Beliefs?

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

One could argue that much of the evil in the world can be sourced to some belief system as well.

Of course - that's what Noop said - I was only providing the corollary (if that's the correct use of that term).

Also - I would venture to say that majority of the time it's not the belief system, per se, it's when man gets involved that the bad things happen.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Thanks to the responses so far and for this not turnign into a flame war.

Some food for thought to what I have read so far:

God loves us so much that he sent his son to die for us... Again, why? If God is the one who forgives sin why did he need to do that? One of the commandments is Thou Shalt Not Kill yet he sent his son so that he would be killed which means that the act of killing his son was predetermined. In this case why should those responsible be punished if they had no choice but to do what they did? I know that leads to anotherpart of the discussion.

Sacrifices were made before his son was sacrificed... Again, this goes against the Thou Shalt Not Kill idea. Additionally where did this come from? I rememeber no mention of God saying "you have to kill somethng so that I can forgive you" in the Old Testament.

Back to the God loves us so much concept... If he loved us so much that he sacrificed his son why would he then allow for such evils throughout history to occur?

Why are we also limiting ourselves to the belief that there is either a God or that evolution took place (not saying us here but the debate seems to be always either one or the other and not both). If there is a God of some sort couldn't he have been responsible for merely beginning the chain of events that led to evolution?

I'll tackle some of these now...some probably later.

Regarding the whole either or with creationism and evolution. I'm right there with you on that one. My personal belief is that God created everything - how he went about it is unknown to us. Evolution is a theory, but it's the best explanation we have right now. Barring any new discoveries I believe this is how God created everything.

Regarding why God lets "bad" things happen - really, in God's view your life on earth is really a blink of an eye. No one is innocent, either - it's not like God lets bad things happen to "good" people. Anyway, I would venture that, in God's mind, he's giving us the opportunity to live eternity in heaven (or the other place). How we die - if we get hit by a car, killed in a tsunami, etc., doesn't really matter that much. Oh, and if God made the world a 24-hour vacation for us, what would we truly learn about ourselves - wouldn't it be human nature to take such things for granted, become fat, complacent, etc.? When bad things happen to us, hopefully we learn something from the process and come out on the other side stronger for it. Do I know EVERY reason - no, and I'll use the "cop out" explanation - I'm not God.

As to why Jesus had to die - the punishment for sin, according to God's law, is death. He's a loving God, but He is also a just God. To atone for our sins, he sent his son to step in for us - to die for our sin. We only have to believe in Him.

Oh, by the way - the thing about God wanting you to sacrifice animals because you sinned - I screwed up. Researching it further, that's not what occurred. Sorry about that

[QuikSand]

For the many who are caught up in what it means to "be an atheist," here's a though experiment.

There are something like a billion people on this planet who say that they believe that the inspired word of the almighty god is contained in the Q'uran, and that the one true path to eternal salvation lies in its teachings. There are many fantastic stories in that holy book, and many people believe them to be literally true. The book is also filled with a variety of teachings and prescriptions for moral behavior, and consequences for those who do not follow those rules. I am not a scholar by any means, but I think this description is pretty inarguable.

Nearly everyone in this thread (I think) would essentially say that the beliefs of those million-or-so Muslims to be, at best, misguided. You don't believe the stories as told in their book, and you don't subscribe to their various rules-and-consequences that derive directly from what they believe to be the word of the almighty. In many places, the teachings off the Q'uran depart and contradict those from both the old and new testaments of the bible, and a literal reading of the bible says pretty clearly that all these people, regardless of how earnest their beliefs, will be damned to eternal torment for them.

If someone were to ask you why you reject those beliefs or Islam, you'd probably (unless you sensed the fairly obvious trap coming, of course) honestly say that there wasn't really any evidence for those beliefs, that the stories in their holy book do not seem reasonable to you, and the like. Absent any reason for you to adopt the beliefs of Islam, you wouldn't do so. Even if a billion people say that your eternal soul is going to be damned for your refusal to acknowledge certain tenets or practices of that faith, you are not at all persuaded that you should suddenly take up that belief system.

You already know what it is like to be an athiest. You already are an atheist with respect to Islam and its teachings. And with respect to the various gods and religions espoused by civilizations large and small from around the world both today and dating back in time. You are an atheist when it comes to worshiping the spirit of the nearest river, and when it comes to worshiping Zeus, and so forth.

The subtleties of "not sure" versus "I'm just not going to live my life that way" are pretty empty. It may, in theory, seem to protect you from a certain degree of hubris by claiming that you "don't know" and that yo prefer a term like agnostic -- and I don't think there's any harm in that, really. But it's the inherent nature of non-belief to not really leave much wiggle room.

I am fairly new to fatherhood, and I love and cherish my daughter more than anything else in the world, ever. Any degree of logic would say that I should at least subject her to the various rites of various faiths, such as baptism, even if there's only a tiny chance that her immortal should depends on it, right? (Yes, Pascal's wager, remixed) Maybe an agnostic is the guy who tries to hedge his bets on something like that, while still suspecting that there's really nobody listening, but what the heck. Not sure what the substance of that kind of "faith" is, but perhaps that's the theoretical difference there.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

For the many who are caught up in what it means to "be an atheist," here's a though experiment.

There are something like a billion people on this planet who say that they believe that the inspired word of the almighty god is contained in the Q'uran, and that the one true path to eternal salvation lies in its teachings. There are many fantastic stories in that holy book, and many people believe them to be literally true. The book is also filled with a variety of teachings and prescriptions for moral behavior, and consequences for those who do not follow those rules. I am not a scholar by any means, but I think this description is pretty inarguable.

Nearly everyone in this thread (I think) would essentially say that the beliefs of those million-or-so Muslims to be, at best, misguided. You don't believe the stories as told in their book, and you don't subscribe to their various rules-and-consequences that derive directly from what they believe to be the word of the almighty. In many places, the teachings off the Q'uran depart and contradict those from both the old and new testaments of the bible, and a literal reading of the bible says pretty clearly that all these people, regardless of how earnest their beliefs, will be damned to eternal torment for them.

If someone were to ask you why you reject those beliefs or Islam, you'd probably (unless you sensed the fairly obvious trap coming, of course) honestly say that there wasn't really any evidence for those beliefs, that the stories in their holy book do not seem reasonable to you, and the like. Absent any reason for you to adopt the beliefs of Islam, you wouldn't do so. Even if a billion people say that your eternal soul is going to be damned for your refusal to acknowledge certain tenets or practices of that faith, you are not at all persuaded that you should suddenly take up that belief system.

You already know what it is like to be an athiest. You already are an atheist with respect to Islam and its teachings. And with respect to the various gods and religions espoused by civilizations large and small from around the world both today and dating back in time. You are an atheist when it comes to worshiping the spirit of the nearest river, and when it comes to worshiping Zeus, and so forth.

The subtleties of "not sure" versus "I'm just not going to live my life that way" are pretty empty. It may, in theory, seem to protect you from a certain degree of hubris by claiming that you "don't know" and that yo prefer a term like agnostic -- and I don't think there's any harm in that, really. But it's the inherent nature of non-belief to not really leave much wiggle room.

I am fairly new to fatherhood, and I love and cherish my daughter more than anything else in the world, ever. Any degree of logic would say that I should at least subject her to the various rites of various faiths, such as baptism, even if there's only a tiny chance that her immortal should depends on it, right? (Yes, Pascal's wager, remixed) Maybe an agnostic is the guy who tries to hedge his bets on something like that, while still suspecting that there's really nobody listening, but what the heck. Not sure what the substance of that kind of "faith" is, but perhaps that's the theoretical difference there.

I think there's another difference which you gloss over with this argument. I may be an "atheist" with respect to Islam, but "religious" with respect to Christianity, or vice versa, I am still someone who is able to hold faith-based knowledge, whereas a true atheist rejects, as a matter of philosophy, all faith-based knowledge.

edit: also, Pascal's wager was a joke, meant to highlight the silliness of using logic to measure the validity of belief.

[molson]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I am fairly new to fatherhood, and I love and cherish my daughter more than anything else in the world, ever. Any degree of logic would say that I should at least subject her to the various rites of various faiths, such as baptism, even if there's only a tiny chance that her immortal should depends on it, right? (Yes, Pascal's wager, remixed) Maybe an agnostic is the guy who tries to hedge his bets on something like that, while still suspecting that there's really nobody listening, but what the heck. Not sure what the substance of that kind of "faith" is, but perhaps that's the theoretical difference there.

I think there's probably value to church beyond any "salvation", from my experiences in church, it was pretty common to see parents bring their kids, and see their whole family stop going when the kid becomes a teenager.

Christianity isn't really a scary thing - most of us buy into the "values" of Christianity even though we're not practicing Christians, because they also happen to be the values of our country and our culture.

These days, especially, these things can't be taught or referenced in schools because people freak out at the slightest inference of religion (which completely misunderstands the constitution IMO, but that's a story for another thread).

And yes, a parent doesn't need church to teach his kids these values, but in a group environment, when the values are shared, I believe they DO become more second nature to someone. I'm certainly glad my parents took me to church (of course, that was in a relaxed, happy, non-judgmental, Lutheran church)

[Ajaxab]

I'm making an assumption about atheism with the following question, but I'll ask it anyways as it's something I've been curious about. I'll assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the atheist doesn't believe anything happens after death. The individual disappears into nothingness. Death happens and that is it.

So given this assumption (and again, I could be misguided about it), I've wondered why atheists care so deeply about wanting to persuade theists to adopt an atheistic position. After all, shouldn't the atheist just ignore the theist completely? Yet, we have people like Richard Dawkins traveling around the world spending so much time and energy on something that seemingly shouldn't matter. It seems we're all just going to dust anyway so why does the atheist bother? Maybe a guy like Dawkins just does it for fun or self-gratification or intellectual stimulation. Maybe he thinks the world would be better off if there was no religious belief. But even if that was a legitimate motivation (and it may well be), if we're all going to be dust and nothingness, what really does it matter to the atheist? What is at stake in having this conversation from the atheist's point of view?

I think I can see what is at stake for the religious person who sees the state of another's eternal soul as the primary stakes, but I've been curious about what the stakes are for the atheist.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I think there's another difference which you gloss over with this argument. I may be an "atheist" with respect to Islam, but "religious" with respect to Christianity, or vice versa, I am still someone who is able to hold faith-based knowledge, whereas a true atheist rejects, as a matter of philosophy, all faith-based knowledge.

edit: also, Pascal's wager was a joke, meant to highlight the silliness of using logic to measure the validity of belief.

On the first matter, I think that is pretty self-evident. My point, hopefully not lost completely, is to try to illustrate the general notion of non-belief. Many believers find it difficult to even conceive of the concept of non-belief -- I usually find this argument a useful one on that front. Plus, I think it helps to illustrate the general nature of non-belief, and to help show the pretty meager difference between so-called agnosticism and so-called atheism.

As for Pascal's wager, I've heard that argument. So what? The logical construct is still a pretty strong one (even though I have deliberately inverted it above) to most people, and I think it proves a point when used effectively.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I've wondered why atheists care so deeply about wanting to persuade theists to adopt an atheistic position.

I think that a lot of the recent rise in irreligion (including Dawkins) arises not so much from the fact that many people harbor these personal beliefs, but that they seep so widely into the public policy discourse. I suspect there's a certain degree of sport mixed in among those shouting most loudly, but I think there's a fairly genuine concern among many ardent non-believers that as religious teachings continue to guide policy, we end up with absurd and even dangerous conclusions -- most notably, but not exclusively, when the policy subjects have some connection to sex.

[watravaler]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I'm an atheist until evidence dictates otherwise.

ditto

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As for Pascal's wager, I've heard that argument. So what? The logical construct is still a pretty strong one (even though I have deliberately inverted it above) to most people, and I think it proves a point when used effectively.

Pascal's point, which I think is a good one, is that to people of faith, it is not at all a strong construction, regardless of how tight its logic, and if you think it makes sense, than you don't understand faith.

This is the problem with faith: It works in an entirely different arena than logic. Its fine to say you need "evidence", but waiting for evidence is futile. The evidence that I have for God's existence is not evidence that I can directly show you. The logic of Christ's Passion is not logic that can be diagrammed and labeled in a way that is convincing or revealing - it is logic that is better revealed by Bach, for example.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm making an assumption about atheism with the following question, but I'll ask it anyways as it's something I've been curious about. I'll assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the atheist doesn't believe anything happens after death. The individual disappears into nothingness. Death happens and that is it.

So given this assumption (and again, I could be misguided about it), I've wondered why atheists care so deeply about wanting to persuade theists to adopt an atheistic position. After all, shouldn't the atheist just ignore the theist completely? Yet, we have people like Richard Dawkins traveling around the world spending so much time and energy on something that seemingly shouldn't matter. It seems we're all just going to dust anyway so why does the atheist bother? Maybe a guy like Dawkins just does it for fun or self-gratification or intellectual stimulation. Maybe he thinks the world would be better off if there was no religious belief. But even if that was a legitimate motivation (and it may well be), if we're all going to be dust and nothingness, what really does it matter to the atheist? What is at stake in having this conversation from the atheist's point of view?

I think I can see what is at stake for the religious person who sees the state of another's eternal soul as the primary stakes, but I've been curious about what the stakes are for the atheist.

Richard Dawkins (who most would consider to be the leading spokesperson pushing the athiesm cause) pretty much says that he has no problem with adults holding religous beliefs. He just thinks it is borderline abusive to push religion on little kids. He states how pushing the "believe or burn eternally" system seems to create an awful lot of Christians in America, Muslims in the middle East, Jews in Isreal, etc while you don't see the same percentages in any other area of life.

If you told your 4 year old every Sunday that the only way to salvation was to become a mailman I bet there would be an awful lot of adults later on who are scared to be anything but a mailman.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

As for Pascal's wager, I've heard that argument. So what? The logical construct is still a pretty strong one (even though I have deliberately inverted it above) to most people, and I think it proves a point when used effectively.

The problem with Pacal's wager is that you are betting that the one religion you had your daughter baptized in is the right religion. Even in Christianity the multiple sects and divisions of beliefs might indicate that chances are, you are betting on the wrong religion.

I just learned of Primitive Baptists recently. It was pretty funny actually, since we were camping in Oklahoma, coming home, and saw a church with "primitive" writing on it that said Primitive Baptist Church. It was next to a bar, so we chuckled. Anyhow, according to a guy with whom I work, he told me that the Primitive Baptists believe that your destiny of going to Heaven or Hell is predetermined and there is nothing you can do to change that. Weird, eh?

Logic dictates that you cannot truly believe in multiple religions, so which religion do you believe in to get to Heaven? Also, if you truly don't believe but are hedging your bet, will it work?

I know what you were saying about exposing your daughter and I think that was the point. We are also considering doing that as well with our kids, but are too sleepy on Sundays to make it to Church. Additionally I have a problem with giving a percentage of my paycheck to a church. I'm sorry, but if I spend more than $30 for an hour of Church it doesn't pay off to me. What do I get for my money?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Regarding why God lets "bad" things happen - really, in God's view your life on earth is really a blink of an eye. No one is innocent, either - it's not like God lets bad things happen to "good" people. Anyway, I would venture that, in God's mind, he's giving us the opportunity to live eternity in heaven (or the other place). How we die - if we get hit by a car, killed in a tsunami, etc., doesn't really matter that much. Oh, and if God made the world a 24-hour vacation for us, what would we truly learn about ourselves - wouldn't it be human nature to take such things for granted, become fat, complacent, etc.? When bad things happen to us, hopefully we learn something from the process and come out on the other side stronger for it. Do I know EVERY reason - no, and I'll use the "cop out" explanation - I'm not God.

The flaw with assuming that my life in God's view is really a blink of an eye is that if I pray it will not be heard. Assuming there is an omnipotent being out there, time is a non-issue. The other thing is that if no one is innocent and we're all "bad" people, then why do certain things happen to just some "bad" people and not all "bad" people?

I also disagree that how we die doesn't matter that much. I think it's pretty important. I mean come on. If I die in a car wreck because I was driving drunk that's a big difference from dying in a car wreck when I was hit by a drunk driver.

I'm sorry but saying that everything happens for a reason and when bad things happen and God wants us to learn from it is a cop out. I agree that we should learn from bad things, but I don't think that there is some deity out there pulling our strings...that falls into the realm of free will.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

So given this assumption (and again, I could be misguided about it), I've wondered why atheists care so deeply about wanting to persuade theists to adopt an atheistic position. After all, shouldn't the atheist just ignore the theist completely?

The reasons generally are multi-fold imho:

(1) People like confirmation that they're "right" - this is one of the causes for arguements across most lines (religion, politics etc.) ... thus they try and persuade anyone who disagrees with them that their viewpoint is the correct one.
(2) If you don't believe in a God then the idea of someone who has 'power' (for instance a president or general) believing that an omnipotent entity is giving him ideas and commands is a tad on the scarey side.

I'd recommend Dawkins books they're quite interesting although he falls into the same 'traps' as many equivalent theist publications and tends to make false arguements from time to time (ie. ones which require his mind set and beliefs to verify them, bit like the christian argument that x and y are true because the bible says so - only works if you believe the bible is true).

[Marc Vaughan]

Richard Dawkins (who most would consider to be the leading spokesperson pushing the athiesm cause) pretty much says that he has no problem with adults holding religous beliefs. He just thinks it is borderline abusive to push religion on little kids. He states how pushing the "believe or burn eternally" system seems to create an awful lot of Christians in America, Muslims in the middle East, Jews in Isreal, etc while you don't see the same percentages in any other area of life.

One thing I've actually found fascinating is the distribution of religious people throughout the world, has anyone else ever wondered why Christians are sparse in their natural 'homeland' (ie. where the religion originated).

I've never seen any books or papers on this - but have conjectured with friends that its due to different religions thriving under different climates and political situations.

Any ideas/comments along these lines?

[RedKingGold]

To be honest, I think a lot of these questions are based in the human realm which is all we can understand. I believe there is a higher power, and we do not completely understand or cannot explain it because it is beyond our comprehension.

I guess that is the beauty/frustration of faith. Those who believe, do so with no real factual or logical conviction. We just believe. To sit around and try to answer every which and why just leads to confusion and doubt.

[RedKingGold]

I admit I have a hard time with this part of Christianity. The whole Christ part. I'm not sure, it doesn't make sense. It requires too much contemplation for me. My beliefs are very rudimentary and I grew up a Roman Catholic, so consider me jaded and very much in the same boat here. But part of the reason I don't understand is because I don't believe what certain people tell me. I don't trust them. So the closest way I've convinced myself to understand this is to read (and comprehend) the New Testatment. I haven't the time nor inclination to do that, but I suspect I'll get around to it one day, because it's a nagging question for me.

From my understanding, the idea of "God's son" is the idea that Christ is God's representation on earth. God is meant to be perfect and sinless. Humans, because of original sin, were all born as sinners. Sinners are condemned to die without everlasting life. Therefore, if Christ (as God) were to die without sin, it defeats sin and it's consequence (complete ending death).

Therefore, if a being (Christ) can survive death and "rise again", then we should all be able to rise again at the time of the "Resurrection." So, by Christ sending his Son, he defeated sin/death/devil and gave us all the chance for eternal life. Christ had to send himself to die as perfect as no other being could die perfect.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

For the many who are caught up in what it means to "be an atheist," here's a though experiment.

There are something like a billion people on this planet who say that they believe that the inspired word of the almighty god is contained in the Q'uran, and that the one true path to eternal salvation lies in its teachings. There are many fantastic stories in that holy book, and many people believe them to be literally true. The book is also filled with a variety of teachings and prescriptions for moral behavior, and consequences for those who do not follow those rules. I am not a scholar by any means, but I think this description is pretty inarguable.

Nearly everyone in this thread (I think) would essentially say that the beliefs of those million-or-so Muslims to be, at best, misguided. You don't believe the stories as told in their book, and you don't subscribe to their various rules-and-consequences that derive directly from what they believe to be the word of the almighty. In many places, the teachings off the Q'uran depart and contradict those from both the old and new testaments of the bible, and a literal reading of the bible says pretty clearly that all these people, regardless of how earnest their beliefs, will be damned to eternal torment for them.

If someone were to ask you why you reject those beliefs or Islam, you'd probably (unless you sensed the fairly obvious trap coming, of course) honestly say that there wasn't really any evidence for those beliefs, that the stories in their holy book do not seem reasonable to you, and the like. Absent any reason for you to adopt the beliefs of Islam, you wouldn't do so. Even if a billion people say that your eternal soul is going to be damned for your refusal to acknowledge certain tenets or practices of that faith, you are not at all persuaded that you should suddenly take up that belief system.

You already know what it is like to be an athiest. You already are an atheist with respect to Islam and its teachings. And with respect to the various gods and religions espoused by civilizations large and small from around the world both today and dating back in time. You are an atheist when it comes to worshiping the spirit of the nearest river, and when it comes to worshiping Zeus, and so forth.

Assuming there is one (or are multiple) ultimate beings, would it be illogical to assume that he/she/they would base their existence on an idea that could be believed by a specific culture?

Further, would it not be human nature to distort religious views to serve their own needs? Whether it be the jihadist or Jerry Falwell; they both are similar in using religion to further goals in this world.

I do not believe the teachings of the Muslim faith are necessarily true or necessarily false. Similarly, I believe that teachings in the Bible could be necessarily true or necessarily false. Unfortunately, I do think it's the view of many (perpetuated by religion itself) that there can "only be one."

However, does disagreement over who is "the one" really support the argument that there is no "one"?

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

This is the problem with faith: It works in an entirely different arena than logic. Its fine to say you need "evidence", but waiting for evidence is futile. The evidence that I have for God's existence is not evidence that I can directly show you. The logic of Christ's Passion is not logic that can be diagrammed and labeled in a way that is convincing or revealing - it is logic that is better revealed by Bach, for example.

And that's why so many folks are sceptical.

I can not be convinced that one religion is "truer" than the other because they all rely on "faith" and all display the same lack of evidence, and the vast majority of religious folks share the religion of their parents. So basically you are trusting the decision of your parents (who in turn probably followed their parents, and so on back in time), which in itself has more to do with the beliefs of the society they are from than whether or not they ring truer than the next religion.

Let me say that again, from a philosophical perspective, I'm open to the idea that there might potentially be some sort of greater power that would match up with the loose description of what folks call "god". I personally feel it's impossible to be any more specific than that about it, and I sure don't believe that such a being would want or need to be worshiped. As an atheist I don't think that any such being actually exists, but I find it fun to wax metaphysical about it.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

However, does disagreement over who is "the one" really support the argument that there is no "one"?

This is a very basic yet fundamental point that gets glossed over too easily.

The discovery of other religions, some that are even bigger than the one I was brought up around (Christianity), was one of the major eye-openers for me re: my thoughts on religion.

[Mac Howard]

"Belief" is massively overrated. Essentially it is accepting something as true simply because some authority has told us it is so. Belief is sustained by "faith" - the mechanism used by that authority to retain its control over its community - it is essentially the authority insisting that you will believe the tenets of the belief system regardless of any contradictory evidence or the strength of contrary argument (usually with some dire threat for not continuing believe).

The reality of our existence is that we must employ some belief system to inform the decisions we must make to survive. The flaw is that instead of recognising the pragmatic nature of that need and holding it to account for any good and bad outcomes we transform it into "truth" and declare the bad outcomes as proof of flaws in ourselves (we humans love those flaws).

The best outcome is that it has brought stability to tyrannical societies and the worst has been that "beliefs" have been responsible for the most appalling levels of man's inhumanity to man throughout history through both religion and ideology.

But it is insane that today we hold onto these flawed systems when our society has been transformed and improved beyond all recognition by a philosophy that rejects outright the very concept of "belief".

1) If there is a higher power why does he (she?) care if we worship him? With all this great power why would this entity care if we worship? Is this entity that much of an egomaniac?

It is clearly possible that there is some intelligent entity behind this astonishing universe of some 20 thousand billion billion stars but highly unlikely that this entity is remotely like that "god" described in religious books of 2000 years or so ago by people who thought lightening was an act of god or that the sun was a rational, living being capable of sin (Christian belief for several centuries after Christ).

2) If there is a higher power does it just care if we live well, without the need for constant worship?

If there is such an entity I doubt it is in the least bit concerned by what you or I or any of us might be thinking or doing, or even aware of these, and would not be in any way concerned whether we might "worship" it or not.

The god of the mainstream religions is clearly little more than what we perceive as the perfect human being with a few of our flaws (like egotism) thrown in.

3) Why is there such a negative reaction to possible life elsewhere fro the general religious community? If this entity has the ability to create life why would it limit the creation to just us?

Because it undermines the religious idea that the earth and man are the centre of god's universe. Religion has taken enough hits on its credibility to withstand yet another.

4) If we are created in this entity's image, and we are not without sin, wouldn't that mean...

All religions have always had a problem with sin, suffering etc and the idea that god is omnipotent. It has led to some of the silliest explanations : "original sin" is a humdinger that blames man for all the bad stuff - and seems to appeal to the self-hatred in man.

5) Why send his Son? What purpose does sending Jesus actually serve? I keep hearing to die for our sins but this makes no sense. If this higher power is the one forgiving our sins why would there be a need to "send his son" to die for us? Is this telling us that he's not the one actually making the rules? If that is the case then just what is out there as that changes everything?

Nietzsche said (sarcastically I think) that it's a pity god didn't learn to speak Greek - the Greeks being far better communicators and higher profile than the Jews. God's methods of communication of the idea that he exists and how he would like us to behave have always been somewhat ham-fisted. There are clearly better ways of getting his message across than a carpenter in Judea, a recluse in India, a nonentity in Mecca.

It would seem, if these events are indeed instigated by a god, that he wants us to know. So, take over the tv and radio stations for a few mintutes and the whole world will get the message right away. No need for crucifixions, no need for martyrs, no need for century-long wars, no need for suicide bombers.

6) Free will or not free will? Saying that one does not have free will makes no sense. If Hitler had no choice but to do what he did how can he be punished for it by the entity who made him do it?

Makes perfect sense! We're born with a genetic makeup which is worked over by experience and that's what we become. I don't like it but there's a perfectly respectable argument that we have no free will and all our actions could not be other than they are.

But to predict what these actions are would require us to know everything about every nuance of genetics and experience which we clearly cannot know. Thus our future actions are unpredictable and might as well be the consequence of free will.

7) Why even have us live on earth? If God created us with the goal of eventually going to heaven why not skip this on earth step and just create "people" who are worthy of being in haven and placing them in heaven. The whole hell thing sounds too much like a little kid with a magnifying glass sitting near an ant hill.

Not a lot of fun in that

I really want to believe because of everything that I was taught growing up but I can't come up with a logical reason to.

And that's the crux of it - there is simply no justification for believing. It may be the Christians have it right, maybe the Muslims have, or the Hindus. But as all these "truths" come from thousands of years ago and there is simply no way of knowing which or, of course, knowing that any of them is true. As Kierkegaard said it needs a "leap of faith" to accept any of them or I would argue it needs a childhood indoctrination that is too uncomfortable to resist.

Just a comment on this idea on agnosticism that "knowing" and "not knowing" (or more accurately "not knowing whether or not I know" ie I might be right but I don't know if I am) are somehow equivalent. The flaw in that is linguistic - conceptually "not knowing" is not a form of "knowing". Look at it this way

You live in, say New York, and you go into the street and take aside two bystanders. You ask each "What is the temperature in Bombay at this moment" though neither has any way of knowing.

The first thinks about it, turns the matter over in his mind and then declares "It's 85.7 degrees".

"Sure?" you ask.

"Yep!" he replies.

The second replies (with incredulity at your question) "I don't know!"

I would suggest that the balance of probabilities, assuming the first has no current connection with Bombay. is that the first is wrong and the second right. I would be willing to put money on it. Wouldn't you?

Believing you know and saying you don't know are simply not remotely equivalent!

[st.cronin]

Mac,

I am not sure it is possible to open your mind, but I would encourage you, in thinking about faith, to:

1. Think more about ordinary, individual faith, as opposed to historical, cultural faith. You seem to me to be fixated on the latter and hardly consider the former.

2. Think more about the book of Job. It lays out almost all the errors that people make in thinking about God, and leaves me with the impression that its not possible to think about God without making errors, because of our limitations. I think it makes a lot of your argument moot.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

2. Think more about the book of Job. It lays out almost all the errors that people make in thinking about God, and leaves me with the impression that its not possible to think about God without making errors, because of our limitations. I think it makes a lot of your argument moot.

I disagree. Religious dogma is not at all convincing to the non-religious. That would be like me telling you to consider the dogma of the Pure Land Buddhist sect to prove that it's not practical to attempt to act in a strict and unrealistic fashion in the name of religion, and that it's only important to believe.

That may or may not make a lot of sense to believers and non-believers a like, but it's not going to get a Christian/Islamic/etc person to start chanting Buddhist sutras, and even more so it says nothing at all about the reality of the religion's core beliefs.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I disagree. Religious dogma is not at all convincing to the non-religious. That would be like me telling you to consider the dogma of the Pure Land Buddhist sect to prove that it's not practical to attempt to act in a strict and unrealistic fashion in the name of religion, and that it's only important to believe.

That may or may not make a lot of sense to believers and non-believers a like, but it's not going to get a Christian/Islamic/etc person to start chanting Buddhist sutras, and even more so it says nothing at all about the reality of the religion's core beliefs.

Job is not religious dogma, it is serious philosophy dropped in the middle of the Old Testament. It is philosophy about religion, and for that reason is important for critics of religion to come to grips with.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Job is not religious dogma, it is serious philosophy dropped in the middle of the Old Testament. It is philosophy about religion, and for that reason is important for critics of religion to come to grips with.

I know, I've read enough of it - albeit discussed and quoted at length within a pro-atheism book. But my 2nd paragraph still applies.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Mac,

I am not sure it is possible to open your mind, but I would encourage you, in thinking about faith, to:

Don't confuse the strength of my arguments with close-mindedness, st.cronin. These arguments have been honed over decades of discussions with believers - I'm well known to the Jehova's Witness community over here who have learned that I take a break about one in the afternoon and sit in the sun with a beer for an hour or so. They bring a copy of the latest Watchtower and join me in a beer often in the summer months

I'm fascinated in where believers find justification for their beliefs when I can see none and happy to give them the opportunity to explain.

1. Think more about ordinary, individual faith, as opposed to historical, cultural faith. You seem to me to be fixated on the latter and hardly consider the former.

Well, I have an "individual faith" or at least a world view that informs my decisions though being always open to change and improvement it could not justify the word "faith".

As far as mainstream religions are concerned you can't avoid history. No one yet has justified their beliefs by telling me they've had words from god or Jesus (I'll stick with Christianity rather than keep naming other numerous other religious figures). In the end their faith is in those who tell them about Jesus and the bible and that means churches back to the early church. Belief therefore comes down to the credibility of these churches and their history. And that isn't convincing.

2. Think more about the book of Job. It lays out almost all the errors that people make in thinking about God, and leaves me with the impression that its not possible to think about God without making errors, because of our limitations. I think it makes a lot of your argument moot.

Then those errors would involve also thinking positively about god too. On this basis we are incapable of making any meaningful comment at all because our minds do not have the capacity to decide one way or another.

I'm with Descartes here (or I would be if I believed in god): God is good. He wouldn't deceive us like this.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Don't confuse the strength of my arguments with close-mindedness, st.cronin. These arguments have been honed over decades of discussions with believers - I'm well known to the Jehova's Witness community over here who have learned that I take a break about one in the afternoon and sit in the sun with a beer for an hour or so. They bring a copy of the latest Watchtower and join me in a beer often in the summer months

I'm fascinated in where believers find justification for their beliefs when I can see none and happy to give them the opportunity to explain.



Well, I have an "individual faith" or at least a world view that informs my decisions though being always open to change and improvement it could not justify the word "faith".

As far as mainstream religions are concerned you can't avoid history. No one yet has justified their beliefs by telling me they've had words from god or Jesus (I'll stick with Christianity rather than keep naming other numerous other religious figures). In the end their faith is in those who tell them about Jesus and the bible and that means churches back to the early church. Belief therefore comes down to the credibility of these churches and their history. And that isn't convincing.

I assume that what you are talking about here is for example scripture? If you think scripture works in a vacuum, I don't know what to tell you.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Then those errors would involve also thinking positively about god too. On this basis we are incapable of making any meaningful comment at all because our minds do not have the capacity to decide one way or another.

I'm with Descartes here (or I would be if I believed in god): God is good. He wouldn't deceive us like this.

I'm guessing you know how I would respond to this and I know how you would respond to that and it will play out like a tic tac toe game if we go that way. Which leaves me back to my original point, which is that to the non-believer, faith is ultimately inexplicable, and we are not brought to faith in the same way that we are brought to understand for example the law of gravity or how the electoral college works. It is not ordinary knowledge acquired in the ordinary way. But my faith is real - I believe the story of the crufixion and resurrection to be truer than anything else I know.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I assume that what you are talking about here is for example scripture?

Scripture is certainly part of it. You accept it because you've been told it is the truth. Why do you believe that? What has convinced you that scripture isn't merely a story told by fallible individuals?

If you think scripture works in a vacuum, I don't know what to tell you.

Try.

I'm guessing you know how I would respond to this and I know how you would respond to that and it will play out like a tic tac toe game if we go that way.

No idea whatsoever how you'd respond or how I would respond and how you would respond etc.

I'm genuinely puzzled why you would believe these stories when there is so little to convince you they're true. Explain what has convinced you.

that to the non-believer, faith is ultimately inexplicable

I certainly find it inexplicable but I'm not convinced it is inevitably so. Try to explain it.

, and we are not brought to faith in the same way that we are brought to understand for example the law of gravity or how the electoral college works. It is not ordinary knowledge acquired in the ordinary way.

That is clearly true. It is not difficult to understand things that can be shown in a "see it with your own eyes" demonstration. But what is this other way? And how, with this way, do we distinguish the true from the false?

But my faith is real - I believe the story of the crufixion and resurrection to be truer than anything else I know.

I'm not belittling your faith, st.cronin. Please don't think that. But I don't understand why you believe something so fervently when there can be no demonstration of its truth.

It may be right, it may be wrong - I know neither way. Why are you so certain it is right?

[st.cronin]

Suppose I told you, Mac, that I didn't believe that all triangles contained 180 degrees worth of angles. You would be able to show me the error in such a way that I have no choice BUT to believe you.

Now suppose I told you that I didn't believe that if A=B and B=C then A=C. How would you convince me of that?

This is, I guess, a very poor analogy.

What has convinced me? Nothing. I am not convinced or persuaded. The truth is not demonstrated - it simply appears, in the same way that if A=B and B=C then A=C. It appears in the same way that I know I am sad or happy at a given moment. It appears in the same way that I know I like the song Knives Out.

None of those work as exact analogies ... but maybe they are helpful.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Suppose I told you, Mac, that I didn't believe that all triangles contained 180 degrees worth of angles. You would be able to show me the error in such a way that I have no choice BUT to believe you.

Now suppose I told you that I didn't believe that if A=B and B=C then A=C. How would you convince me of that?

This is, I guess, a very poor analogy.

What has convinced me? Nothing. I am not convinced or persuaded. The truth is not demonstrated - it simply appears, in the same way that if A=B and B=C then A=C. It appears in the same way that I know I am sad or happy at a given moment. It appears in the same way that I know I like the song Knives Out.

None of those work as exact analogies ... but maybe they are helpful.

But if you rely on this "it simply appears" how do you choose which is true or false with two conflicting situations? For example, in the case of religions, how would you choose between Christianity and Islam? Or doesn't it matter? Is it that the benefit you get from religion renders the particular religion unimportant?

That has often been the answer I've deduced from previous conversations, that the justification is not in its truth but in the benefits that flow from belief.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It appears in the same way that I know I like the song Knives Out.

Now this is something I can believe in.

Have you heard the Flaming Lips piano cover? Very nice.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But if you rely on this "it simply appears" how do you choose which is true or false with two conflicting situations? For example, in the case of religions, how would you choose between Christianity and Islam? Or doesn't it matter? Is it that the benefit you get from religion renders the particular religion unimportant?

That has often been the answer I've deduced from previous conversations, that the justification is not in its truth but in the benefits that flow from belief.

Probably the best answer would be: There is no choice, really. Do you choose to believe that a triangle contains two right angles? Or are you, in some sense, forced to believe that? Knowledge is not chosen for its utility or appeal. If it were chosen, it would be provisional knowledge - which is not really knowledge, its more like a hypothesis. We can't choose to believe that, for example, the Earth is flat. We can try to imagine what it would be like if we believed that - but I don't think its actually possible to hold that as knowledge by choice.

I recognize that there are some problems with this answer, and I don't have easy answers to all of them.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Probably the best answer would be: There is no choice, really. Do you choose to believe that a triangle contains two right angles? Or are you, in some sense, forced to believe that? Knowledge is not chosen for its utility or appeal. If it were chosen, it would be provisional knowledge - which is not really knowledge, its more like a hypothesis. We can't choose to believe that, for example, the Earth is flat. We can try to imagine what it would be like if we believed that - but I don't think its actually possible to hold that as knowledge by choice.

I recognize that there are some problems with this answer, and I don't have easy answers to all of them.

Ok, I think I understand what you're getting at. It's reminiscent of Plato - that truth lies in the mind/intellect/spirit and not from our interaction with the material world (your use of logical truths as examples I imagine has him nodding his head in pleased agreement). Not surprising when Christian theology is essentially the working over of the Jesus story by neoPlatonists.

We differ on what defines "justification". Mine relies on the post-Cartesian idea of reason and empirical evidence (there are other truths but they cannot be known for certain) and yours on the pre-Cartesian idea that truth comes from a deeper, almost instinctive, source within the psyche and the scientific "truths" belong to an inferior, temporary world (heaven being the superior and "real", non-changing world).

Is that getting anywhere close?

Where I have problems with this is that truth on this basis will vary from one person to the next. Not everybody likes Knives Out It certainly explains why some are Christian, others Muslim and so on. But I cannot accept that 'truth" is so subjective. I wonder if you are happy with that.

[st.cronin]

I don't think there's any question of justification in faith. I think I've been consistent in that - I can't justify my belief in the resurrection, and it would be futile to try. It is simply known to me. It is, in a way, its own evidence.

A more complete answer will have to wait til I've had some sleep.

[RedKingGold]

I see a lot of logic attempting to affirm or deny faith.

I say again, attempting to prove/disprove/argue the existence of or lack there of religion by logic will fail.

I really do think it is as simple as, "Can you believe in something that cannot be proven." If so, then you believe in the spagetti monster, as do I.

Those who do not are not wrong, just see the world differently. Similarly, those who do believe in religion see the world differently as well.

[bignej]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I read that in some book and agree with it wholeheartedly. This conversation is pretty deep and I enjoy reading it. If you try to argue with 99% of believers all you get is bible quotes and "you just gotta have faith". Many times in my life I have said that I am sure somethings was true. "I am sure I left the keys on the counter", "I am sure that the patriots will beat the giants in the Superbowl." Many times I have been wrong. It is impossible to be any more "sure" in the existence in any creator short of watching him do it.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by panerd

Richard Dawkins (who most would consider to be the leading spokesperson pushing the athiesm cause) pretty much says that he has no problem with adults holding religous beliefs. He just thinks it is borderline abusive to push religion on little kids. He states how pushing the "believe or burn eternally" system seems to create an awful lot of Christians in America, Muslims in the middle East, Jews in Isreal, etc while you don't see the same percentages in any other area of life.

If you told your 4 year old every Sunday that the only way to salvation was to become a mailman I bet there would be an awful lot of adults later on who are scared to be anything but a mailman.

I still don't know if the borderline abusive motivation rationale strikes me as good enough if everyone is going to be dust. Why not let the religious "abuse" one another if there really is nothing after death? Why does Dawkins care so much about abuse?

This also refers back the other point from the other thread about pushing a mentality on little kids. I know you may not be able to speak for Dawkins, but how is presenting a child with religious beliefs pushing these beliefs on the child? Dawkins might argue that the threat of punishment of some sort is what makes this pushing. But then again, the threat of punishment occurs in the presentation of beliefs about doing what your teacher tells you in school too. Yet, we wouldn't say the teacher is forcing his/her belief about not hitting the kid next to you on you as you sit at your desk.

But in the end, what does it matter if the religious person is doing the belief pushing or if Dawkins is the doing the belief pushing? For the atheist, it seems it's all dust and nothingness once the pulse stops beating. I would like to think that life means more than that.

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

The flaw with assuming that my life in God's view is really a blink of an eye is that if I pray it will not be heard. Assuming there is an omnipotent being out there, time is a non-issue. The other thing is that if no one is innocent and we're all "bad" people, then why do certain things happen to just some "bad" people and not all "bad" people?

I also disagree that how we die doesn't matter that much. I think it's pretty important. I mean come on. If I die in a car wreck because I was driving drunk that's a big difference from dying in a car wreck when I was hit by a drunk driver.

I'm sorry but saying that everything happens for a reason and when bad things happen and God wants us to learn from it is a cop out. I agree that we should learn from bad things, but I don't think that there is some deity out there pulling our strings...that falls into the realm of free will.

Sorry - I didn't make myself clear. Instead of God's eye, let's use our eye, if we consider we have eternal souls. If that is indeed the truth, then the bad events that occur during our lifetime really won't matter than much when we're living 15.2 billion years from now.

I have no idea why certain bad things happen to some people and not others. I'm not sure we can even hope to comprehend the wisdom of all events - they just are. Not the answer you were looking for, I'm sure, but just like the agnostic or atheist, I don't have the answers to everything.

About the way we die - again, didn't make myself clear. I wasn't speaking of the moral repercussions, merely the act of dying. To the eternal soul, I really doubt the method of death would matter that much.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I still don't know if the borderline abusive motivation rationale strikes me as good enough if everyone is going to be dust. Why not let the religious "abuse" one another if there really is nothing after death? Why does Dawkins care so much about abuse?

This also refers back the other point from the other thread about pushing a mentality on little kids. I know you may not be able to speak for Dawkins, but how is presenting a child with religious beliefs pushing these beliefs on the child? Dawkins might argue that the threat of punishment of some sort is what makes this pushing. But then again, the threat of punishment occurs in the presentation of beliefs about doing what your teacher tells you in school too. Yet, we wouldn't say the teacher is forcing his/her belief about not hitting the kid next to you on you as you sit at your desk.

But in the end, what does it matter if the religious person is doing the belief pushing or if Dawkins is the doing the belief pushing? For the atheist, it seems it's all dust and nothingness once the pulse stops beating. I would like to think that life means more than that.

Many people want to take their children to church and school to learn "morality". What Dawkins is referring to is that children will also learn a non-analytical way of thinking. The "believe this because I said so" system. Just paraphrasing what someone said earlier; If you tell a bunch of kids their whole childhood that that they will go to hell unless they become a mailman, they will probably end up becoming a mailman.

Edit: I wanted to add that this I think is very important. My parents ask me if i will raise my daughter to be christian. I said no but when she is older she can believe whatever she wants. Many atheist will tell you the same. Ask any believer what they would do if their children decides it "doesn't make sense" and chooses not to believe. Many of us atheists grew up in religious households.

My mother in law is a extremely devout christian but she is not the coldest beer in the fridge if you know what I mean. She believes just "because" like most Christians. She wants my 2 year old to stay with her for a little while in Texas. I am completely against this for the very same reason Dawkins described. My daughter looks up to her grandmother and will accept whatever she says as truth "just because".

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Why not let the religious "abuse" one another if there really is nothing after death? Why does Dawkins care so much about abuse?

Why do any of us object to child abuse? Atheistic does not mean inhumane.

But Dawkins has another agenda - he wishes to oppose the influence religion has over the lives of all of us even in today's "secular" societies.

how is presenting a child with religious beliefs pushing these beliefs on the child?

If you present to a child repeatedly from the age of, say two, that certain religious views are "true" - at a time when he knows nothing of the difference between faith and fact - then by the age of, say 10, this information is so engraved in his brain that he cannot reasonably conceive of the idea it may not be true. He has been "indoctrinated", "brain-washed", whatever you want to call.

The Jesuits knew this well when they argued that if you gave them a child at birth they could produce whatever character they wanted by the time he became an adult.

Dawkins might argue that the threat of punishment of some sort is what makes this pushing. But then again, the threat of punishment occurs in the presentation of beliefs about doing what your teacher tells you in school too.

The threat of a whack from teacher is not quite the same as the threat of spending the rest of eternity in hell. The Catholic church exerted enormous influence over the monarchs of Europe with the threat of excommunication. It may seem silly to us but it was no laughing matter to them.

it seems it's all dust and nothingness once the pulse stops beating. I would like to think that life means more than that.

Me too. But I'd also "like to think" that I'll win the lottery this weekend. That's no reason to believe it. Right?

[QuikSand]

Just for what it's worth, kudos to just about everyone for keeping this thread quite readable and even-tempered.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Just for what it's worth, kudos to just about everyone for keeping this thread quite readable and even-tempered.

Patronising bastard

[Tekneek]

Here is basically what I think in a nutshell... There is no scientific argument for a God, so there probably isn't one. I tend to be more agnostic than atheist simply because nobody can really know.

However, if one does exist, why should I even give a damn? A "God" that allows people to suffer so awfully, including children born with terminal disease and sickness, is not deserving of any respect or worship. So, even if this "God" does exist, and "Heaven" and "Hell" do exist, I would rather be tormented in this "Hell" forever than pretend that this "God" is wonderful while letting horrible things happen to people who have done no harm to anyone or anything.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Here is basically what I think in a nutshell... There is no scientific argument for a God, so there probably isn't one. I tend to be more agnostic than atheist simply because nobody can really know.

However, if one does exist, why should I even give a damn? A "God" that allows people to suffer so awfully, including children born with terminal disease and sickness, is not deserving of any respect or worship. So, even if this "God" does exist, and "Heaven" and "Hell" do exist, I would rather be tormented in this "Hell" forever than pretend that this "God" is wonderful while letting horrible things happen to people who have done no harm to anyone or anything.

I've definitely had this thought before. And I figured, if there was a god/hell/heaven, clearly he'd know I was full of shit worshiping him, so why even bother.

It's pretty easy for a "god" to seem all great when you give him profound credit no matter what happens. When a child cheats death, everyone's all about him "being alive because of the grace of god". If the child dies in a pointless and awful death, the same people say, "god needed the child in heaven".

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

For the atheist, it seems it's all dust and nothingness once the pulse stops beating. I would like to think that life means more than that.

Life is MORE meaningful when you fully embrace the idea that this is all there is.

I still don't fear death. I think at some point you're tired and want to cash in and take off.

[molson]

One other thing I never understood - if you TRULY believed in god and heaven, why would you spend even a second on something so pointless as a text sim, or at a sporting event, or on a message board. Shouldn't you spend every spare second making sure you're saved, and every other spare second trying to save others? I mean, a lifetime is pretty miniscule compared to eternity, right?

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by molson

One other thing I never understood - if you TRULY believed in god and heaven, why would you spend even a second on something so pointless as a text sim, or at a sporting event, or on a message board. Shouldn't you spend every spare second making sure you're saved, and every other spare second trying to save others? I mean, a lifetime is pretty miniscule compared to eternity, right?

There's a logical argument there that suggests that a sizable number of people will *say* they are true believers, but that their actions make it plain that they don't behave in a way that is at all rational if they *truly* hold the beliefs they claim to hold. Tough to say what this means -- maybe it's people just being more comfortable saying they believe than not, after all atheists rank somewhere right around child molesters and war criminals in general public opinion.

[Mac Howard]

Maybe it's because I'm European/Australian, where religion is far weaker than the US, but I've found that even people who claim to be religious are often open to the possibility that there really is no afterlife and that aspect of religion is not to be taken too seriously. It's not a particularly logical position and I suspect it's a halfway house to atheism that many are prepared to contemplate. I don't think many people go through their every day life thinking about how their behaviour will finally be totted up.

And remember, Catholic dogma specifically rules out our behaviour on earth determining our place in heaven - it's God's Grace (which no one understands) that determines this. Humankind is so riddled with sin that no matter how well we behave we're still crap

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by molson

One other thing I never understood - if you TRULY believed in god and heaven, why would you spend even a second on something so pointless as a text sim, or at a sporting event, or on a message board. Shouldn't you spend every spare second making sure you're saved, and every other spare second trying to save others? I mean, a lifetime is pretty miniscule compared to eternity, right?

If you truly believe that this life is all there is, then why would spend even a second on something so pointless as a text sim, or at a sporting event, or on a message board. Shouldn't a life well lived consist of more than sitting in front of a keyboard arguing on the internet? We only get to do this one time, and you're going to waste your time pretending you're the GM of the San Diego Chargers? Well, not you specifically, but you know what I mean.

[Ajaxab]

Thanks for the reply Mac.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Why do any of us object to child abuse? Atheistic does not mean inhumane.

I'll agree with you there. Atheism may not mean inhumane. But why does the atheist care about what is humane/inhumane? The humane will be dust. The inhumane will be dust.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But Dawkins has another agenda - he wishes to oppose the influence religion has over the lives of all of us even in today's "secular" societies.

I guess the same question applies here. What does it matter if religion has an influence or doesn't have an influence if we'll all just be dust?

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

If you present to a child repeatedly from the age of, say two, that certain religious views are "true" - at a time when he knows nothing of the difference between faith and fact - then by the age of, say 10, this information is so engraved in his brain that he cannot reasonably conceive of the idea it may not be true. He has been "indoctrinated", "brain-washed", whatever you want to call.

That's a fair point. But then I wonder how this is any different from any education a person receives. We are all indoctrinated by our educational system to some extent. But we have all had the chance to challenge this indoctrination as we have gotten older.

Additionally, what of the child who repeatedly hears that there is no god and merely believes what they're told? Why is this child in a different position than the child who has been subjected to religious teaching? Both grow up in environments that shape who they are. Dawkins wants to argue that religious belief is not valid because most religious people grow up in religious homes. Does this mean that if an atheist grows up in an atheistic home that this person's beliefs are not valid? It's a very deterministic argument that doesn't seem to hold up very well.

There's also a buried assumption in this line of reasoning that the religious person never ever examines their beliefs while the atheistic/scientific person is always examining their beliefs. Where is the scientific evidence for this claim (if we follow the atheist in accepting scientific evidence as our primary means of proof)?

But still, for the atheist what does it matter whether a child is indoctrinated or not? I suppose one could say it matters because the child's psychological health is important. But what does it matter if the child's psychological health is important if the child is going to be dust one day? The enlightened will be dust. The psychologically deluded will be dust.

I know I'm belaboring the point a bit, but I'm just trying to understand what motivates the atheistic position.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The Jesuits knew this well when they argued that if you gave them a child at birth they could produce whatever character they wanted by the time he became an adult.

I would say this is flat out Jesuit arrogance.

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The threat of a whack from teacher is not quite the same as the threat of spending the rest of eternity in hell.

I'm with you there. It may not have been a fair analogy. But I don't think this changes whether or not both are forms of imposition or belief pushing (if we agree there is such a thing and I don't think there is).

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Me too. But I'd also "like to think" that I'll win the lottery this weekend. That's no reason to believe it. Right?

I'll definitely agree. Personal preference is no reason to believe. But I think I'd also say that personal preference is also no reason not to believe as well.