universe and all this order, then created a human son, sent him to Earth to absolve Humans of all their sins, let him die, and then had him resurrected three days later?

Maybe it just is a "Leap of Faith", but that seems inconsistent with the initial belief in God, which followed an "observed" phenomonen, which is how was believe in most things (e.g., earth is round, gravity, water is wet, etc.).

I understand Step 1. While I don't agree with it, I understand how someone could look at the universe, observe it, and come to the conclusion that "there is too much order for there not to be a God."

But how does what one observes in the universe lead one to believe in all that comes with believing in a religion. A lot of that stuff has nothing to do with observations at all.

I just find "Step 2" to be incredibly hard, if your foundation for believing in God truly is "Step 1", as some people claim it is.

I remember seeing some show on PBS and there was a Christian Scientist going on and on about how the order of the universe made it impossible not to believe in God and how the odds of life were so incredibly small there had to be a God, etc, etc.

But how do all those observations and odds and all that lead one to believe anything about God other than His existence?

I would argue that for the majority of us who believe in God, that it is indeed a "Leap of faith".

I also think that most religions acknowledge that there is but a single God. The differences between the religions often result from human interpretation of that religions holy book (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.).

I unequivocally believe in God, but would not call myself much of a "Religious" person.

-Cork

[Cork]

The bible says that man is created in God's image. if thats true, then take a good long hard look at Man. Then tell me you still want to worship his creator. I can't.

I view the above statement differently. Man was made in Gods image and as such Human beings look like what God looks like. 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. I don't think it goes much beyond that.

-Cork

[JediKooter]

That seems like a dangerous position to me. Doesn't this potentially allow for any action to be conceivably good and any action to be conceivably bad? And whether it's good or bad coming down to whether a person thinks it's good or bad? I'm not sure this is what you are wanting to say, but this is how I'm hearing you.

Yes, it does seem I was too general. :)

I am definitely not saying that you can switch anything good and make it bad and vice versa. I guess what I'm saying is, there's a lot of gray area on what could be considered good or bad, once you move beyond things that are inherently bad (i.e., rape, murder, etc...) no matter how you try to spin those things, they are bad at their very core.

For example, one person may think that two unmarried people should not be living together and that it's a bad thing. While others do not think it's a bad thing and actually think it's good so they can get to know each other better.

[Autumn]

I've always been somewhat curious about that leap as well.

I think this sort of goes to the Theistic Evolution discussion as well. People say they observe something in nature, or a pattern of things, and say "Based on this observation, 'There is too much order for there not to be a God. Chaos theory cannot account for how simple most of what observe actually is.'" Thus, there is a God. (or, the earlier reference to knowing God exists everytime someone hears Beethoven).

It's the next step, that Bonegavel alludes to, that baffles me a bit.

It's sort of like:

I observe A (order in the universe), therefore I in believe B (a God/higher force).

I believe in B (God/Higher Force), therefore I believe in C (Catholicism/Protestanism/Judaism/insert whatever religion here).

Why Catholicism, for example? What does one observe in the world that makes the Catholic God any more believable or legit than any other God?

How does observing "too much order" in the Universe lead to a belief in Purgatory/Limbo? Or a belief that the prophecies in the Old Testament are to be believed any more than the prophecies in the Koran or any other religious text? Or that this God who created the Universe and all this order, then created a human son, sent him to Earth to absolve Humans of all their sins, let him die, and then had him resurrected three days later?

Maybe it just is a "Leap of Faith", but that seems inconsistent with the initial belief in God, which followed an "observed" phenomonen, which is how was believe in most things (e.g., earth is round, gravity, water is wet, etc.).

I understand Step 1. While I don't agree with it, I understand how someone could look at the universe, observe it, and come to the conclusion that "there is too much order for there not to be a God."


Thank you for writing this. This describes very well my thoughts on the subject in a way that I haven't learned to express. I don't see how any one can profess any sort of devout belief in a particular religious persuasion. Feeling sure there's a higher power? Okay. But to be sure that in particular, one defined version of Christian scripture, for example, is definitely true, I don't know how people arrive at that conclusion with any surety.

I know there are religious people out there who aren't particularly literal about their dogma, and I can see that. But there are plenty who are. That is where I don't get why I should believe that Harry the Pentecostal Christian is absolutely right, but Henri the Sufi Muslim is absolutely wrong. They may be both right about there being a higher power, but I don't see any reason to suspect one of them in particular is right about the rest. They both have books and prophets to support them, but what else?

[JediKooter]

I think at the root of my disbelief, at the very core, is the reality of flawed creation.

If there were indeed a supreme being, of whatever shape, size, ability etc etc, there wouldn't be mistakes. There wouldn't be BAD design. There would be no "flaws". This, for me, is where religion simply fails. I cannot believe in something so inherently flawed as religion and its hypocrisies.

When I look seriously at religions world wide, I see double standards, I see racism, I see sexism, I see HUMAN failing. If there is a God and he was indeed all powerful, he simply wouldn't make mistakes, he wouldn't have these simple human failings.

The bible says that man is created in God's image. if thats true, then take a good long hard look at Man. Then tell me you still want to worship his creator.

I can't.

I think if you even take out the part of man being created in god's image. He made an extreamly flawed and fragile package for us. Cancer, near sightedness, balding, arthritis, polio, flat feet, can only breath air, can be poisoned, a soft exterior that can be penetrated by sharp objects, heck, just how we age and our bodies break down, etc...It would seem that god can only produce mediocre, at best, creations.

[AENeuman]

Good posts by all...

I see a difference in the proclamations of a believer vs. non-believer. A religious type is really proclaiming to believe in the unbelievable. An non-believer is really making no claim.

As a result, i can see (in some respects) the need to convert as a way to reconcile a believer's leap into the absurd. A believer is not satisfied with a non-believer, whereas a non-believer tends to not want to "convert" believers. (Philosophically, not institutionally).

Lastly, I think one can look at the (lack of the) power of language. Are there words that can approximate my understanding of life, suffering, and love? Or can one be a believer even if they do not have words to use to describe their belief, ie only actions?

[CraigSca]

I think at the root of my disbelief, at the very core, is the reality of flawed creation.

If there were indeed a supreme being, of whatever shape, size, ability etc etc, there wouldn't be mistakes. There wouldn't be BAD design. There would be no "flaws". This, for me, is where religion simply fails. I cannot believe in something so inherently flawed as religion and its hypocrisies.

When I look seriously at religions world wide, I see double standards, I see racism, I see sexism, I see HUMAN failing. If there is a God and he was indeed all powerful, he simply wouldn't make mistakes, he wouldn't have these simple human failings.

The bible says that man is created in God's image. if thats true, then take a good long hard look at Man. Then tell me you still want to worship his creator.

I can't.

But again, religion inherently has MAN in the equation, and man is flawed due to the original sin and therefore religions have a tendency, again due to human factors of greed, lust, power, etc., to "lose their way." It's really a catch-22. As a particular church or religion gets bigger, man's ego gets in the way and it becomes less about God and more about the individual. Still, there will always be like people who wish to worship God together, and you re-start the process. I'm not saying that organized religion is a bad thing - I think it's a necessary thing - but the more organized it is, the more man is involved. God is perfect - we aren't.

[Bonegavel]

If when I die and things turn out to be, say, like the Christian Bible and God deems me unworthy of Heaven, that's his choice. I'm ok with that as it obviously wasn't something I wanted in the first place.

The moment God created the universe, he knew the place I'd end up after I die.

I see the god of the bible as an absentee father; unworthy of my love. My uber-christian mother can't understand how I can think this way and is heart-broken over my beliefs. I feel sorry that she needs the religion-crutch so badly that she is blind to reality.

(if there was a creator) maybe he/she/it has died. Maybe time is different for us and every second to him is a billion years to us so he is trying to communicate but it's taking some time. Maybe he is like Crom and doesn't give two fucks about us. Maybe he blew his wad in creating the universe and is now impotent so much that he cannot communicate with us.

That is all speculation. What I do know for sure is that the creator of this universe has never sat down with me and communicated to me via any of my 5 senses (all of which were given to me by him). I was given a logical brain that relies on these 5 senses in order to survive. My logical brain tells me that God knows (or should know) how to communicate properly with me and he hasn't, therefore, it must not be that important. And if it is important and he hasn't communicated it to me, he doesn't like me and what does it matter anyway.

[Tekneek]

It would seem that god can only produce mediocre, at best, creations.

Yet another reason to wonder, should this God exist and wish to take credit for this mess, why we are supposed to believe they are so wonderful. If anyone actually had to do this as a job, they would surely have been fired by now with the way things have turned out.

[chesapeake]

I also think that most religions acknowledge that there is but a single God.

This is a common argument made by Christians, but it isn't true. About half of the world follows some kind of Abrahamic, monotheistic tradition. The other half does not, and the vast majority of those are not monotheistic traditions.

You could probably squeak out a monotheistic majority on the planet, but it would be very small. If the atheists in very religious countries like the US were able to come out of the closet, my guess is that you probably wouldn't have a majority.

[AENeuman]

been thinking about the converting thing a little more

seems to me a non-believer can say, in general, "i happy, what do i need your religion for?" a believer could say, 'you do not know what happy means. you are not really happy until you believe in what i do."

maybe religion is going out of fashion in highly developed areas; US an Europe, because the majority people there are satisfied with their lives. and whatever hardship they may face it remains within their worldview

[Honolulu_Blue]

If anyone actually had to do this as a job, they would surely have been fired by now with the way things have turned out.

I'm sorry. I do believe the fact that Matt Millen is still the GM of the Lions is irrefutable evidence that this statement is incorrect.

[Ajaxab]

Yet another reason to wonder, should this God exist and wish to take credit for this mess, why we are supposed to believe they are so wonderful. If anyone actually had to do this as a job, they would surely have been fired by now with the way things have turned out.

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?

[JediKooter]

Yet another reason to wonder, should this God exist and wish to take credit for this mess, why we are supposed to believe they are so wonderful. If anyone actually had to do this as a job, they would surely have been fired by now with the way things have turned out.

And that's one of the main reasons I do not believe in any god or gods. Perfection does not exist anywhere other than in the human mind.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?

I don't view the world through "atheist tinted" glasses. Like I mentioned earlier, being an atheist hasn't really had a profound impact on my life or how I view the world.

I think we do live in a pretty messed up world. Why have things turned out the way they have? That's a long and complicated question. There's no easy answer. Not by a long shot. Just saying "it's evolution, stupid" is about as weak sauce as saying "it's all God's will." They are both meaningless statements lacking any true analysis or thought.

I guess you could look for some evolutionary explanation for the state of the world, but I think evolution alone is far too limiting a science/theory to explain everything that's wrong with the world and why it's so.

I don't think the notion that "we live in a pretty messed up world" is in any way at all unique to atheists. There are plenty of religious folks who preach doom and gloom, the end of days, the crumbling of society, etc.

In some ways the world is a better place than it ever was, in other ways it is more profoundly fucked up than ever. I'm sure that thought isn't unique either to atheists or to folks living in today's society.

[Tekneek]

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?

Do you think we live in a perfect world? Where children can die before the age of 3 from cancer? If this is God's creation, they can forget me celebrating their accomplishment. Life is what it is and I'm not unhappy to be here, but I'm not going to thank some supposed supernatural deity who couldn't bother to clear out terminal illness along the way. If they simply started the process and have no control these days, why should I celebrate them?

Wow, God, thanks for the big bang. Let's celebrate your creation, of which you have apparently washed your hands of now, and hope that maybe you're waiting on the other side to reward us with the things you deny us here. No thanks. I'll just make the best of what I have here and be content with that. Assuming this God even exists, I'm not going to thank them for giving terminal disease to children.

[Tekneek]

I'm sorry. I do believe the fact that Matt Millen is still the GM of the Lions is irrefutable evidence that this statement is incorrect.

I suppose that rules out intelligent design as well, eh? ;)

[RendeR]

I view the above statement differently. Man was made in Gods image and as such Human beings look like what God looks like. 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. I don't think it goes much beyond that.

-Cork


I find this a very naive way to see it. This God, this supreme being "made man in his image" he created a race to represent himself....only visually? With most other verses in the bible being held as a metaphor for a plethora of things, this one statement means only....one....very limited, single perspective thing.

I don't buy it. If I were creating a race, assuming arrogantly for a moment that *I* am god. I certainly wouldn't stop at just my physical appearance. I would endow my creation with as much of myself as possible.

I don't think a supreme being would do less than a mere mortal.


I would like to add that I'm thrilled with how this thread has gone. its very rare that discussions of this topic don't succumb to subby-isms or bubba Wheels-assaults before ever getting this far.

Kudos to you all for posting with integrity and manners.

[RendeR]

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?


Flawed in SOME way? good lord man, have you ever looked at a human being? =)

In SOME way? every human being is a cacophony of mistakes. The digestive system, too limited for the majority of food items on this planet. The reproductive system designed in such a way as to invite disease and infection? The body as a whole while an amazing piece of architecture wins no prizes for durability or strength or resilience to...much of anything.

Shall i delve into the psychological problems? no, lets just rest my case there. humanity is full of flaws, even the least of which no human being would have allowed to succeed and breed further, if a human wouldn't do it, why in the universe would a supreme being?

I don't suggest that this position is held by anyone outside myself. I ONLY speak for myself. When it comes down to it, I simply can't give over my faith to something/someone whom I find fault in at every turn.

When i talk about this with other people at this point I get the "But when you look at all the wonders in the world, all the beauty, the elegance, the mystery, can't you understand that a few flaws in a generally prefect world are worth it?"

And to that I can only say, "no" If i am asked to believe that something is all powerful and all knowing and the supreme power in the universe, I cannot accept that that entity would allow such flaws to exist. its a fundamental lynch pin in my makeup. A true "GOD" wouldn't make such mistakes or allow such flaws to continue throughout time.

[Cork]

I find this a very naive way to see it. This God, this supreme being "made man in his image" he created a race to represent himself....only visually? With most other verses in the bible being held as a metaphor for a plethora of things, this one statement means only....one....very limited, single perspective thing.

I don't buy it. If I were creating a race, assuming arrogantly for a moment that *I* am god. I certainly wouldn't stop at just my physical appearance. I would endow my creation with as much of myself as possible.

I don't think a supreme being would do less than a mere mortal.


I would like to add that I'm thrilled with how this thread has gone. its very rare that discussions of this topic don't succumb to subby-isms or bubba Wheels-assaults before ever getting this far.

Kudos to you all for posting with integrity and manners.

Are you implying that God should have only make exact replicas of himself?

I am not a biblical scholar, so I can't reference biblical text at all, but the point that I was trying to make earlier was that Human Beings flaws should in know way reflect poorly upon God as our creator.

Because we are a flawed species, that does not mean that God is flawed. It was his canvas so to speak and I guess he created what he desired. For all we know he might have made better versions of himself somewhere in a remote corner of the universe. We might just be version 50 in a long line of creations. Who knows.

-Cork

[RendeR]

Are you implying that God should have only make exact replicas of himself?

I am not a biblical scholar, so I can't reference biblical text at all, but the point that I was trying to make earlier was that Human Beings flaws should in know way reflect poorly upon God as our creator.

Because we are a flawed species, that does not mean that God is flawed. It was his canvas so to speak and I guess he created what he desired. For all we know he might have made better versions of himself somewhere in a remote corner of the universe. We might just be version 50 in a long line of creations. Who knows.

-Hrnac


i understand your point, but if in fact god is "perfect" and all knowing and all seeing then he doesn't need 1000 tries to get something right, does he? if so he's not all knowing, if he cannot see the flaws in his own creation and fix them is he still all seeing?

this is the conundrum of religion. We are told to believe in his omniscience, his all powerfulness. However, simply by looking around I see no evidence of such a being. Do I see amazing and wonderous things? absolutely, but I see just as much obvious screw up as I do amazing grace. A GOD, a Supreme being would choose to create mistakes? I'm sorry, but that's simply not good enough to deserve MY devotion and praise.... and before anyone says it, no, that is NOT arrogant. To genuflect before a supreme being, to..Give my life over to a higher power, I have to be convinced, I have to BELIEVE, that that power is so far beyond ME that I can't fathom it.

Mistakes, Errors, poor choices, bad planning? They generally disqualify you from positions of power.

[Marc Vaughan]

I don't buy it. If I were creating a race, assuming arrogantly for a moment that *I* am god. I certainly wouldn't stop at just my physical appearance. I would endow my creation with as much of myself as possible.
I don't think a supreme being would do less than a mere mortal.

I've personally always found it intruiging how 'man' is considered the center things when God has already created far superior beings in the angels.

These have free will and powers far beyond our understanding - they also appear to be made in 'gods image' (ie. if you go for that meaning free will they obviously have it as the devil was able to rebel, if you go along with the literal 'looks human' approach then again apparently they do).

This central role for mankind to me has always smacked somewhat of early science where the earth was considered to be the center of the universe simply because we inhabited it ...

[Marc Vaughan]

i understand your point, but if in fact god is "perfect" and all knowing and all seeing then he doesn't need 1000 tries to get something right, does he? if so he's not all knowing, if he cannot see the flaws in his own creation and fix them is he still all seeing?
I've always found it somewhat bemusing that an all-power all-knowing God put his children (Adam and Eve) in a situation containing temptation without putting up a fireguard or something to protect them - imho thats just bad parenting ... if you knowingly place your kids in a situation where they and their descendants are likely to be condemned to hell on a regular basis then you aren't going to win parent of the year from me ;)

The only logical explanation for things if you want to remain consistent with the bible is that everything is exactly how it was intended to be for whatever reason and that Adam and Eve's fall from grace was needed for the ultimate goal to be achieved.

This ties into the 'Good' and 'Bad' discussion from earlier today - can mankind really judge God as being Good or Evil from our limited perspective on reality; is the alternative worse than what we have been given or is the ultimate goal worthy of the sacrifices which have to be made to reach it? .... its impossible for us with our limited eperceptions to know.

[Cork]

i understand your point, but if in fact god is "perfect" and all knowing and all seeing then he doesn't need 1000 tries to get something right, does he? if so he's not all knowing, if he cannot see the flaws in his own creation and fix them is he still all seeing?

this is the conundrum of religion. We are told to believe in his omniscience, his all powerfulness. However, simply by looking around I see no evidence of such a being. Do I see amazing and wonderous things? absolutely, but I see just as much obvious screw up as I do amazing grace. A GOD, a Supreme being would choose to create mistakes? I'm sorry, but that's simply not good enough to deserve MY devotion and praise.... and before anyone says it, no, that is NOT arrogant. To genuflect before a supreme being, to..Give my life over to a higher power, I have to be convinced, I have to BELIEVE, that that power is so far beyond ME that I can't fathom it.

Mistakes, Errors, poor choices, bad planning? They generally disqualify you from positions of power.

Does being perfect mean that you can only act perfectly? Would not a perfect being be free to act and do as they see fit?

-Cork

[adubroff]

Does being perfect mean that you can only act perfectly? Would not a perfect being be free to act and do as they see fit?

-Cork

Wouldn't acting imperfectly make this supposed perfect person cease to be perfect? I don't think you can be perfect and act imperfectly.

They don't give a pitcher a pefect game if he intentionally walks somebody.

[JediKooter]

Does being perfect mean that you can only act perfectly? Would not a perfect being be free to act and do as they see fit?

-Cork

Well, that's the trick. If you are perfect, how can you act 'un-perfect'? It sounds like a cop out by saying that a perfect being is free to act in any manner they want and that way you can't call them out on not being perfect. Once you cease being perfect, intentional or not, you are no longer perfect.

If god made Eve for Adam because Adam was lonely, wouldn't have god had known that prior to making Adam, Adam would be lonely and therefor would have already have made Eve? Sounds like a mistake on gods part.

[Cork]

Well, that's the trick. If you are perfect, how can you act 'un-perfect'? It sounds like a cop out by saying that a perfect being is free to act in any manner they want and that way you can't call them out on not being perfect. Once you cease being perfect, intentional or not, you are no longer perfect.

If god made Eve for Adam because Adam was lonely, wouldn't have god had known that prior to making Adam, Adam would be lonely and therefor would have already have made Eve? Sounds like a mistake on gods part.

You make it sound as though a perfect being should act like a mindless robot. I find it plausible to believe that even though God would have known that Adam would be lonely, he did not immediately make Eve, because he might have wanted to see what Adam did.

All in all, this is a classic "Chicken or the egg" argument. No side can win, because no side can adequately prove their point. This is why one should always be very careful when discussing Religion and Politics.

I am going to end my participation in this thread and return to worrying about games and sports.

-Cork

[JediKooter]

You make it sound as though a perfect being should act like a mindless robot. I find it plausible to believe that even though God would have known that Adam would be lonely, he did not immediately make Eve, because he might have wanted to see what Adam did.

All in all, this is a classic "Chicken or the egg" argument. No side can win, because no side can adequately prove their point. This is why one should always be very careful when discussing Religion and Politics.

I am going to end my participation in this thread and return to worrying about games and sports.

-Cork

If god is perfect and all knowing...it's kinda hard to excuse the mistakes, but, there is no requirement to act like a robot and actually it never crossed my mind as god being some sort of assembly line like robot.

I totally respect your perspective on this and yes, it is very difficult to have constructive discussions regarding religion and politics. How about something lighter like abortion? Just kidding.

Well, see you in the other discussions then! :)

[Mac Howard]

One of the problems with living in Australia is that I'm about 12 hours in antiphase with you guys and I log on here in a morning and there are about six pages of posts to work my way through. So many things have been said which I would like to reply to but I have to restrict myself to a few.

Like many others I found your post ajaxab an interesting misreading of the situation:

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?

First, things haven't turned out well yet for about 5 billion of the world's 6 billion population. Only for us in the "developed" world could "the way things have turned out" be described as "well". Life is still pretty crappy for the rest.

It was also pretty crappy for our societies 300 years or more ago. A person born had about a 40% chance of dieing before he reached the age of one. Even if you made it that far you were lucky to survive 30. Each morning you would wake up knowing there was a significant chance you wouldn't be alive at the end of the week. If disease hit you there was often nothing whatsoever you could do about it and would suffer enormously or succomb to death.

What happened wasn't that things "turned out" well but that we stopped dropping to our knees to pray for god to fix it and decided to look how things worked and then used that understanding to overcome the bad stuff. We turned to science instead of God and life began to get a lot better.

Because of this today we stand a good chance of living until we're 80. If disease strikes (providing we either afford health insurance or live in a country that provides universal health care ;) ) we can survive disease. We do not spend 110% of our lives searching for food - we die of obesity not malnutrition :rolleyes:

We have it good because we've learned to understand the way the world works and manipulated the good and (to a large extent) controlled the bad. We can still suffer from earthquakes,tsunamis etc but we're even learning to deal with them. We'll probably live to 120 by the end of this century and may even overcome death in a few centuries.

Things haven't "turned out" well - we've created that situation for ourselves despite our many flaws by turning away from "god" and relying on our own abilities.

A point about the "flawed universe" - the despised religion of Gnosticism had a better explanation of this. They believed that the world was flawed because it was created by a demi-god not the supreme God. When Christianity came along - they existed from some 400 years before Christ - they concluded, with some justification in my view, that the god of the old testament was not the same as that of the new. They concluded that YAHWEH was the demi-god that created the flawed universe and that the god of Jesus was the supreme, perfect god.

This particular version of Christianity was, of course, virtually wiped out when Rome made Catholicism the state religion and gave it military power and the doctrine of Original Sin answered the flawed universe problem by dumping all the bad stuff on man while reserving all the good stuff for god.

[Marc Vaughan]

If god made Eve for Adam because Adam was lonely, wouldn't have god had known that prior to making Adam, Adam would be lonely and therefor would have already have made Eve? Sounds like a mistake on gods part.

Ok how about this for an explanation.

God wanted Adam to be happy but knew if he gave him Eve straight away he wouldn't appreciate her and there would be disharmony.

By allowing him time on his own when Eve arrived he appreciated her more and thus the delay in her creation was an anticipated act by God.

(not saying this is the 'right' answer - but its a possible arguement which meets the criteria for God placed in the bible)

Without knowing Gods ultimate aim and gameplan its impossible to critique his actions and acknowledge them as fallible/infallible or Good or Evil ...

[BrianD]

The biggest issue I've always had is the seemingly incompatible ideas of "God's plan" and freewill. What is the purpose of having a plan if we are free to follow it or not, and how can the plan of a perfect God be foiled? Conversely, if there is a plan and we are supposed to surrender to his will, what happens to our freewill?

[Marc Vaughan]

The biggest issue I've always had is the seemingly incompatible ideas of "God's plan" and freewill. What is the purpose of having a plan if we are free to follow it or not, and how can the plan of a perfect God be foiled? Conversely, if there is a plan and we are supposed to surrender to his will, what happens to our freewill?

IMHO if God is omnipotent then there is no such thing as freewill (because he created us knowing exactly what we'd do all the time). Some Christians believe in this scenario, some don't.

Indeed outside of relgion, according to science there is actually no such thing as free will.

Follow me on this path if you will ...

* Science believes that everything obeys the laws of science.
* Thus all animals obey the laws of science.
* Thus our brains obey the laws of science.
* All our surroundings (and inputs to our environement) are controlled by the laws of science.
* Our brains act upon the input impulses giving a predictable response given the inputs and state of the brain at the time (think of the brain of a very very very complicated computer if it helps).

Thus while we can't predict peoples behaviour accurately theoretically we are all pre-programmed and if science ever gets sufficiently advanced we could determine peoples actions before they do them.

(but the important thing imho is that from our limited perspective we BELIEVE that we have free will, thus even most aetheists actually live their lives by the false belief that they act of their own free will)

Ok - anyone still following me or has it got a bit too late in the evening for me to try and explain something complicated? :D

[st.cronin]

The idea that this world has some degree of perfection or imperfection interests me. What is the arbiter of quality to an atheist? What determines if something is good or perfect or bad or imperfect?

[Marc Vaughan]

The idea that this world has some degree of perfection or imperfection interests me. What is the arbiter of quality to an atheist? What determines if something is good or perfect or bad or imperfect?

Surely perfect and imperfect are qualities which differ according to the eye of the observer, much like beauty.

For example my perfect bacon sandwich would consist of juicy english bacon lightly grilled and smothered in Worcester Sauce .... however American diners over here insist on a strip of bacon being fried to a solid dry crisp, a bit like eating cardboard but with less flavour ... which is the perfect way to serve bacon, depends entirely on who you ask ;)

[st.cronin]

Surely perfect and imperfect are qualities which differ according to the eye of the observer, much like beauty.

If this is the case, then how can the imperfection of the world be used as an argument about the world? It seems like it would be a statement about the observer. "To my eyes the world is imperfect."

[Marc Vaughan]

If this is the case, then how can the imperfection of the world be used as an argument about the world? It seems like it would be a statement about the observer. "To my eyes the world is imperfect."

That is essentially what the people in this thread are stating - "To their eyes the world is not operating in the manner which they would expect it to should it be 'perfect'" ... what each person would view as perfect would undoubtably be somewhat different however most people would unite in saying that the world as it is today is not their idea of a 'perfect world'.

Its generally much easier to 'tear down' than it is to 'build up' thus defining something as imperfect is relatively easy - however asking someone to defne what their perfect world would be like is very difficult because most of us don't have that much creativity in us and have no real idea what we'd ultimately like given the chance. As such having omeone indicate the world is 'imperfect' is acceptable imho - society/religion indicates many things which are desirable in people and the world contains much that isn't particularly desirable either by society or individuals - hence imperfect would be an acceptable definition of the state of the planet to the vast majority of people.

Incidentally imho all statements by humans are statements about 'observers' imho - for instance if I say the sky is blue; I'm really stating that the sky is what I consider to be the colour blue but thats my perception and that of a colour blind person might differ.

Humans like to 'club together' and pretend that our interpretation of things is the same because its reassuring to know that people agree with us and share our views which helps reinforce our confidence that we are right, however ultimately are views are our own and strength in numbers doesn't guarentee that you're right.

(which of course doesn't mean its not working exactly as God intended ;) )

[Tekneek]

The idea that this world has some degree of perfection or imperfection interests me. What is the arbiter of quality to an atheist? What determines if something is good or perfect or bad or imperfect?

How about children not dying of terminal illness for a start?

Any God that chooses not to intervene on the behalf of 2 year old children dying from leukemia, for instance, is persona non grata with me. If they cannot prevent it, they aren't powerful enough for me to fear. If they aren't willing to, then they are too despicable for me to bother with.

Or it could just be that they do not exist...

[Mac Howard]

You're elevating subjectivity beyond its true influence, Mark. Does it have a significant influence over our judgment? Of course it does. Is it the only influence on our judgment? Of course not. Subjectivity requires and object and it's in the object that objectivity resides.

Your argument is precisely that which caused Plato to decide that there was absolutely no value whatsoever in what today we call "empirical evidence" and is the cornerstone of the massive improvement in our lives. His mistake was yours - the belief that subjectivity was everything (and as a result delayed the scientific revolution and subjected humans to a further 2000 years of misery)

There is no question that any one person's experience is subjective but by combining the experiences of many individuals the subjectivity and distortions caused by this even out leaving a reasonable approximation to the objective. Add to that the willingness to correct remaining distortions when further experience calls for it and you approach objectivity asymptotically (I knew I get to use that world sometime ;) )

We can name some imperfections in the world that all humans would agree on. A life-form that slaughters humans in their millions and causes untold suffering that was totally unknown for thousands of years - I speak of the virus - I think all humans would agree was an "imperfection" in creation. You can argue that it stimulates us to solve the problems associated with it but those problems wouldn't exist without it so that would a somewhat circular argument.

I think almost all humans would consider the virus not just an imperfection but also the work of a pretty nasty "creator" (if intelligent creation is the case) and that judgment would go beyond subjectivity.

[Marc Vaughan]

You're elevating subjectivity beyond its true influence, Mark. Does it have a significant influence over our judgment? Of course it does. Is it the only influence on our judgment? Of course not.
Your argument is precisely that which caused Plato to decide that there was absolutely not value whatsoever in what today we call "empirical evidence" and is the cornerstone of the massive improvement in our lives. His mistake was yours - the belief that subjectivity was everything (and as a result delayed the scientific revolution and subjected humans to a further 2000 years of misery)
Don't get me wrong for 'normal situations' I'd never argue that subjective views are important when doing scientific research for instance.

However when dealing with intangible items like 'perfection' its very much a subjective measure and one which can't be set in stone by a doctrine or proof imho.

I think almost all humans would consider the virus not just an imperfection but also the work of a pretty nasty "creator" and that judgment would go beyond subjectivity.
I did try and indicate that its easier to critique/criticise things and find common ground in that side of things than it is to truly agree on a definition of a subjective experience.

You are right however in that I should have clarified a difference between ambigious feelings (such as what is perfect) and more concrete situations such as testing the existance of gravity for instance.

(oh and the example of colour blindness wasn't the brightest choice in the world either - in my defense its late here ;) )

[Mac Howard]

The idea that this world has some degree of perfection or imperfection interests me. What is the arbiter of quality to an atheist? What determines if something is good or perfect or bad or imperfect?

I think the answer to that, st.cronin, is one I'm sure you've heard before and one you may even have used yourself in other circumstances - I can't define it, I can't pin it down exactly, but I can recognise it when I see it.

A tsunami wiping out 200,000 people isn't perfection, right? A disease savaging fully a third of the population (as the black death in Europe) isn't perfection. And so on.

I have no problem at all accepting that the world as we see it is a "flawed" world if it was indeed created by an intelligent entity. The alternative is that it wasn't "designed" at all but the result of random processes with little or no concern for its appeal to mankind. The world isn't intentionally beneficial or antagonistic towards we humans. It isn't flawed, it just is.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think the answer to that, st.cronin, is one I'm sure you've heard before and one you may even have used yourself in other circumstances - I can't define it, I can't pin it down exactly, but I can recognise it when I see it.
To put it in terms which Me and Mac can relate to easily ;)

Game design is a tricky beast - in practice most people know what they 'like' when they see it and can point out flaws in your games design because of what they don't enjoy because its an emotive issue on something that is available to see/try.

Ask them to design a game however and most will flounder (after initial enthusiasm) because its a blank slate and not something they really have any understanding of doing.

Criticising something is easy you simply indicate what is in it which doesn't appeal to you, creating something from a blank canvas is very difficult - especially if you've never done it before.

As such 'critiquing' Gods creation (ie. everything) is easy to do - we look around and point out what we think is wrong with it - small changes which we think would improve things (ie. removal of illnesses), have we any real idea of the effect of our proposed changes, no (for instance removing illnesses would probably lead to vast over-population quickly) and could we make anything approaching it ourselves however ..... nope not a chance .....

[CraigSca]

I thought one of the points of Genesis is how the world was perfect, until man screwed it up by adding sin to the mix.

I've said this in the other thread - from our human perspective, it's hard to fathom why a 3 year old dies from Leukemia. It just doesn't make sense - but it doesn't mean that there isn't a reason - we may just not be able to fathom it. Along with that is the fact that our souls are eternal, and therefore the 3 miserable years on earth really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. Sure, as a human being living on this earth, it's hard to think outside the bounds like that (and please, if this happened to a loved one of yours, I offer my extreme condolences and understanding that I am not making light of the situation). The issue is - there is a lot of suffering in this world, but Jesus took on all this suffering so that we can be re-born in Him in the afterlife.

No, there's no flashing sign saying "Eternal Life Here" posted on the equator or anything - nothing that's going to bang you over the head with it.

In asking God for a sign that can be proven by one of your five senses... You're more than likely not going to get one (though I won't say it's impossible). However, as I mentioned in the other thread, from God's perspective (warning, run-on sentence), "I created the universe, the planets, the animals, humans, and then the humans screwed it up, and so this world is filled with disease and greed and war and famine, so I sent my son, Jesus, to die for your screw ups and give you a chance at eternal redemption and all I ask is for you to accept his outreached hand - however, you want a SIGN, too?!"

[Honolulu_Blue]

The idea that this world has some degree of perfection or imperfection interests me. What is the arbiter of quality to an atheist? What determines if something is good or perfect or bad or imperfect?

I reckon the arbiter of quality to an atheist is pretty much in line with what it'd be for any right-minded religious person. There may be some differences at the fringes, but for the most part they'd be very similar.

[KWhit]

I have a big problem with the whole "Man screwed things up by adding sin." Any religion that bases its worldview on the fact that knowledge and sex are sins is pretty fucked up in my opinion.

[gi]

I have a big problem with the whole "Man screwed things up by adding sin." Any religion that bases its worldview on the fact that knowledge and sex are sins is pretty fucked up in my opinion.


This is generally perceived as a control method of the masses and allows certain people to get into/stay in power

[KWhit]

This is generally perceived as a control method of the masses and allows certain people to get into/stay in power

Oh absolutely that's what I believe (as well as most other non-believers I would guess). But I don't think the religious people who follow the bible would agree. And if they do, it kind of throws the whole idea of Jesus dying for our sins out the window, doesn't it?

[Ajaxab]

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I appreciate the discussion.

[Ajaxab]

Oh absolutely that's what I believe (as well as most other non-believers I would guess). But I don't think the religious people who follow the bible would agree. And if they do, it kind of throws the whole idea of Jesus dying for our sins out the window, doesn't it?

The motivation of believing to maintain power doesn't have anything to do with the validity/non-validity of belief. If the atheist maintains their atheism so that they can justify and maintain power, this doesn't make their atheist beliefs any less true/false. Motivations for belief seem different to me than reasons for belief.

[BrianD]

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I appreciate the discussion.

I would assume that atheism would point toward evolution working toward the survival of the species and not toward the enjoyment of that survival. Species evolve to be able to compete and exist in a harsh environment, and that is about it. At the same time, other species evolve with the same purpose. This kind of competition will never lead to everyone being "happy".

[Mac Howard]

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

These things just are. They're not intrinsically good or bad, they just are. It is we humans that put labels of good and bad on them based on whether they're beneficial to us or not. Disease makes me sick and suffer - that's bad. A sunny day makes me feel good - that's good. And so on.

The world isn't really "flawed". It is only so if you assume there's a designer who was aware of, and concerned about, the impact of these things on us when he drew up the blueprint. If he wasn't concerned about us and merely wanted to produce a world with a great deal of energy and lots of things happening and evolving and was as concerned about a virus or an earthquake as he was about a human then he produced a pretty good world.

We're a very arrogant species - we like to think that everything is built around our interests but, in truth, we're just a stop on the way to somewhere else :)

I appreciate the discussion.

Me too. Most of the things I've talked about here are not things I've thought about before but things that have come out of the discussion. We all tend not to analyse our world view too intently unless required to :)

[KWhit]

The motivation of believing to maintain power doesn't have anything to do with the validity/non-validity of belief. If the atheist maintains their atheism so that they can justify and maintain power, this doesn't make their atheist beliefs any less true/false. Motivations for belief seem different to me than reasons for belief.

Not sure I follow.

I was saying that I believe the notion of the "Original Sin" of seeking knowledge and sex are man's creation as a way to hold power over all of us (since NO ONE can be without sin, so everyone must believe and repent to the church). Are you saying you agree with that notion?

And if so, if it is the church leaders' way of holding power over us, how does that hold with the belief that Jesus was sent to earth to die for everyone's sins - including the Original Sin that is part of all of us?

(And by the way, I think it's a silly conceit to say that since Adam and Eve sinned that means that every other human in the world has sinned as well - including infants just out of the womb, but that's kind of a different subject....)

[CraigSca]

I have a big problem with the whole "Man screwed things up by adding sin." Any religion that bases its worldview on the fact that knowledge and sex are sins is pretty fucked up in my opinion.

Knowledge and sex? Huh?

[KWhit]

These things just are. They're not intrinsically good or bad, they just are. It is we humans that put labels of good and bad on them based on whether they're beneficial to us or not. Disease makes me sick and suffer - that's bad. A sunny day makes me feel good - that's good. And so on.

The world isn't really "flawed". It is only so if you assume there's a designer who was aware of the impact of these things on us when he drew up the blueprint.

We're a very arrogant species - we like to think that everything is built around our interests :)

Right. And to further this statement. The disease that Mac talks about is bad for the human that has it, true. But it's good for the bacteria or the virus that is living in that person's body.

[KWhit]

Knowledge and sex? Huh?

I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't that what Original Sin is?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I appreciate the discussion.

I would assume that atheism would point toward evolution working toward the survival of the species and not toward the enjoyment of that survival. Species evolve to be able to compete and exist in a harsh environment, and that is about it. At the same time, other species evolve with the same purpose. This kind of competition will never lead to everyone being "happy".

While evolution can explain certain motivations of people, I really don't think it's a valuable "catch all" theory that explains why there is bad itself or why there is disease, murder, famine, etc. I don't think it's terribly helpful, or all that accurate, to try and provide an evolutionary explanation for every action someone takes.

The easiest example is some quote from Ethan Hawke where he was trying to justify his infidelity based on evolution and how men aren't "made" to be monogamous because evolution dictates they try to procreate as often as possible or something along those lines. No, you douche bag, you just cheated on your wife because you're a douche. There are some very basic urges that almost all humans have based on evolution, but the real difference between us and the animals is that we can think rationally and should not be driven purely by our basic urges. Does it happen? Most definitely. Do they play a part in our subconcious decision-making? More often than not, yes. But I think it'd be quite diengenious to sit back and say "People do horrible shit to other people beacause it's survival of the fittest, baby. This is just evolution at work."

So, why the theory of evolution may provide a foundation for some bad things people do, it's not the answer.

So, what is the answer? It's really far too complicated. There is no easy answer for most things. The reasons for kids starving in African are very different than the reasons people are living in poverty in downtown Detroit.

There are different biological, social, and environmental reasons for all of these things. Trying to figure them out and then come up with a solution is the real trick.

What's the religious explanation for it? God's will? That can't be it, no?

[Bonegavel]

One thing i like to point out about my beliefs is that, unlike folks like Richard Dawkins, I don't have disdain for people of faith. At least those that don't push their religion down my throat. And I don't bring up religion unless it's brought up to me first (since nobody likes being dashed about the head how their beliefs are flawed).

Also, my beliefs allow for any religion/theory/belief to be "correct." I'm not cornering the market on ideas of how-things-came-to-be. Guys like Dawkins annoy me in their contempt for others that don't conform to his beliefs and isn't that hypocrisy?

[gi]

The motivation of believing to maintain power doesn't have anything to do with the validity/non-validity of belief. If the atheist maintains their atheism so that they can justify and maintain power, this doesn't make their atheist beliefs any less true/false. Motivations for belief seem different to me than reasons for belief.

This is what got Ayn Rand into trouble. It didn't matter that she was an atheist, she was still a hypocrite that used methods to maintain what power she had over her flock.

[Ajaxab]

Not sure I follow.

I was saying that I believe the notion of the "Original Sin" of seeking knowledge and sex are man's creation as a way to hold power over all of us (since NO ONE can be without sin, so everyone must believe and repent to the church). Are you saying you agree with that notion?

And if so, if it is the church leaders' way of holding power over us, how does that hold with the belief that Jesus was sent to earth to die for everyone's sins - including the Original Sin that is part of all of us?

(And by the way, I think it's a silly conceit to say that since Adam and Eve sinned that means that every other human in the world has sinned as well - including infants just out of the womb, but that's kind of a different subject....)

I don't think I'm necessarily addressing these kinds of doctrinal issues, but something a bit different. But rather that if someone believes in some religious doctrine (like Original Sin) just so they can continue to exercise power over someone else, that power motivation doesn't make the doctrine any more true or false. That takes us back to Quik's point earlier in the thread. If a religious person believes in a doctrine because they like the feelings it gives them or if an atheist believes there is no god because they like the feeling of driving their own destiny, these motivations, i.e. the feelings, don't make the religious doctrine or the atheistic position true or false.

I guess I'm trying to separate reasons for belief, in a logical sense, from reasons for belief in a motivational sense. Logical reasons can make something true or false. Motivational reasons do not make something true or false.

Not sure I'm making sense here, but maybe that clarifies a bit.

[Mac Howard]

Right. And to further this statement. The disease that Mac talks about is bad for the human that has it, true. But it's good for the bacteria or the virus that is living in that person's body.

Precisely. There's probably a zero sum in there somewhere.

[Ajaxab]

One thing i like to point out about my beliefs is that, unlike folks like Richard Dawkins, I don't have disdain for people of faith. At least those that don't push their religion down my throat. And I don't bring up religion unless it's brought up to me first (since nobody likes being dashed about the head how their beliefs are flawed).

Also, my beliefs allow for any religion/theory/belief to be "correct." I'm not cornering the market on ideas of how-things-came-to-be. Guys like Dawkins annoy me in their contempt for others that don't conform to his beliefs and isn't that hypocrisy?

I appreciate your attitude Bonegavel. It's unfortunate that a lot of the most visible and vocal public atheists do seem to demonstrate disdain for people of faith.

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to have religion pushed down your throat?

[KWhit]

I don't think I'm necessarily addressing these kinds of doctrinal issues, but something a bit different. But rather that if someone believes in some religious doctrine (like Original Sin) just so they can continue to exercise power over someone else, that power motivation doesn't make the doctrine any more true or false. That takes us back to Quik's point earlier in the thread. If a religious person believes in a doctrine because they like the feelings it gives them or if an atheist believes there is no god because they like the feeling of driving their own destiny, these motivations, i.e. the feelings, don't make the religious doctrine or the atheistic position true or false.

I guess I'm trying to separate reasons for belief, in a logical sense, from reasons for belief in a motivational sense. Logical reasons can make something true or false. Motivational reasons do not make something true or false.

Not sure I'm making sense here, but maybe that clarifies a bit.

Well, sure. I can believe that the sky is blue because blue is my favorite color and the God of the Sky made it blue to please me. That is poppycock, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

I get that.

My point was that it is my belief that the story of Adam and Even (and Original Sin) was written by man as a method of control over all people and is entirely fictional.

That was the part that I left unsaid that would seem hard to reconcile with the story of Jesus dying for the sins of all mankind.

[Mac Howard]

I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't that what Original Sin is?

The importance of Original Sin for Christianity I understand came from St Augustine. He realised that suffering occurred to anyone and was not in any way restricted to those who behaved badly. He needed an answer for that and found it in the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of sin.

He figured that man was so riddled with sin that no matter how pious we were, no matter how we tried to avoid sin, we were incapable of avoiding it. We were therefore guilty and deserved punishment and suffering was that punishment.

That's why, in Catholic dogma, how you behave in this life does not determine whether or not you will go to heaven. You are so full of sin that you can't possibly deserve to go there and it's only through God's Grace (which no one understands or knows) that you get there.

[chesapeake]

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I think Mac already answered your questions, assuming I am reading them correctly. It just is.

Why is there famine? An atheist is comfortable discussing the concrete factors that led to a food shortage -- a drought occurred or fighting displaced the farmers during the growing season. The atheist doesn't feel that s/he has to ascribe some greater cosmic motive for the occurrence.

Abrahamic religions, in which most of us were raised and which seems to be serving as the underlying standard for religious perspective in this thread --probably unfairly -- seek to place human events into the context of God's will.

[BrianD]

I guess I'm trying to separate reasons for belief, in a logical sense, from reasons for belief in a motivational sense. Logical reasons can make something true or false. Motivational reasons do not make something true or false.

I think this is the part that gets people in trouble. Faith and logic are (by definition?) mutually exclusive. Faith is the belief in the absence of proof. Logic relies on the ability to prove something and extend.

In a more general sense, an individual might have logical support to their beliefs. They may believe in God and have the support of "feeling his presence" or maybe something even more tangible. The trouble is extending that logic to a population as a whole. Unless you have been "touched", you have to believe based on the belief of others.

This isn't to say that belief is wrong or logic is superior. It just means that trying to connect faith and logic will ultimately be (I believe) fruitless.

[gi]

I appreciate your attitude Bonegavel. It's unfortunate that a lot of the most visible and vocal public atheists do seem to demonstrate disdain for people of faith.

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to have religion pushed down your throat?

I've always thought of this as having the right to: freedom from religion as well and freedom of religion. The easiest example would be the evangelist's of certain sects of Christianity that attempt to get their version of beliefs into everything public. I'll count the Knights of Columbus too since they helped changed the pledge and change the motto on our currency in the 1950's.

[BrianD]

Abrahamic religions, in which most of us were raised and which seems to be serving as the underlying standard for religious perspective in this thread --probably unfairly -- seek to place human events into the context of God's will.

Or the devil's.

[Honolulu_Blue]

One thing i like to point out about my beliefs is that, unlike folks like Richard Dawkins, I don't have disdain for people of faith. At least those that don't push their religion down my throat. And I don't bring up religion unless it's brought up to me first (since nobody likes being dashed about the head how their beliefs are flawed).

Also, my beliefs allow for any religion/theory/belief to be "correct." I'm not cornering the market on ideas of how-things-came-to-be. Guys like Dawkins annoy me in their contempt for others that don't conform to his beliefs and isn't that hypocrisy?

I agree. That's Dawkins' largest flaw. He makes so many good points, great, rational arguments, but his disdain for people of faith is annoying and off-putting. I am not sure if he was just beaten down after years of arugment or is just generally an ass (probably a comination of the two), but having disdain for someone or calling someone an "idiot" out of the box is a great way of ensuring they will never agree with you or even really listen to you in the first place.

[KWhit]

The importance of Original Sin for Christianity I understand came from St Augustine. He realised that suffering occurred to anyone and was not in any way restricted to those who behaved badly. He needed an answer for that and found it in the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of sin.

He figured that man was so riddled with sin that no matter how pious we were, no matter how we tried to avoid sin, we were incapable of avoiding it. We were therefore guilty and deserved punishment and suffering was that punishment.

That's why, in Catholic dogma, how you behave in this life does not determine whether or not you will go to heaven. You are so full of sin that you can't possibly deserve to go there and it's only through God's Grace (which no one understands or knows) that you get there.

Right, but the fact that the Original Sin was eating of the tree of Knowledge was no mistake. That is significant. Also significant is that the first repercussion of that is the fact that Adam and Eve became embarrassed by their nakedness.

And many churches today still teach that Original Sin was Adam and Eve's sexual awakening. Which is why all of us are tainted by Original Sin as we're all born out of sex.

Except Jesus, of course, which is a prime reason FOR the story of the virgin birth. To make Jesus completely above sin.

[BrianD]

Right, but the fact that the Original Sin was eating of the tree of Knowledge was no mistake. That is significant. Also significant is that the first repercussion of that is the fact that Adam and Eve became embarrassed by their nakedness.

And many churches today still teach that Original Sin was Adam and Eve's sexual awakening. Which is why all of us are tainted by Original Sin as we're all born out of sex.

Except Jesus, of course, which is a prime reason FOR the story of the virgin birth. To make Jesus completely above sin.

This may take the thread in completely the wrong direction, but would you advocate for a general conspiracy from the church to put the bible stories together in such a way as to help create their own power? Was the church big enough and organized enough in that time to pull something like this off? It would seem like such a massive undertaking with little chance of success.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This may take the thread in completely the wrong direction, but would you advocate for a general conspiracy from the church to put the bible stories together in such a way as to help create their own power? Was the church big enough and organized enough in that time to pull something like this off? It would seem like such a massive undertaking with little chance of success.

I wouldn't got that far.

But there is so much in the Bible that's open to interpretation and so many conflicting stories, that the church could (and did) focus on some stories/passages or interpret some stories/passages in an effort to control people or at least drive its own agenda in some instances.

Also, you can't rule out the role and impact of how the Bible was translated. Changing a few words here and there can give passages or sentences entirely different meanings.

[Mac Howard]

My point was that it is my belief that the story of Adam and Even (and Original Sin) was written by man as a method of control over all people and is entirely fictional.

In my cynical agnosticism (I do not consider myself an atheist) I have always argued that faith is the mechanism devised by the priesthood to maintain control over its community. It is the priesthood saying "You will believe what I say, regardless of contradictory evidence, regardless of the strength of contrary argument, you will continue to believe what I tell you." And thus maintains political and social control over his community.

That goes from the Native American's medicine man to the pope - control of the community.

There is, of course, always an "Or else ....." to go with this :)

[RendeR]

Does being perfect mean that you can only act perfectly? Would not a perfect being be free to act and do as they see fit?

-Cork


Absolutey, he can act and do as he wishes, he is a free being, however I am also a free being and frankly, I do ont find someone with lackluster interest in doing sometihng right worthy of my praise let alone devotion.

hence my position that he is NOT perfect and therefore NOT god. =) God is supposed to be the do all and end all of the universe. Playing with his and breaking his toys does not make him thus. Again, no grounds for praise.

I really do get what you're saying, but what *I* am saying is that for me, this type of decision making is unacceptable in a deity. He may wel BE a supreme being, as in he is so far beyond us that its laughable, but in order to be MY God, where I send MY praise and needs and prayers, he has to be far MORE than that. God must be above petty human tendancy.

This is where it falls apart for me. No praise-worthy super power would have created the utter MESS this world is. If he did he is unworthy of such devotion. ust because someone has great power does not make them God-like. One must be above and beyond all mortal expectation to reach that level. A mere man can't be better than God, at anything.

[KWhit]

This may take the thread in completely the wrong direction, but would you advocate for a general conspiracy from the church to put the bible stories together in such a way as to help create their own power? Was the church big enough and organized enough in that time to pull something like this off? It would seem like such a massive undertaking with little chance of success.

I don't have a real understanding of how the bible was written, compiled, or translated, but do I think that the stories were manipulated as a method of control or an attempt to influence others? Absolutely.

[RendeR]

You make it sound as though a perfect being should act like a mindless robot. I find it plausible to believe that even though God would have known that Adam would be lonely, he did not immediately make Eve, because he might have wanted to see what Adam did.

All in all, this is a classic "Chicken or the egg" argument. No side can win, because no side can adequately prove their point. This is why one should always be very careful when discussing Religion and Politics.

I am going to end my participation in this thread and return to worrying about games and sports.

-Cork


First off, remember that no one is trying to "win" here, we're all ust discussing our own personal views and beliefs.

Secondly You seem to be falling into the same routine that I find those who believe always do, they look for examples in teh scripture and say, "why couldn't it be like this?" And pretty much always its not a really well thought our analogy. There are any number of examples of paradox in the scripture when it comes to trying to validate the Omniscience issue. honestly I think Omniscience is a purely human creation. people WANT and some even truly NEED to believe in a perfect being who set it al in motion and cares about them.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But when I sit down and look at how I feel and how I believe, I have to look at what each religion offers me. None of the religions out there right now (as far as I've discovered) have offered up sufficient reasoning or folklore to bring me over to their belief.

As I've said earlier, for ME, its not remotely possible to accept that this "God" being is worthy of entrusting my very LIFE to when all around me I see evidence of his fallibility. A god must be infallible or he is NOT a God, he is just another being.

I hope you keep reading along at least, you've offered up some decent questions relating to my stance and I appreciate you helping me clarify things.

[RendeR]

...

In asking God for a sign that can be proven by one of your five senses... You're more than likely not going to get one (though I won't say it's impossible). However, as I mentioned in the other thread, from God's perspective (warning, run-on sentence), "I created the universe, the planets, the animals, humans, and then the humans screwed it up, and so this world is filled with disease and greed and war and famine, so I sent my son, Jesus, to die for your screw ups and give you a chance at eternal redemption and all I ask is for you to accept his outreached hand - however, you want a SIGN, too?!"


What need does God have of our acceptance? What need does God have of our devotion? What NEED does God have of our interest at all? If he is truly God, he doesn't NEED anything and we're just being self indulgent dandies for presuming he does. Human fallibility at its finest.

[Ajaxab]

In my cynical agnosticism (I do not consider myself an atheist) I have always argued that faith is the mechanism devised by the priesthood to maintain control over its community. It is the priesthood saying "You will believe what I say, regardless of contradictory evidence, regardless of the strength of contrary argument, you will continue to believe what I tell you." And thus maintains political and social control over his community.

That goes from the Native American's medicine man to the pope - control of the community.

There is, of course, always an "Or else ....." to go with this :)

Isn't this true of any political mechanism though (I mean political in the sense of power most broadly from parent-child up through formal institutional expressions of power)? I think of the situation in China where the religious are being persecuted (and not just the Christian religious either). In China, these people are told that they must believe what the party says regardless of the strength of contradictory evidence or contrary argument. The people must continue to believe what the party tells them to believe "or else" they get sent to labor camps.

It would seem that this would even apply in democracy. The "or else" may not be as severe in democracy and people have more freedom to think through potentially contradictory arguments, but those who don't support democracy are ostracized as fascists, pinko commies, fundamentalist isolationist zealots, etc. Left-leaning professors who critique some of the problems with democracy know this all too well.

I don't see this as a problem with what might be termed faith-based power, but more fundamental to power itself. Any exercise of power will always have an "or else" attached to it or it would not seem to be power.

So if the motivation to believe in religious doctrine comes from either a desire to hold power or a fear from power, then I don't see the motivation as that much different than other forms of power more generally.

[Autumn]

This may take the thread in completely the wrong direction, but would you advocate for a general conspiracy from the church to put the bible stories together in such a way as to help create their own power? Was the church big enough and organized enough in that time to pull something like this off? It would seem like such a massive undertaking with little chance of success.

This is a bit off the topic, but what you describe is very close to what exactly happened. There's a lot of biblical history out there to go through, but essentially what we see as the Bible is a document put together over hundreds of years, and the content was chosen and revised in order to support the power and positions of the church. The original versions were much different than what is passed down as THE bible now.

[RendeR]

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I appreciate the discussion.


For myself, I don't. I don't try to explain the world, its creation or its demise. I let time and development of knowledge do that. I have no need and more over no interest in having some all encompassing 'thing' explain away the universe for me.

If it really did explain it all, what point would there be to even living? Why bother to wake up every day if you know/believe you know all the answers?

[Autumn]

And I think theism is the one that has to explain things. Atheism doesn't define any nature of the universe, and so has no real need to explain that. But if you posit that a higher power created the universe, there needs to be some reason and purpose behind everything. Atheism denies that's the case, and so perhaps there is absolutely no reason or purpose for things at all. Atheism doesn't make a case either way, and so is not tied to any particular explanation of things.

I also want to point out that atheism by definition denies theism, or the belief in a God or Gods. It does not necessarily rule out other forms of spirtualism or religion, though people tend to assume it does.

[KWhit]

Isn't this true of any political mechanism though (I mean political in the sense of power most broadly from parent-child up through formal institutional expressions of power)? I think of the situation in China where the religious are being persecuted (and not just the Christian religious either). In China, these people are told that they must believe what the party says regardless of the strength of contradictory evidence or contrary argument. The people must continue to believe what the party tells them to believe "or else" they get sent to labor camps.

It would seem that this would even apply in democracy. The "or else" may not be as severe in democracy and people have more freedom to think through potentially contradictory arguments, but those who don't support democracy are ostracized as fascists, pinko commies, fundamentalist isolationist zealots, etc. Left-leaning professors who critique some of the problems with democracy know this all too well.

I don't see this as a problem with what might be termed faith-based power, but more fundamental to power itself. Any exercise of power will always have an "or else" attached to it or it would not seem to be power.

So if the motivation to believe in religious doctrine comes from either a desire to hold power or a fear from power, then I don't see the motivation as that much different than other forms of power more generally.

I'm not sure how we got into the power discussion. But I think the comparisons to democracy for instance are interesting, but miss the mark a bit. The reason is that atheists believe that the very basis for this power/control mechanism is a fabrication. It can be infuriating to us to have policy decisions, wars, etc. be based on a fiction.

Because religion has proven so very effective at controlling its followers throughout the course of history makes it worrisome to those who don't believe. Especially when "faith" tends to trump logical discourse in many cases (at least in the opinion of most non-believers).

[Cork]

I hope you keep reading along at least, you've offered up some decent questions relating to my stance and I appreciate you helping me clarify things.

I am still here in "lurker mode" and will definately continue reading the posts in the thread. Since I am not much of a biblical scholar, I will not have much to offer up from a biblical perspective, so I will just enjoy reading the various opinions and keep my personal views to myself.

-Cork

[Tekneek]

I've said this in the other thread - from our human perspective, it's hard to fathom why a 3 year old dies from Leukemia. It just doesn't make sense - but it doesn't mean that there isn't a reason - we may just not be able to fathom it. Along with that is the fact that our souls are eternal, and therefore the 3 miserable years on earth really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

[panerd]

I'm not sure how we got into the power discussion. But I think the comparisons to democracy for instance are interesting, but miss the mark a bit. The reason is that atheists believe that the very basis for this power/control mechanism is a fabrication. It can be infuriating to us to have policy decisions, wars, etc. be based on a fiction.

Because religion has proven so very effective at controlling its followers throughout the course of history makes it worrisome to those who don't believe. Especially when "faith" tends to trump logical discourse in many cases (at least in the opinion of most non-believers).

This is how I feel also. It is very unfortunate that Karl Marx's ideas were so misunderstood and abused by the Soviet Union that the impression people get of him and his very powerful belief in religion being the opium of the people is always discarded.

I have no problems with adults doing whatever they like. It is only when small children are involved and the government gets involved in cases like Terry Schiavo that I get bent out of shape.

[CraigSca]

What need does God have of our acceptance? What need does God have of our devotion? What NEED does God have of our interest at all? If he is truly God, he doesn't NEED anything and we're just being self indulgent dandies for presuming he does. Human fallibility at its finest.

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

[CraigSca]

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

Again, everything dies - their body, that is. That's what natural selection is all about. Heck, that's Darwin at it's finest. What do you prescribe as the alternative, and from who's perspective is that better?

If you're looking at your life on earth as the be-all end-all, I can see your frustration. However, the whole point about Jesus coming down earth was to save your eternal SOUL.

[Tekneek]

Again, everything dies - their body, that is. That's what natural selection is all about. Heck, that's Darwin at it's finest. What do you prescribe as the alternative, and from who's perspective is that better?

I don't mind accepting life as it is and as it happens. Do I have a problem praising some supposed deity for creating a world that brings suffering to millions (if not more than that) on a daily basis? Yeah. You can praise this supposed "loving creator" if you approve of this, but first I am skeptical that such an entity even exists, and secondly I am not going to pretend I approve in the slightest.

If you're looking at your life on earth as the be-all end-all, I can see your frustration. However, the whole point about Jesus coming down earth was to save your eternal SOUL.

The whole Jesus and soul thing is up for debate, since only the Christians believe this particular piece of mythology, right?

[Tekneek]

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

You should say that you believe this, because I have not seen any clear evidence of this.

[gi]

I wouldn't got that far.

But there is so much in the Bible that's open to interpretation and so many conflicting stories, that the church could (and did) focus on some stories/passages or interpret some stories/passages in an effort to control people or at least drive its own agenda in some instances.

Also, you can't rule out the role and impact of how the Bible was translated. Changing a few words here and there can give passages or sentences entirely different meanings.


It has been shown that these translation 'errors' truly lead to impact. In the original Hebrew, Mary was never a virgin mother. The word should translate to young women, but some liberties taken by authors, translated it to virgin women, because virgins had a unique mystique at the time.

[molson]

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

Even at the expense of damning billions to eternal suffering.

It seems like a very, very sloppy means to an end for an all-powerful being. Unless he's pure evil.

[Tekneek]

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

[DaddyTorgo]

*cough* Hitler. *cough*

no god. discussion over.

[Honolulu_Blue]

*cough* Hitler. *cough*

no god. discussion over.

Edited due to clarification and DT's total NON-failure.

[DaddyTorgo]

I didn't say Hitler was christian or anything H_B. My point was that suffering of that level (particularly against the Jews no less) IMHO is pretty damning evidence of the lack of a supreme being. Particularly considering that that's only one example of the countless genocides throughout history.




Or at the very least - if you want the agnostic POV, as others have alluded to - the supreme being is a jerk and i personally have a better moral compass than him, in which case i see no need to venerate him and celebrate him.


c'mon - you know someone had to godwin-ize the argument. i'm only surprised that it took 4 pages.

[RendeR]

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.


So he requires obediance, devotion and prayer to have a relationship? he can't just use a phone like anyone else? ;)

its just too self indulgent, again something that a supreme being shouldn't be.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I didn't say Hitler was christian or anything H_B. My point was that suffering of that level (particularly against the Jews no less) IMHO is pretty damning evidence of the lack of a supreme being. Particularly considering that that's only one example of the countless genocides throughout history.




Or at the very least - if you want the agnostic POV, as others have alluded to - the supreme being is a jerk and i personally have a better moral compass than him, in which case i see no need to venerate him and celebrate him.


c'mon - you know someone had to godwin-ize the argument. i'm only surprised that it took 4 pages.

My bad, DT. I took the quote out of context. I get you now.

[CraigSca]

So he requires obediance, devotion and prayer to have a relationship? he can't just use a phone like anyone else? ;)

its just too self indulgent, again something that a supreme being shouldn't be.

Really? according to whom?

[CraigSca]

You should say that you believe this, because I have not seen any clear evidence of this.

Ok, according to my beliefs, he sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins so that the eternal breakage between Him and man could be fixed again.

[DaddyTorgo]

My bad, DT. I took the quote out of context. I get you now.

no worries H_B. I didn't really clarify what I meant in my desire to godwin-ize the discussion. I took a little umbrage at your implication that I'd failed though -- I've studied more than enough WWII (and Nazi Germany) history in my life. :)

[JediKooter]

Ok how about this for an explanation.

God wanted Adam to be happy but knew if he gave him Eve straight away he wouldn't appreciate her and there would be disharmony.

By allowing him time on his own when Eve arrived he appreciated her more and thus the delay in her creation was an anticipated act by God.

(not saying this is the 'right' answer - but its a possible arguement which meets the criteria for God placed in the bible)

Without knowing Gods ultimate aim and gameplan its impossible to critique his actions and acknowledge them as fallible/infallible or Good or Evil ...

How could there be disharmony unless that's what god wanted? So either way, had Eve been there from the start or not, he made a mistake and painted himself into a corner. I'm basing all of this on the bible actually being factual, not on how you interpret it.

[RendeR]

Really? according to whom?


According to ME, and since *I* am the only person to whom I have to validate MY beliefs thats all that matters.

Self indulgent? yes, acceptable from a human being? pretty much, acceptable in a God? never.

[BrianD]

It has been shown that these translation 'errors' truly lead to impact. In the original Hebrew, Mary was never a virgin mother. The word should translate to young women, but some liberties taken by authors, translated it to virgin women, because virgins had a unique mystique at the time.

Does anybody have any good references for translation errors of changing of the original text? There seems to be lots of sites on the web talking about "the real original text should be translated like this", but I have no idea which ones have a clue and which are pushing their own agenda.

[JediKooter]

Does anybody have any good references for translation errors of changing of the original text? There seems to be lots of sites on the web talking about "the real original text should be translated like this", but I have no idea which ones have a clue and which are pushing their own agenda.

I believe there is, just can't remember it off hand.

I'll try and find the site for you.

Codex Sinaiticus is what I'm looking for...

[DaddyTorgo]

oh man - all this talk about intents and original texts of the bible brings me back to this class i had freshman year at BC where we essentially looked at the bible as a historical document with an ex-priest, and he went through and said "okay now this piece of this section that talks about X was actually a response to this historical event that was occuring at the time, or had just occured." Or a way to communicate the lessons learned by a historical event (a conflict for example).

it was pretty fascinating stuff - really solidified to me that the bible isn't necessarily the infallible word of god or anything, but is really just a collection of stories that were included and remained included in later versions for specific reasons, and that everything in there has its own "spin" applied by a historical human being for a very specific purpose.

don't think i have that notebook anymore though - that was 10 years ago. maybe i'll check tonight in my closet...

[Ajaxab]

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

This sounds like a potentially convincing argument from an emotional point of view, but one I can't buy. I can say that I haven't experienced what these Congolese have experienced, but I have been deeply harmed by religious people who did not live up to their ideals. They claimed certain things, but screwed my family over and screwed me over as well in doing the opposite of what they claimed.

But over time, I came to realize that their behavior had little connection to whether or not their beliefs were true. I had to realize that whether or not the belief system was true or valid didn't have anything to do with how these people had behaved. It's a lot like laws in this instance. Just because some people steal, kill and defraud does not invalidate the goodness of a law, so too the fact that these allegedly religious people treated me so poorly did not automatically invalidate the truth of what they claimed to believe. Did it harm the credibility of their beliefs? Absolutely. But did it invalidate them as false? Even though every ounce of my being wanted to look at my experience and call these beliefs false, I logically can't write them off.

So I cannot outright reject the missionaries' belief system because of the lies told to the Congolese. Can I reject it on other grounds? Perhaps, but looking at how people act isn't one of them. The same could be said of an atheist's position as well. I can't outright reject an atheist's claims because that atheist beats his wife or orders genocide. It would harm the atheist's credibility, but does not inherently mean his beliefs are false.

[JediKooter]

BrianD, try this site: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ I didn't pick up any hidden agenda or anything like that, but, I wasn't looking for it either. It seems pretty straight forward.

They say it is over 1600 years old.

[Tekneek]

The same could be said of an atheist's position as well. I can't outright reject an atheist's claims because that atheist beats his wife or orders genocide. It would harm the atheist's credibility, but does not inherently mean his beliefs are false.

Completely different situation. An atheist never proclaims that some higher supernatural being created and maintains a presence with human beings. So, they in effect, should be judged merely as humans doing what humans do and aren't trying to sell you some other bill of goods in the process. However, if you're trying to tell me that you are the messengers for some supernatural being that created everything, you've got a much higher standard to bear.

I expect more from a supernatural being that created the universe than I do the average human, and I'm not going to apologize for that. Many seem to say that you should expect LESS from this "God" than you would from your own parents, siblings, or even your neighbor. I'm having a hard time buying that concept.

[Marc Vaughan]

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint obviously - but you're looking at things from a very human perspective.

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant? ...

If you believe in an omnipotent God then putting aside all other arguments an individual human is a very small and insignificant part of existance; yet according to the bible God has planned out each and everyone one of our lives.

That plan might have involved dying at an early age and heading onto heaven faster than others might do for whatever reason but to judge a God as having 'low standards' because of it is like saying you have lower standards than that squashed ant because you didn't consider him.

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

Its a bit like the arguements for and against stem cell research at the moment, on one hand the research is abhorrant in a lot of ways - on the other it could potentially save countless millions of lives. Will it ultimately be a 'Good' or 'Evil' thing to undertake*, its not something I personally think I'm informed enough to accurately judge to be honest.

*Also if it is undertaken and through it methods discovered which will save millions of lives is it then evil to use those methods knowing how they were discovered - or Good because of the end product?

[Marc Vaughan]

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

I've had similar experiences in my life* - however bear in mind that these are 'humans' not God who are doing the wrongs (not that I'm a member of the church groups involved).

*When I was at university there was a huge abandoned building in Brighton which was owned by the Catholic church, it was in awful disrepair and had been disused for a long time.
A group of homeless people moved into it and repaired, wired in Electricity and suchlike - then actually turned it into a proper homeless shelter offering refuge a warm bed and food to people in need.
What did the Catholic church do? - did they thank the people involved for helping their community, nah when they realised it'd been done up they evicted the people and sold the property.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint obviously - but you're looking at things from a very human perspective.

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant? ...

If you believe in an omnipotent God then putting aside all other arguments an individual human is a very small and insignificant part of existance; yet according to the bible God has planned out each and everyone one of our lives.

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?

[Autumn]

I can see that if there is such a thing as a God, then clearly we're not equipped to understand such a being or question it or judge it. But we still have to grapple with this issue. Because a decision has to be made by each of us: is there a higher power. If so, what does it want me to do? Given that we are faced with contrasting answers (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, many, many more and many more sects) we have to grapple with the answer.

If the answer is we are incapable of comprehending God's plans and wishes, then we might as well not bother, right? If God might be some being that thinks about us as ants, then maybe we don't want a relationship. If God cares deeply about us and needs us to believe in Christ, then what if we're born in China? It seems a perplexing riddle.

[Marc Vaughan]

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?
Please bear in mind that I'm not a christian and while I believe in many aspects of that faith - my take on God isn't particularly bothered about such things.

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?
Thats one of my big problems with Christianity to be honest, why it changed from being a personal and visible religion where prayers were answered openly by God and instead changed into one where nothing could be proven and everything relied upon faith.

For an example Jesus appeared to his followers after his death, so we know thats acceptable to God.

The bible indicates 'ask and you will be given' and various other ways of saying God answers all prayers - but if you pray to meet Jesus in the flesh as his followers did in the old days, well it hasn't worked for me yet ;)

(similarly if God is all powerful then why do no Christians pray for amputee's to grow back their limbs? - they're happy to pray for healing of other issues yet I've never seen any chuch I've been at pray for "little johnny' to grow his leg back ..)

[Autumn]

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?

Yes, this is the big question to me. I can see an argument for a higher power, though I have not felt or seen the presence of one. But to go from a higher power who we can't understand, to believing in a particular religion's description and history of a high power, along with its wishes and rules, seems like a jump that can't make sense.

If God simply wants me to believe that it exists, okay. If God expects me to follow a complicated system of rules in order to save my eternal soul, or have it reincarnate properly, or whatever it is God wants, I'll need some more details than we've got.

[Tekneek]

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant?

I do the best I can to not kill any living creature that is not creating a hazardous situation for me or my family. So, generally speaking, if I see the ant I will try to avoid causing it harm. Then again, I am merely human, and not some supernatural being that created an entire universe and demand love and acceptance in order to bring humans into an "afterlife." So, while I demand more of any "Gods" that might be out there, I don't make the same demands of human beings.

That plan might have involved dying at an early age and heading onto heaven faster than others might do for whatever reason but to judge a God as having 'low standards' because of it is like saying you have lower standards than that squashed ant because you didn't consider him.

Except I am human, not God. Get it? Just because I have high standards for Gods does not mean I put humans on the same level. I demand more of the creator of the universe because I expect that they can handle it. If they can't, then I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

If this God is judging me, I can most certainly judge God. If God doesn't like that, God can get over it or improve performance.

Its a bit like the arguements for and against stem cell research at the moment, on one hand the research is abhorrant in a lot of ways - on the other it could potentially save countless millions of lives. Will it ultimately be a 'Good' or 'Evil' thing to undertake*, its not something I personally think I'm informed enough to accurately judge to be honest.

Correct. I doubt you are informed or educated enough to really know. You've made some brilliant games, but we're talking about heavy duty science here. I guarantee you that there are plenty of religious people, who likely know less about it than you do, that feel like they are entitled to speak about whether it should be done or not. On one side it takes a lot of education and understanding to work with science, and on the other side you merely just have to believe that some unknown higher power doesn't approve and has left it up to you to stop it (instead of interacting on their own behalf, which apparently they are just too tired/busy/bored to do anymore).

[Tekneek]

If the answer is we are incapable of comprehending God's plans and wishes, then we might as well not bother, right? If God might be some being that thinks about us as ants, then maybe we don't want a relationship. If God cares deeply about us and needs us to believe in Christ, then what if we're born in China? It seems a perplexing riddle.

Indeed. No matter which way it goes, I don't see why I should care. Apparently God likes to do its own thing, kill who it wants when it wants to, explain nothing to anybody, yet make plenty of demands in return. No thanks. Wow, you killed your son. Why not just kill all of us? Open up a can of Old Testament Whoop Ass and bring your wrath down.

[Ajaxab]

Completely different situation. An atheist never proclaims that some higher supernatural being created and maintains a presence with human beings. So, they in effect, should be judged merely as humans doing what humans do and aren't trying to sell you some other bill of goods in the process. However, if you're trying to tell me that you are the messengers for some supernatural being that created everything, you've got a much higher standard to bear.

I don't know if I'm not communicating very well or if you're missing the point. It really isn't a completely different situation IMO. If one rejects the missionaries' beliefs because they lied to the Congolese, then so too should one reject Pol Pot's atheistic beliefs because he supervised the killing of thousands of Cambodians. What follows from a belief does not inherently speak to the truth/falsity of that belief.

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

[Tekneek]

How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

God, supreme deity, creator of life. If this is supposed to be true, what part of that DOES NOT imply a higher form of life form than us? Some people appear to expect me to accept less from this "creator" than I would from my neighbor. I shouldn't expect humans, who are singing the praises of this supposed higher being, to behave any better than those who say there is no such thing? Why?

I don't have a problem saying I set a different standard for deities and their followers than most people seem to. I seem to set a different standard for those I put into elected office as well, so I am used to requiring more than the average person does.

[Ajaxab]

God, supreme deity, creator of life. If this is supposed to be true, what part of that DOES NOT imply a higher form of life form than us? Some people appear to expect me to accept less from this "creator" than I would from my neighbor. I shouldn't expect humans, who are singing the praises of this supposed higher being, to behave any better than those who say there is no such thing? Why?

I'm not sure I'm following. Can you elaborate a bit?

Edit: Your added part of the post makes things clearer.

[Marc Vaughan]

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

I think the basis for the religious standard being higher is simply that most religious people claim that the religion they subscribe to improves their lives and makes them behave as better people - thus people expect this of them.

I've heard many christians indicated "I used to do XXX, but God saved me" ... yet studies I've seen of Christian leaders (who you'd expect to be the best of the best) show they're just as likely to divorce as non-christians* ... why is this if they are closer to God than non-religious people?

*I've also heard of one book (Chuck Colson, “Being The Body”) which indicates Protestant clergy have a higher divorce rate than the national average - but I have no idea of whether this figure is accurate or not.

[gi]

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary :)

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

[Ajaxab]

I don't have a problem saying I set a different standard for deities and their followers than most people seem to. I seem to set a different standard for those I put into elected office as well, so I am used to requiring more than the average person does.

What is the baseline standard? In this framework, the deities, religious people and elected officials are held to a higher standard than the baseline standard. Are there any who are held to a lower standard than the baseline standard? Just trying to think how this gets applied in daily life.

[DaddyTorgo]

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary :)

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

doesn't matter what he was - my point was more about the suffering that he inflicted (and he's simply the most notable of many), how any supreme being could allow that is what really gets me -- particularly in that case to the Jews, who were after all the "chosen people"

[JediKooter]

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary :)

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

Yes, he was raised Catholic and I think at one time had asperations of becoming a priest. He also mentioned god several times in Mein Kampf. What does it mean? I don't know. He was still a vile person regardless.

[Celeval]

Ok according to original catholic doctrine not only is the Pope Gods main man on earth but he was also infallible (Papal infallibility) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

That infallibility is limited, though. The only infalliable things that the pope does are very specifically noted and defined - around theological matters. The term is 'ex cathedra', to essentially state that the pope is speaking a truth from his seat. It happens exceedingly rarely. There's nothing in the office of the papacy that says the pope is immune to mistakes, either intentional or otherwise. Nor is there anything that says he knows all - or any - of God's plan.

As such you'd expect that he would have faith that what God wants to happen would happen and that any bullets aimed at him would miss or be meant to hit him for some reason ... rather than hide behind a shield.

And perhaps that "miss for some reason" is because they hit bullet-proof glass. :)

Why is it that faith alone was enough in the bible - yet today if a christian was thrown in with a lion they'd argue that fighting the lion makes sense because god gave him the sword and it'd be stupid not to use it.

Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

[Marc Vaughan]

Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

I'd argue that being 're-told' doesn't come into it, according to Christianity the bible is written/inspired by God which tends to indicate that the behaviour held up as 'Christian' within it is the behaviour God wants/rewards in people? ... otherwise the bible would contain a lot more gladiator Christians than it does ;)

(ignoring the biblical principle that God wrote the bible I'd argue that it isn't their story telling appeal which had them included (as stories of hero's fighting are generally more appealing than hero's not fighting) - but rather the fact that they encourage people to conform and not rebel against authority regardless of what is done to them)

[JediKooter]

A question for somebody who is the know: Has the catholic church ever said that the bible is to be interpreted a certain way or to be taken literally?

[Celeval]

Yes I'm aware according to the bible that is the case - however Jesus cried out at the end asking why he'd been forsaken, implying that he wasn't aware of that... thus according to your suggestions he should have been looking to drop the cross and leg it at the first opportunity when coming up the hill, i.e. looking for the 'out' he was expecting God to provide? (which doesn't make such a humble sacrifice story really ).

Jesus was human, and therefore had weaknesses. I believe He knew what was coming. He didn't want to go through it - who would? But He did. Doubt is a human emotion, as is fear.

From Mark 14:36 - "Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." To me, this shows Jesus' essential humanity, and the sacrifice... what is taught is that Jesus could have escaped/removed himself from this situation if He wanted to. Matthew 26:52-55 (the arrest of Jesus in the garden): "Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?'"

By the by, I'm doing an awful lot of Bible quoting. Not typically the way I go about things, but in a discussion that is making points based off Bible stories, the root of the story is important.

[Bonegavel]

That infallibility is limited, though. The only infalliable things that the pope does are very specifically noted and defined - around theological matters. The term is 'ex cathedra', to essentially state that the pope is speaking a truth from his seat. It happens exceedingly rarely. There's nothing in the office of the papacy that says the pope is immune to mistakes, either intentional or otherwise. Nor is there anything that says he knows all - or any - of God's plan.



And perhaps that "miss for some reason" is because they hit bullet-proof glass. :)



Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

Times are different and people are different. If Christianity were started today, we'd have an entirely different bible.

Think of Lot. God wanted to save him right? He was the last good guy in Sodom (or Gonorrhea, wherever). But what do we know of Lot? He was willing to give his daughters to a crowd of dudes that wanted to rape the 2 angels that showed up! WTF?! And god sees him as a good guy?

In those days, apparently, it was more important to show great hospitality to a male stranger than the welfare of you children. How times change.

[Celeval]

I view the above statement differently. Man was made in Gods image and as such Human beings look like what God looks like. 2 arms, 2 legs, etc. I don't think it goes much beyond that.

My take on "Man in God's Image" is, possibly, the granting of free will and intelligent thought... or, perhaps, a belief in morality. I don't think any of us would argue that mankind is an essentially moral race - not that everything that man does is moral, but that there are moralities that people follow (of vastly different types).

But that's a personal thought, not necessarily one taught by the Catholic church. Oddly enough, the stuff I quoted in the other thread came from a larger Vatican document specifically talking about "imago Dei" - the Image of God. This is an idea heavily explored in very different directions... there is no agreement among Catholic or Protestant scholars (I don't know much about Judaic or Islamic teachings) for what exactly this means.

[Celeval]

I would like to add that I'm thrilled with how this thread has gone. its very rare that discussions of this topic don't succumb to subby-isms or bubba Wheels-assaults before ever getting this far.

Kudos to you all for posting with integrity and manners.

+1

[Celeval]

IMHO if God is omnipotent then there is no such thing as freewill (because he created us knowing exactly what we'd do all the time). Some Christians believe in this scenario, some don't.

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

[Celeval]

Right, but the fact that the Original Sin was eating of the tree of Knowledge was no mistake. That is significant. Also significant is that the first repercussion of that is the fact that Adam and Eve became embarrassed by their nakedness... And many churches today still teach that Original Sin was Adam and Eve's sexual awakening. Which is why all of us are tainted by Original Sin as we're all born out of sex.

For what it's worth, they didn't disobey God... he warned them, and they suffered the stated consequences (by literal reading, which is implied by discussing the story to begin with). His warning (Genesis 3:3) "You shall not eat from it, or touch it, or you will die." The implication in reverse is without eating from the tree, Adam and Eve would live forever in Eden.

My thoughts for Original Sin touching us all is pretty straightforward - none of us are in Eden. The casting out of Eden affected each of us.

[BrianD]

I won't claim any special veracity for this site, but I have found a bunch of interesting reading at hxxp://www.religioustolerance.org. The site has a bunch of essays on a number of topics and claims to be comprised of authors of pretty wide-ranging backgrounds. Lots of discussions on apparent conflicts in the bible and their resolutions based on ideas of conservative and liberal Christians. I find myself to be much more agreeable to the liberal interpretations.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

omnipotent implies omniscient as part of the definition - at least that's what I was always taught. but that's relatively incidental to your point. just one of those things that always compels a reply from me.

[Celeval]

A question for somebody who is the know: Has the catholic church ever said that the bible is to be interpreted a certain way or to be taken literally?

Historically, I'm not sure. Recently, this is from Pope Paul VI, 1965:

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."

[Celeval]

omnipotent implies omniscient as part of the definition - at least that's what I was always taught. but that's relatively incidental to your point. just one of those things that always compels a reply from me.

Reasonable thought.

[Autumn]

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

The standard is "higher" not because of some superiority. It's higher because the religious in this example are claiming that the universe is designed by a higher power that is worthy of worship. If that is the case, then people begin to expect that the world should some how live up to such a scenario. Just as I have a different expectation from a book written by an author to entertain me versus a meaningless jumble of letters.

If the world was not designed by any intelligent being but simply came to be, there's no reason to expect anything of how it works. Does that make sense?

[Celeval]

I'd argue that being 're-told' doesn't come into it, according to Christianity the bible is written/inspired by God which tends to indicate that the behaviour held up as 'Christian' within it is the behaviour God wants/rewards in people? ... otherwise the bible would contain a lot more gladiator Christians than it does

Well, yes. :) I was thinking more of the stories of the saints, and Christians v. Lions in Roman times than Biblical.

[Celeval]

Sheesh - didn't mean to take over the thread, but this is what I get for just going through a Multi-Quoting everything I wanted to respond to.

[JediKooter]

Historically, I'm not sure. Recently, this is from Pope Paul VI, 1965:

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture."

Celeval, thank you.

[Marc Vaughan]

I think you need omniscient there as well. An omnipotent God wouldn't necessarily know the results of His creation without omniscience. But that's a minor point. That said, if you know what someone will choose before they do it, does that necessarily impede free will? If I tickle my daughter when she's in a good mood, she will laugh. If a football coach runs to the right a certain number of times out of a particular formation, and may /know/ the defense will overshift and the reverse will be wide open. Doesn't change the ability to choose.

it depends on your perspective really.

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

Being a programmer I often interpret things in terms of my job.

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs. Within these programs there are people going about their lives; Anyone watching the program with no knowledge of Gods programming might think the people look to be real and independant - however God knows the random number generator inside and out and also setup the universes database, hence to him everything is pre-programmed and he KNOWS there is no freewill or random happenstance in the program and indeed can predict what will happen at any point during the running of the programs (which is a trick I'd love to be able to do ;) ).
(many apologies for the geeky analogy but hopefully it explains the problem with someone knowing exactly what choices will be made at the point at which he creates something - it turns them into automations)

PS - I was also taught that Omnipotent covered everything, where I've used that word consider it to cover all aspects of Gods power/knowledge/prescent - i.e. a being with limitless power who is all knowing and everywhere in all times at once ;)

[JediKooter]

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs.

So god is Will Wright? :D

[Marc Vaughan]

So god is Will Wright? :D

Speaking of which once I get this crunch out the way I need to give Spore a whirl ;)

[Celeval]

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

Knowledge of a thing to come doesn't necessarily imply influence (or use of influence) over that thing.

Hence if you presume that God is a text sim developer then the universe(s) are his programs. Within these programs there are people going about their lives; Anyone watching the program with no knowledge of Gods programming might think the people look to be real and independant - however God knows the random number generator inside and out and also setup the universes database, hence to him everything is pre-programmed and he KNOWS there is no freewill or random happenstance in the program and indeed can predict what will happen at any point during the running of the programs

And yet, I'd bet you'd love to actually insert actual intelligence and decision making into FM. Realism ftw! If accepting the premise that God is omnipotent, then He can.

PS - I was also taught that Omnipotent covered everything, where I've used that word consider it to cover all aspects of Gods power/knowledge/prescent - i.e. a being with limitless power who is all knowing and everywhere in all times at once.

No worries. Semantical difference, we all know what we're talking about.

[Autumn]

Regarding the origin and creation of the Bible, as an example of a religious text, Wikipedia has it covered pretty well.

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

It gives a good sense of the amount of human decision making (and therefore politics) that goes into the creation of a religious text over time.

[JediKooter]

Shifting a bit...What would be wrong with a person who is atheist running for public office (mayor, state assembly, president)? I ask this, because there are laws (don't know if they are still on the books), that did not allow for atheists to run for public office in certain states. These laws have since been ruled unconstitutional, but, the question still remains.

[Autumn]

it depends on your perspective really.

If God as our creator knew our every movement at the moment he made us then any free will is in my opinion illusion (and as I've indicated previously science also agrees that free will is an illusion imho) ... after all we have no choice we are as we were made by God and must react in the manner he has prescribed.

Well, if God or some hgiher power exists, it probably exists outside of time. In that case it could know how all of history will unfold without that meaning that free will isn't in existence.

There's lots of problems beyond this, but I think we can't assume that some higher being is constrained by time the way we are.

[Celeval]

Shifting a bit...What would be wrong with a person who is atheist running for public office (mayor, state assembly, president)? I ask this, because there are laws (don't know if they are still on the books), that did not allow for atheists to run for public office in certain states. These laws have since been ruled unconstitutional, but, the question still remains.

Nothing. Why were the laws made? Probably out of a fear that morality came from religion and atheists were immoral. *shrug*

[Ajaxab]

I also want to add props to everyone's patience with my (many) questions.

[JediKooter]

Speaking of which once I get this crunch out the way I need to give Spore a whirl ;)

Still debating if I should get it. They have Spore Evolution or something like that for the iPhone, but, my wife has a monopoly on the iPhone, so I don't think I'll be playing it anytime soon.

[JediKooter]

Nothing. Why were the laws made? Probably out of a fear that morality came from religion and atheists were immoral. *shrug*

I agree, there's nothing wrong at all with an atheist running for public office, however, I think it would be impossible for that candidate to win if the voting populace knew that person was an atheist.

Yes, I do believe those laws were in place because the people who set them up, were thinking that atheists were immoral.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I agree, there's nothing wrong at all with an atheist running for public office, however, I think it would be impossible for that candidate to win if the voting populace knew that person was an atheist.

Yes, I do believe those laws were in place because the people who set them up, were thinking that atheists were immoral.

I agree. There is really very little chance that an atheist, who was open about his/her beliefs, would ever be voted into office.

I don't quite get why it's so troubling to people, but it is. Based on some of the questiosn raised in this thread folks do appear to have a hard time conceiving how an atheist views the world, explains things, or makes value judgments. The easy answer to many of these questions, which is probably correct 9 times out of 10, is: Just like you do.

[JediKooter]

I agree. There is really very little chance that an atheist, who was open about his/her beliefs, would ever be voted into office.

I don't quite get why it's so troubling to people, but it is. Based on some of the questiosn raised in this thread folks do appear to have a hard time conceiving how an atheist views the world, explains things, or makes value judgments. The easy answer to many of these questions, which is probably correct 9 times out of 10, is: Just like you do.

Well said HB. If people would just understand that an atheist means nothing more than not believing in a god or gods. If people understood that, they'd realize that atheists are nothing more than people just trying to eek out a good life just like everyone else.

[st.cronin]

I think the answer to that, st.cronin, is one I'm sure you've heard before and one you may even have used yourself in other circumstances - I can't define it, I can't pin it down exactly, but I can recognise it when I see it.

A tsunami wiping out 200,000 people isn't perfection, right? A disease savaging fully a third of the population (as the black death in Europe) isn't perfection. And so on.

I have no problem at all accepting that the world as we see it is a "flawed" world if it was indeed created by an intelligent entity. The alternative is that it wasn't "designed" at all but the result of random processes with little or no concern for its appeal to mankind. The world isn't intentionally beneficial or antagonistic towards we humans. It isn't flawed, it just is.

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

[JediKooter]

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

Atheism is no more a philosophy than not liking cheesburgers is a philosophy.

[Tekneek]

I'm basically signing off of this thread now, since there seems to be little point in participating. It appears highly unlikely that anyone is going to change my mind on this, based on what has been said thus far. Also, after thinking about it a little bit during a drive this afternoon, it is pretty clear to me that I just don't care at all whether there is a God or not. If they do exist, there are simply way too many awful things happening every single day on this planet for me to celebrate a creator that has abandoned its creations to suffer through it. If there isn't one, then good, because it doesn't make any sense to me that a benevolent creator/overseer would let these awful things happen, or that I would need to worship them just for the opportunity to deal with their bullshit.

[bignej]

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

[bignej]

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.


Why do believers always think there is a "way of thinking" with atheists. Its not about measuring good or bad. Atheists have no book to guide us through our lives so all moral issues are subjective.

[st.cronin]

Why do believers always think there is a "way of thinking" with atheists. Its not about measuring good or bad. Atheists have no book to guide us through our lives so all moral issues are subjective.

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

[bignej]

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

"way of thinking" was for a lack of a better word. I really should have said that most believers think that atheists follow some atheistic way of life, as if we have some head atheists dictating our decisions that are the opposite to what they are taught.
Being an atheists doesnt mean that you believe in anything, just that you dont believe in God. You said:
Originally Posted by st.cronin http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/images/styles/office/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?p=1838247#post1838247)
I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

How can the idea that God does not exist be "unthinkable" as a philosophy? The existence of God is one of the biggest philosophical arguments of all time.

[bignej]

Well, this is exactly what I mean. Saying "all moral issues are subjective" is, in fact, a way of thinking - isn't it?

How is it not when you do not have a moral compass like the bible? What I've been bad at saying in the last few posts is that is that believers treat atheism as a religion, which helps them relate, but leads them to assume other things about atheists.

[st.cronin]

How can the idea that God does not exist be "unthinkable" as a philosophy? The existence of God is one of the biggest philosophical arguments of all time.

I simply meant that it was unthinkable to me, because of the philosophical implications - for example, that all moral judgements are relative.

[KWhit]

I simply meant that it was unthinkable to me, because of the philosophical implications - for example, that all moral judgements are relative.

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians. I mean most Christians are in favor of the death penalty. And that pretty much breaks one of those Commandments, right? But it's relative because the guy getting electrocuted killed someone else, so he 'deserved it.' Right?

[Marc Vaughan]

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

Einstein pantheism (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm) has a summary of what is believed to have been Einsteins take on God if anyones interested ..

[Celeval]

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians. I mean most Christians are in favor of the death penalty. And that pretty much breaks one of those Commandments, right? But it's relative because the guy getting electrocuted killed someone else, so he 'deserved it.' Right?

I certainly wouldn't say most are in favor of it.

Speaking only of the Catholic church, again, the Church is entirely against it. The Catechism states that "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.'"

[st.cronin]

All moral judgements are relative even for Christians.

This is not correct. For a Christian, no moral judgements are relative. There is an absolute right and wrong.

[bignej]

Einstein pantheism (http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/einstein.htm) has a summary of what is believed to have been Einsteins take on God if anyones interested ..

To Einstein, The universe was God. This is supported by the website you provided(I'm not sure how valid this website is). The website says he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God Earlier you described what he side here:

As Einstein said 'God doesn't play dice' - that is he knows in advance how the chips would fall ....

“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”



Others have said that Eintein only said this to appease the masses even though Spinoza's God is quite different than the others.
Here is another quote:
“"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." ”

[QuikSand]

I was not asking how we know if something is perfect or imperfect, but what is the yardstick by which we measure that. Your answer is "we all are that yardstick." For an atheist, it seems necessary to make the measure of good/bad internal to man - which, to me, is what makes atheism completely unthinkable as a philosophy.

I don't mean this as a slight, but this seems to me like an excellent example of belief based on preference (something discussed a bit earlier in this thread). One's apparent discomfort with what one believes to be the logical consequences of there being no god doesn't make god exist.

[Ajaxab]

I don't mean this as a slight, but this seems to me like an excellent example of belief based on preference (something discussed a bit earlier in this thread). One's apparent discomfort with what one believes to be the logical consequences of there being no god doesn't make god exist.

I think I agree with you about the discomfort part. But is there a distinction to be made between a preference based on something logically proven verses a preference based on feeling? I think disbelieving atheism because of one's discomfort with it may not be valid and would be belief based on preference, but disbelieving atheism because it makes morality subjective would seem valid and not based on preference. Truth is truth whether we prefer it or not.

So I guess for me the question becomes whether, in the atheist framework, morality is subjective or it is not subjective. And as far as I can discern, morality is subjective in an atheistic framework. Until I am convinced otherwise, that is a true statement that has no bearing on my preferences. I can feel good about it and prefer it or I can feel uncomfortable about it and not prefer it. But my preferences do not change whether it is or isn't truth.

[Celeval]

I wouldn't argue that morality is necessarily subjective for atheists. If there's any sort of moral code - be it a religious one, or a secular one - used as a set of rules, then that tosses that out a bit. One could argue that the basis for Christian morality is a combination of the Ten Commandments and Jesus' addition to love your neighbor as yourself. An atheist could follow those same rules without the necessity of a religious belief structure around it... similarly, "While it harms done, do as you will", or any of the variety of moral structures.

[QuikSand]

Truth is truth whether we prefer it or not.


Yes, I agree with that...

I think disbelieving atheism because of one's discomfort with it may not be valid and would be belief based on preference, but disbelieving atheism because it makes morality subjective would seem valid and not based on preference.

...but I don't see how you can put this statement right next to it. "Disbelieving atheism" just means believing that god's existence is true. (Right?) How can you reach that conclusion just by deciding that you don't like what atheism leads to in some respect, without betraying your statement I quoted above?

If you believe just because of a hunch or a feeling or an inspiration, I get that. It doesn't have any persuasive value, but there's nothing for another person to really criticize from a logical perspective.

What I genuinely don't understand is trying to defend what you believe to be true based on your personal preferences of what you wish to be true. Saying that you believe in god because that avoids an uncomfortable moral relativism (a conclusion I reject, incidentally) just doesn't hold any sway with most nonbelievers... what bearing could that possibly have on what is actually true?

[Marc Vaughan]

To Einstein, The universe was God. This is supported by the website you provided(I'm not sure how valid this website is). The website says he believed in Spinoza's God. Spinoza's God Earlier you described what he side here:
Yeah in retrospect using his quote in that way wasn't the brightest decision - I used it because its a catchy quote without realising that it'd be taken as meaning that Einstein believed that God was personal.

Spinoza's God as I believe it is pretty much the same thing, the main difference being 'semantics' I think Spinoza's definition tends to indicate that its 'nature' rather than the universe being God - but the general gist of both (as I understand it) is that God isn't a personal God at all.

[Marc Vaughan]

I wouldn't argue that morality is necessarily subjective for atheists. If there's any sort of moral code - be it a religious one, or a secular one - used as a set of rules, then that tosses that out a bit. One could argue that the basis for Christian morality is a combination of the Ten Commandments and Jesus' addition to love your neighbor as yourself. An atheist could follow those same rules without the necessity of a religious belief structure around it... similarly, "While it harms done, do as you will", or any of the variety of moral structures.

Morality for aetheists (and society in general imho) is mainly based upon what the members of a society believe is ultimately good for the society they live within.

That is if something is seen as harmful to society then its considered immoral.

Examples of this can be easily found - random murder for instance harms society by making people scared and removing productive members of society, however soldiers are not seen as immoral because they're acting on the intent of society as a whole.

Religious morals are set by the scripture/beliefs of individual religions and are often the cause of friction within a society because there is normally very limited flexibility within them for change.

Thus within most societies today homosexuals are generally accepted because their actions are harmless to the overall population and indeed help reduce the problems of over population on the planet (I've actually conjectured with friends that in the future its possible that homosexuality will be openly encouraged by goverments for this reason).

However some religions have a problem with homosexuality because its against the tenets of the religions involved.

The problem with the inflexibility of religion is that it ignores the fact that the world has changed hugely since the tenets were originally drawn up and the reasoning behind some of the laws may no longer be valid.

For instance the Jewish reasoning for not eating pork is scriptural, however its been frequently conjectured that at that point in history it would have been dangerous to eat pork because of problems with storing it (and so that might have been the reason for the scripture). This situation has altered but the law remains intact.

Similarly homosexuality it could be conceived was discouraged because reproduction was imperative in a religion thriving because of the high death rates/low life spans at the time when religions were conceived - however again today the opposite (ie. population explosion) is more of a concern generally.

NB> The above of course relies upon the obvious 'human' reasons for the religious laws being the true ones, but does bring to light possible problems with religions not updating themselves .... especially as within at least one (Christianity) they have in the past updated themselves (ie. the changes between the old and new testament) in lines with society.

[sabotai]

I'm pretty sure the intent on that quote was that the world isn't completely random, not that God knows what will happen in advance. It was a figure of speech saying that there is an unknown variable to the world that determines what will happen it thus making it not random.

"[God] does not play dice." was Einstein's response to quantum theory, which he didn't buy into. He wasn't making a statement about what God knows or that the future is predetermined or for any other religious or philosophical reason. He was just making a catchy phrase to mock quantum theory.

[Celeval]

Morality for aetheists (and society in general imho) is mainly based upon what the members of a society believe is ultimately good for the society they live within.

I think that's painting with too wide a brush. If you take atheists to be the sum of all people who don't believe in God, then I don't think you can say that even most of them subscribe to the same general idea of morality.

I do agree with your points about social morality, though; and I think that can apply to religious as well. While much of my morality is based on the Catholic faith, it's not wholly so - societal norms have an influence as well. To use your example, I have no problem with homosexuality.

[RendeR]

This is not correct. For a Christian, no moral judgements are relative. There is an absolute right and wrong.


This is what I see as a HUGE problem with Christianity. If what you say is true then no Christian actually has their own morals, they simply follow blindly with whatever morality was dictated to them.

Without considering your moral dilemmas for yourself and making a your own informed decision you lose the very essence of who you are. You are not a free person choosing your path in life, you become nothing more than an automaton regurgitating someone else's philosophy.

If this is true it totally discounts your ability to carry an argument, because its not you making the choices, its some scribe 2000 years ago who made your mind up for you. you're credibility in any discussion thereby becomes tainted and less in almost any discussion you join. Its frustrating for those of us who don't follow a dogma because no matter how hard we try and put faith in your arguments and opinions we have to factor in that its not YOUR argument or opinion. it invalidates you to a very large extent.

Again just to remind everyone reading this, it is MY PoV, i don't mean to imply this opinion fits to anyone beyond myself.

[Marc Vaughan]

This is what I see as a HUGE problem with Christianity. If what you say is true then no Christian actually has their own morals, they simply follow blindly with whatever morality was dictated to them.

I'd disagree with this on two stances:

* Firstly no one is born into a religion, everyone gets to choose whether they subscribe to a religion or not. As such if they disagree vehemently with a religions morals they can opt out - thus every Christian has chosen the morals dictated within that religion.
* Every believer of a faith has a unique belief in it, that is ask two christians to describe what Jesus looked like and generally you'll get slightly different answers. In a similar manner what believers believe is moral differs slightly depending upon the person.