posted Apr-17-2006 12:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pigeye:

Finally, I am a little confused at the premise of this discussion. Why is there the tacit assumption that those who would explain the world rationally have thought about it less than those who blindly accept the word of those who wrote the bible? (Or torah, or quran, or <your religious text> ). Can someone explain that for me?

---

The defense is against your presumption that those who follow the bible are irrational and blind.

People that make an attempt at following the moral dictates of the bible cannot be neatly categorized any more than one might categorize a 'scientist'.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 12:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by pigeye:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by colby5402:
[b]Just as in the same vein, those who do not believe in a god think that there is not enough proof for a god to exist...well, you'd hope they came to that conclusion because they really LOOKED. It's an important enough question that it should be researched...because if, in fact, there is a god...well...a lot can hang on the answer to that question.

C

---

Finally, I am a little confused at the premise of this discussion. Why is there the tacit assumption that those who would explain the world rationally have thought about it less than those who blindly accept the word of those who wrote the bible? (Or torah, or quran, or <your religious text> ). Can someone explain that for me?[/B][/QUOTE]

I would hope that my faith does nothing to convince you. I would hope that you looked into it yourself and came to your own conclusion. The important part being, you actually looked in to it...because I think that coming up with an answer after only having looked at one side of the debate is rather irresponsible. But that, of course, is only my opinion.

I'm not sure where the premise came from. And your statement...is it intended to be inflamatory? As in those who are religious are not rational in any way, but just blind? Because that's not helpful to any debate or discussion...I would hope someone as smart as you wouldn't bring this down to a name-calling game...

C

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 12:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cindyleigh:
Because there are 1.3 billion people living in China...the majority of which are atheist, not Taoism not Confucionist not theist. China has a birth rate crisis, despite over a billion atheists.

Are they really atheists? Who knows for sure, as the state suppresses religious practice. It just popped into my mind as an example of a country that suppresses religious practice, the majority of its population practices no religion (in the open)..and it has a population crisis. I don't know about birthrate, as the state also suppresses family planning with its one-child policy.

I can give myself as another example. I'm an atheist, yet I want to have children.

edited to add...the original correlation I referred to was between atheism and childlessness..not birthrate.

[This message has been edited by cindyleigh (edited Apr-17-2006).]

---

Gotcha. I was totally confused since, as you mentioned, it is believed that reported rates of atheism in China are rather inflated. Since it appears fredurie is not going to answer my question on Buddhism, I wanted your opinion as an atheist as to whether or not Taoists, Confucians and the like were actually atheist.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:03 PM            

I don't discount that there could be a harmonious combination of "God" and science but I don't believe in what most Christians point to as their proof of God. The bible.

Faith and proof are 2 different things.

Trying to explain faith in something by offering scientific theory is..well ridiculous.To pick apart someone else's faith by scientific reasoning is a lesson in futility

If you have faith, you're accepting. God parted the Red Sea...Moses turned the Nile into a river of blood. Explaining these events as seismic events or the result of some combination of volcanism and weather is to lessen the miracle.

A person with faith will accept that God did these things. A person without faith will continue to look for explainations.

I'm not saying a person without faith is bad or wrong...there is just a difference.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:03 PM            

One question that came up watching Charlton Heston as Moses (this is how the thread started), is that he spoke with God directly. I read on-line, I can't remember which website, that in the Christianity, Moses is the only human who ever spoke directly with God. Yet doesn't the Pope communicate with God directly? And in the LDS church, isn't the idea that anyone can communicate directly with God? This thread wasn't intended to be inflammatory, I am interested in perspectives other than what I can glean from the internet.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cindyleigh:
This thread has gotten off track, I had not intended it to be a debate about the existence of god...what I am curious about is that, among those that believe in god...even narrower, those that believe in the god of the abrahamic religions...

---

Oh, I know. We're all pretty clear on how this thread ended up this way.

Good luck getting it back on track!

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zapatista:
"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 expressed it clearly. If something in me which can be called religious then it is unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it"

Albert Einstein-The Human Side

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual , and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

The Human Side

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the object of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own- a God in short, who is but a reflection of our own human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

Albert Einstein - NY Times April 19, 1955.

All quoted in Atheist Universe by David Mills page 21.

---

Thanks. Ah, well, I've got more to think about.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by colby5402:
And generally, those who believe in a god of some sort, feel that the evidence for that god is compelling enough to make the judgement that said god exists. Evidence, mind you, is not proof. Just as in a court of law, Amy might produce evidence pointing the finger at a particular culprit (which is different than having a video of the perpetrator commiting the crime ie: proof) drawing a jury of that person's peers to convict because the evidence is compelling enough to draw a conclusion.

C

---

As you say, the evidence may be compelling enough to draw a conclusion for the theistic believer, but that evidence is neither testable nor can it be falsified. Such evidence in support of religion of all stripes does not fall under the empirical umbrella. Then is not such evidence a matter of faith? And I am not spurning the faithful, and in fact admire many. But the "compelling evidence" cannot be falsified nor measured.

My take is Wittgensteinian. Science ("empirical evidence") and religion are independent with very different goals, so different that they cannot judge the merits of one another. Religious views cannot be justified from the standpoint of science (that empirical evidence again), and it's equally silly to explain the theories of quantum mechanics from a religious point of view.

------------------
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cindyleigh:
This thread has gotten off track, I had not intended it to be a debate about the existence of god...

---

Heh. It's a theological random walk with about 21 degrees of freedom.

------------------
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

[This message has been edited by CharlesRiverBlowfish (edited Apr-17-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:19 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zapatista:
"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 expressed it clearly. If something in me which can be called religious then it is unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as science can reveal it"

Albert Einstein-The Human Side

"I do not believe in the immortality of the individual , and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

The Human Side

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the object of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own- a God in short, who is but a reflection of our own human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."

Albert Einstein - NY Times April 19, 1955.

All quoted in Atheist Universe by David Mills page 21.

---

Ok...Einstein's statements aside, his thoery pointed out that there was a Big Bang. Now, what caused the Big Bang?

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by cindyleigh:
This thread has gotten off track, I had not intended it to be a debate about the existence of god...what I am curious about is that, among those that believe in god...even narrower, those that believe in the god of the abrahamic religions...what is it that steers you towards your particular affiliation? Or even narrower, among Christians, towards your particular denomination?

---

quote:

---

Is it a given that Lutherans recognize that Presbyterians worship the believe in the same god?

---

quote:

---

Are the breaks merely political and geographical breaks?

---

quote:

---

What is the connectedness among the denominations?

---

quote:

---

One question that came up watching Charlton Heston as Moses (this is how the thread started), is that he spoke with God directly. I read on-line, I can't remember which website, that in the Christianity, Moses is the only human who ever spoke directly with God. Yet doesn't the Pope communicate with God directly? And in the LDS church, isn't the idea that anyone can communicate directly with God??

---

Not sure that's what you're after, but maybe...

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CharlesRiverBlowfish:
As you say, the evidence may be compelling enough to draw a conclusion for the theistic believer, but that evidence is neither testable nor can it be falsified. Such evidence in support of religion of all stripes does not fall under the empirical umbrella. Then is not such evidence a matter of faith? And I am not spurning the faithful, and in fact admire many. But the "compelling evidence" cannot be falsified nor measured.

My take is Wittgensteinian. Science ("empirical evidence") and religion are independent with very different goals, so different that they cannot judge the merits of one another. Religious views cannot be justified from the standpoint of science (that empirical evidence again), and it's equally silly to explain the theories of quantum mechanics from a religious point of view.

---

A very pretty way of saying: apples and oranges.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by colby5402:
For example: Why are people motivated to do any selfless act if there is no God who implanted a desire that is contrary to survival of the fittest? Selflessness does not help you survive...unless, of course, you're Terry and have the idol in Survivor or something...but even then, it's not motivated by a pure heart.)

---

But what it leaves out are the steps that get you from "unexplained apparently purposeless human phenomena" to "God". I have a deep faith in the goodness of human beings, our potential for compassionate living, and our mission to live that compassion as fully as possible. But the question of where that comes from is irrelevant to me. Maybe you're right, it's a god of some sort, or maybe the Buddhists are right, and it's just us. The answer to that question doesn't really affect how I act in the world. It doesn't have any effect on my underlying belief in our basic nature.

Moreover, the evidence is very strong that people get very caught up in the stories that seem to explain the phenomena, giving great weight to which story is The Right One. And there is strong evidence, as well, that the obsession with the rightness of the story leads to all sorts of conflict, strife and war.

Which is all the more striking when you realize that pretty much every religion agrees on the underlying phenomena they're seeking to explain: people are inherently compassionate, but life distracts them from living out that compassionate potential, and we need to find a way to live compassionately despite the distracions. The stories of religion try to inspire people back to their natural compassion. But when you focus on the stories too much (my religion is right and yours is wrong), you are just adding one more distraction from the compassion. Hence the extraordinary irony of a church-goer complaining about how many people were at church yesterday.

So why get all bogged down in the stories in the first place? Maybe unknowability in this context is good thing. Stop seeking to explain why you believe people are good and should work to live that goodness on a daily and hourly basis. Just do it.

That's what I choose to believe. And my belief is clearly a choice. It's about choosing a story you find most compelling. This is the story that I have (thus far) found most compelling.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:32 PM            

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by makeda:
CRB is so damn smart it gives me goosebumps!

---

Oooooh, are we heading into cuddle party territory!?

------------------
Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by makeda:
CRB is so damn smart it gives me goosebumps!

---

It feels more like xylocaine to me.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by CharlesRiverBlowfish:
Oooooh, are we heading into cuddle party territory!?

---

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:03 PM               

Desdemonia, the Greeks called it--"awe of spirits."

That there is something trans-physical, most are willing to wager. But an inborn sense of human wonderment at what may be "out there," unfortunately, is just as liable to being manipulated in a destructive direction as it is a constructive one.

What I've haven't seen enough of, though, is godlikeness in the adherants of any religion--by that, I don't mean simply a sweet disposition; I mean, the ability to create ex nihilo, the ability to rule over powerful natural forces, the ability to supercede natural limitations. The Power of Resurrection--I haven't seen much of that.

Notice I said "much," for I have seen glimmers of it "through a glass darkly." I've felt it tugging at me like a magnet, like an inaudible clarion call, saying, "Come up hither and I will show thee things which must be hereafter."

And so, as William Blake put it so well, "I will not cease from mental fight" until I have seen with my eyes the fulfilment of that Mystery, that Potentiality-Yet-To-Be-Displayed: Christ in me, the Hope of Glory (Colossians 1:27).

Thus saith the Ray.

[This message has been edited by Ray Andrews (edited Apr-17-2006).]

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diane95:
[QUOTE]Colby - I find this a really interesting line of thought, especially since it starts from a sort of strict constructionist version of evolution, which is intriguing on its own account.

But what it leaves out are the steps that get you from "unexplained apparently purposeless human phenomena" to "God". I have a deep faith in the goodness of human beings, our potential for compassionate living, and our mission to live that compassion as fully as possible. But the question of where that comes from is irrelevant to me. Maybe you're right, it's a god of some sort, or maybe the Buddhists are right, and it's just us. The answer to that question doesn't really affect how I act in the world. It doesn't have any effect on my underlying belief in our basic nature.

Moreover, the evidence is very strong that people get very caught up in the stories that seem to explain the phenomena, giving great weight to which story is The Right One. And there is strong evidence, as well, that the obsession with the rightness of the story leads to all sorts of conflict, strife and war.

Which is all the more striking when you realize that pretty much every religion agrees on the underlying phenomena they're seeking to explain: people are inherently compassionate, but life distracts them from living out that compassionate potential, and we need to find a way to live compassionately despite the distracions. The stories of religion try to inspire people back to their natural compassion. But when you focus on the stories too much (my religion is right and yours is wrong), you are just adding one more distraction from the compassion. Hence the extraordinary irony of a church-goer complaining about how many people were at church yesterday.

So why get all bogged down in the stories in the first place? Maybe unknowability in this context is good thing. Stop seeking to explain why you believe people are good and should work to live that goodness on a daily and hourly basis. Just do it.

That's what I choose to believe. And my belief is clearly a choice. It's about choosing a story you find most compelling. This is the story that I have (thus far) found most compelling.

---

Maybe one of the stories is right. And that could have an eternal impact. I'd rather try and figure out for myself if it IS right and know that I've made the best decision I can based on what I've found out. Wouldn't you?

Just do it? That makes no sense at all. We don't ever JUST do anything.

I believe that each and every human being is created in the image of God. This belief compells me to behave in such a way as to honor them and cherish them as valued pieces of His handiwork. If we are created in God's image, that would explain the goodness that we see in people, regardless of their religion. They all have traces of God's paintbrush in them...That begs the question: Where does evil come from? Well, from our humanness. The fact that we aren't God, and that He does allow us to choose our own behaviour...and that God has opposition to whom we give ear.

If others believe that we are just a construct of our genetic framework and we're bound by those genes to be what we'll be...then...where do "good" and "evil" come in? How can you even CHOOSE to be good, when your genes are in control of you? Why are some things deemed "evil" when they could, conceivably, be deemed as natural selection at work? (ie: the book supporting rape as a "OK thing" since it's just the urge to pass on our genetics...)

The answer to the question of where goodness comes from will definitely affect how I behave. If it's just genetics, and humankind...well, I can write off my bad behaviour really easily. But my good behaviour is then difficult to explain, unless, of course, it is in my own interest. In which case, it's not really good behaviour, it's just manipulative. If goodness comes from outside of me...well, I'd like to find out more about that...

In any case, good for you for finding a story you find compelling. I hope you haven't settled, though, and will listen to other stories...just in case they may have a kernel of wisdom or knowledge or even truth that you can take with you. That's what I hope to do, too.

C

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by colby5402:
Maybe one of the stories is right. And that could have an eternal impact. I'd rather try and figure out for myself if it IS right and know that I've made the best decision I can based on what I've found out. Wouldn't you?

Just do it? That makes no sense at all. We don't ever JUST do anything.

I believe that each and every human being is created in the image of God. This belief compells me to behave in such a way as to honor them and cherish them as valued pieces of His handiwork. If we are created in God's image, that would explain the goodness that we see in people, regardless of their religion. They all have traces of God's paintbrush in them...That begs the question: Where does evil come from? Well, from our humanness. The fact that we aren't God, and that He does allow us to choose our own behaviour...and that God has opposition to whom we give ear.

If others believe that we are just a construct of our genetic framework and we're bound by those genes to be what we'll be...then...where do "good" and "evil" come in? How can you even CHOOSE to be good, when your genes are in control of you? Why are some things deemed "evil" when they could, conceivably, be deemed as natural selection at work? (ie: the book supporting rape as a "OK thing" since it's just the urge to pass on our genetics...)

The answer to the question of where goodness comes from will definitely affect how I behave. If it's just genetics, and humankind...well, I can write off my bad behaviour really easily. But my good behaviour is then difficult to explain, unless, of course, it is in my own interest. In which case, it's not really good behaviour, it's just manipulative. If goodness comes from outside of me...well, I'd like to find out more about that...

In any case, good for you for finding a story you find compelling. I hope you haven't settled, though, and will listen to other stories...just in case they may have a kernel of wisdom or knowledge or even truth that you can take with you. That's what I hope to do, too.

C

---

You also seem to think that the only alternative to doing something because God commands it, is doing anything at all, with no moral compass whatsoever. I disagree with you there too. I would warrant that my faith in my idea of what's the right path is as strong as yours. "God" just doesn't happen to be a part of that path.

In one way, that makes it tougher for me to communicate what does motivate me -- I'm left with some version of "because it's the right thing to do." That's just so much verbiage to you, perhaps, but maybe resonates with others. Same thing with the God stories -- makes sense to you, but sounds like fiction to me. MLK, Jr. is a lot more inspriational to me than Jesus, because he was real and human and flawed.

In the end, as a Christian, do you really care why I act the way I do, or just that I do it? If I follow generally Christian principles without believing in the divinity of Jesus, how does that diminish your life, my life or humanity? (I mean that question sincerely -- it's one of the pieces of Christianity that I don't really understand.)

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by torque:
Ok...Einstein's statements aside, his thoery pointed out that there was a Big Bang. Now, what caused the Big Bang?

---

Can't tell you. I wasn't around 13 billion years ago.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by CheryG:
A fun test for ya'll!
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

---

I took the test. I got a factor of 1.0. Ha!

quote:

---

Korts- I think that in addition to the drive to reproduce, we have been hardwired through evolution to have faith. The communities/societies with faith to bind them together were more successful than others. (United we stand, divided we fall and all that cr@p)

---

I agree with you. What continually amazes me is that folks whom I consider bright and educated, as often as not seem to be religious. I can't quite get my arms around it. There must be something there.

quote:

---

You should google "sleep paralysis". When experiencing sleep paralysis, people often report feelings of an evil being present in the room, sometimes sitting on their chest. I've had it happen, and it is an incredibly powerful feeling indeed, and is the only thing that has ever shaken my "belief" in the non-existence of the supernatural. In the end, it turned out to be just a blip of the mind during an improper awakening. I feel that the emotion of faith is a similar situation- it's just something in the mind.

---

I've had this happen, too. I thought I was having an out-of-body experience. It was something else!

quote:

---

As Torque mentioned about the world being flat, I feel that there is so little known about the human mind. It's hardly romantic to have our emotions broken down to simple chemical reactions, as in the programmed oxytocin rush of seeing an infant's face, but often the truth is not romantic.

---

True. I'll always wonder, though.

CheryG, you are a smarty pants! Thanks for the insightful post.

------------------
korts
Me

There's a sandwich in every beer.

"I bet your sink puts your vaginal hygiene in the shade." - muscatel1988

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:34 PM            

I find the different directions the practice of Christianity has evolved confusion and fascinating. I wonder if it is because the word of god has been rewritten so many times and in so many versions...whereas in Islam the Qu'ran is the word..or has that been rewritten as well? There are Sunni and Shia.

What bible versions do the different denominations use? I know of the Old Testament, which I believe some think was written by Moses guided by God, others believe it was written by a group of elders over a few centuries. What about the New Testament?

Is there mention of Mohammad in the New Testament? I've read that in Islam there is recognition of Christ as a prophet.

Many questions.

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diane95:
[QUOTE]
You seem to think that the only alternative to belief in the divine origins of human goodness is "just genetics". I don't. I think there is a whole heck of a lot of the human experience that is unexplained by science. That doesn't mean it's supernatural. Just unexplained, maybe even unknowable.

You also seem to think that the only alternative to doing something because God commands it, is doing anything at all, with no moral compass whatsoever. I disagree with you there too. I would warrant that my faith in my idea of what's the right path is as strong as yours. "God" just doesn't happen to be a part of that path.

In one way, that makes it tougher for me to communicate what does motivate me -- I'm left with some version of "because it's the right thing to do." That's just so much verbiage to you, perhaps, but maybe resonates with others. Same thing with the God stories -- makes sense to you, but sounds like fiction to me. MLK, Jr. is a lot more inspriational to me than Jesus, because he was real and human and flawed.

In the end, as a Christian, do you really care why I act the way I do, or just that I do it? If I follow generally Christian principles without believing in the divinity of Jesus, how does that diminish your life, my life or humanity? (I mean that question sincerely -- it's one of the pieces of Christianity that I don't really understand.)

---

If it's not "just genetics" then is there a free will above genetics that allows you to choose what you want to do and be? If so...where'd that come from? I'd like to know, personally, and since science hasn't got an answer for that, I'll figure it out using other methods.

No, I don't think those things. But, what's the POINT of a moral compass, though, apart from God? Why would anyone do anything except out of self-interest?

And yes, I do care why you act the way you do. It explains who you are! Your motivation is much more important than the action itself. "Better a wound from a friend than a kiss from an enemy."

It doesn't diminish my life, or humanity in general. But it directly affects yours and what becomes of you. If I truly value you as I should, because you are part of God's great creation, and I don't care...well...I don't really believe what I say I do. The fact of the matter is, I DO care...that's why I'm expounding on what I believe.

C

IP: Logged

posted Apr-17-2006 02:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by maryk:
We're not talking about faith, though. We're talking about why someone would choose to have faith. Or not.

---

That's a whole 'nuther thread. I'd love to be able to choose to have faith. It is not a choice for me, any more than choosing to be a genius or a world-class athlete. I think that faith is something that some people are simply good at, and others not so good. I am "faith-challenged".

------------------
korts
Me

There's a sandwich in every beer.

"I bet your sink puts your vaginal hygiene in the shade." - muscatel1988

IP: Logged