So you believe in Big Sky Daddy. Okay, what next?

[sackett]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there? What have you accomplished? What can you learn further? What have you explained?

Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you.

[KingMerv00]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there? What have you accomplished? What can you learn further? What have you explained?

Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you.

In the spirit of plumjam:

I immediately go crazy and torture people who believe differently?

[Sefarst]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there? What have you accomplished? What can you learn further? What have you explained?

Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you.
Praying to and worshipping my ceiling would make more sense and worshipping any God. My ceiling has done way more to protect me than any deity has.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I know a girl named Montana, and yes, she has a father.

[Safe-Keeper]

And how can you be moral as a theist? If Scripture can be subjectively interpreted, what's to stop me from going on a murder spree because that's how I interpret the Bible?

Look at atheistic Iceland and Canada, how peaceful and loving the people there are. If you put 10 000 atheist moms in a room and start torturing babies, they'll be outraged! Now compare it to the brutality of the child-sacrificing Aztec Quezacotl-worshipers or the horrors of the theist Inquisition. Nah... clearly atheism is the way to go.

[kosai]

Praying to and worshipping my ceiling would make more sense and worshipping any God. My ceiling has done way more to protect me than any deity has.

I've gotta agree with this... I would put everything in this world that I know exists on my "worship list" above that which I'm unconvinced of.

[Safe-Keeper]

And how can you be moral as a theist? If Scripture can be subjectively interpreted, what's to stop me from going on a murder spree because that's how I interpret the Bible?

Look at atheistic Iceland and Canada, how peaceful and loving the people there are. If you put 10 000 atheist moms in a room and start torturing babies, they'll be outraged! Now compare it to the brutality of the child-sacrificing Aztec Quezacotl-worshipers or the horrors of the theist Inquisition. Nah... clearly atheism is the way to go.

[Phil]

I know a girl named Montana, and yes, she has a father.


That would be Big Sky Country Daddy.

[KingMerv00]

Double post.

[Suddenly]

Just as I thought. Empty.

[Marquis de Carabas]

That would be Big Sky Country Daddy.
Didn't you direct that film? I loved the camera angles in the DP scenes.

[Phil]

Didn't you direct that film? I loved the camera angles in the DP scenes.


Thanks, and you were a sport to be the receiver of the DP.

[KingMerv00]

Just as I thought. Empty.

???

[sackett]

Now all you damned atheists* just get off this thread. I want believers to reply.





* Damned atheists. Heh, pretty good. Eh?

[Suddenly]

???

More negativity. Just as I suspected.

[Darth Rotor]

So you believe in Big Sky Daddy. Okay, what next?

Next, I go home and have a pint of Guinness.

It's Friday.

We might even have fish for dinner, depends on if the Missus defrosted the cod we have in the freezer. If not, odds are I'll whip up bratwurst, sauerkraut, and a batch of basil and butter sauteed carrots.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

And how can you be moral as a theist?
Easy. I do it all the time. Be moral.

It's not as hard as people might imagine.

Why do you think one can't be moral as a theist?

DR

[KingMerv00]

More negativity. Just as I suspected.

I can't speak for others but my negativity is aimed at plumjam, not theists.

[KingMerv00]

Easy. I do it all the time. Be moral.

It's not as hard as people might imagine.

Why do you think one can't be moral as a theist?

DR

I think he is parodying plumjam.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Hmmm... I seem to have answered this in alternate universe. Allow me to give it another go.

Hi
I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there?
It depends on what it is the who upon whom you settle wants.

If you're one of those (and I am, although none of the established Ones of Thoses will claim me) my particular Big Sky Daddy wants me love him. It's pretty easy, because, from my point of view, he's pretty lovable.

He also wants me to think about what I do, think about how it effects AND affects others, and how to dovetail what I need into what others need for the greatest good to all involved.

It's encapsulated in that, "Love Big Sky Daddy with all your garbanzos, and love your neighbor in the same way, and about as much as, you love yourself," bit.
What have you accomplished? What can you learn further? What have you explained?
Accomplished: Not much. By settling on my particular Big Sky Daddy, I've enlisted into service to all the people I meet, and all the people THEY meet. I've dedicated myself to expending the time, strength and resources that Big Sky Daddy... drat - that's just too long - I'm just going to say The Boss, Ok? - The Boss has given me to do what He wants.

That means a lot of stuff like pushing stalled cars out of busy streets, jumping battery-dead cars in the snow and rain, buying flowers for someone that looks unhappy at the gas station, or talking to a crying girl on the train.

It also means lending what aid I can to my friends, either with comfort and friendship or with material help like food, money or the loan of my car.

I guess, when you get right down to it, all I've done is to make a WHOLE LOT more work for myself.

What can I learn further? I can learn, and HAVE to learn, what The Boss wants, and then to remember that it is almost always different from what other people SAY The Boss wants.

Some say, "send your money to God, and He will return it TWENTY FOLD!" The Boss says that he wants my money to go to the poor, the abandoned and the starving, and what I get back from it will be wonderful. I can find poor, abandoned and starving within driving distance, so that's where MY money goes. Knowing compassion from, "expansion of our ministry," is very close to the first thing.

Some say, "BEHOLD God's HEALING POWER!" then whack someone unconscious on TV. The Boss sends healing where healing is due and proper, and doesn't knock people out on TV to do it... Oops - breaking one of my own rules: "Never say what The Boss does or doesn't do, for He is a SLIPPERY Boss and will do what He wants in the way He wants." Anyhow - He RARELY knocks people out on TV, and knowing healing from entertainment... and entertainment from advertising... is right up on that list of stuff I can learn.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that The Boss wants me to think critically about what He wants. Along with that, "love with all your garbanzos," bit. It's hard getting ALL my garbanzos together, so that's something else I have to learn - where the garbanzos are, and how best to direct them.

What have I explained? Nothing. I've reported for duty then followed orders to the best of my ability, then when I've been exhausted, I've requisitioned extra strength and determination and ability from The Boss, then kept following orders.

The Boss gives me marching orders and the tools I'll need to follow those orders. I just use the tools. No excuses. No explanations.
Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you.
Well - since my ceiling DOES, in fact, keep me, and since before The Boss and I reached our current employment agreement, I frequently didn't HAVE a roof, I'm just saying, "thanks."

As for blessing: He provides tools, and tools are often heavy, so I'm currently carrying quite a load. One more blessing, and I suspect I'll need a wheelchair to move around at all, so my prayer... my FERVENT prayer... is to be allowed to do the work He wants me to do with the tools currently on hand.

Bottom line, I guess: I believe that The boss has a plan for me, and I believe that plan means buttloadinous amounts of extra work and responsibility. I'm looking forward to the retirement package, but I'm in no rush to get there as long as there's still work to do.

As for the rest... well... I believe in God, and I trust his promises.
EVERYONE ELSE is subject to double-blind, placebo-controlled testing.

....

:D Hey! YOU ASKED!! If you don't want the long answers, don't ask the big questions. :D

[Olowkow]

Praying to and worshipping my ceiling would make more sense and worshipping any God. My ceiling has done way more to protect me than any deity has.


Now that I'm an acielingist, what's next?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2087847a3bb456835a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10537)

[Free Thinkr]

And how can you be moral as a theist? If Scripture can be subjectively interpreted, what's to stop me from going on a murder spree because that's how I interpret the Bible?

Look at atheistic Iceland and Canada, how peaceful and loving the people there are. If you put 10 000 atheist moms in a room and start torturing babies, they'll be outraged! Now compare it to the brutality of the child-sacrificing Aztec Quezacotl-worshipers or the horrors of the theist Inquisition. Nah... clearly atheism is the way to go.
That was awesome.

[Safe-Keeper]

Easy. I do it all the time. Be moral.

It's not as hard as people might imagine.

Why do you think one can't be moral as a theist?

DRAs was said, yes, I was making a parody of plumjam. No worries, mate, I know lots of good theists.

[SirPhilip]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there? What have you accomplished? What can you learn further? What have you explained? Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you. Oh really.

[Redtail]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there?

Wherever I decide to

What have you accomplished?I don't see the believing part as accomplishing anything.

What can you learn further?Whatever I choose to learn.

What have you explained? That I believe in a god/ess of sorts. It's a personal belief. Unless asked I keep it to myself.

Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you.

Ok.

[Darth Rotor]

Now that I'm an acielingist, what's next?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2087847a3bb456835a.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10537)
Become a cunnilinguist. Seems a natural progression. Rumor is that chicks dig it, so you might have some serious up side.

:duck:

(Love the coffe cup pic. Nice touch. :) )

DR

[ntropy]

To the theists, what are the qualities of your God(s)?

[Redtail]

To the theists, what are the qualities of your God(s)?

Do you mean what they expect from us, the rules, etc..?

[Akhenaten]

To the theists, what are the qualities of your God(s)?

Big, hot and really, really bright. Brings life to the Earth. Only present during daylight so nights are free for sinnin'. No supernatural powers.

[KingMerv00]

Do you mean what they expect from us, the rules, etc..?

Well if you can't identify ANY of the qualities of a deity, you have to reason to believe, let alone worship.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That would be Big Sky Country Daddy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-SDmIAJVYo

~~ Paul

[Darth Rotor]

To the theists, what are the qualities of your God(s)?
1. More worthy of respect than you.

Hmm, look over there, beer. Think I'll go have some.

DR

[plumjam]

1. More worthy of respect than you.

Hmm, look over there, beer. Think I'll go have some.

DR

DR, as ever, in things Theistic you are spot on

(amusing too)

By now I must be seeming to you a bit of a sycophant. But hopefully in the final reckoning the scorecards will not show it to be the case.

One Eutopian day you and I will combine our theos-given powers to smite the resistance into an even more closed-minded cocked hat.

Ahh... blisss ;)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

DR, as ever, in things Theistic you are spot on

(amusing too)

By now I must be seeming to you a bit of a sycophant. But hopefully in the final reckoning the scorecards will not show it to be the case.

One Eutopian day you and I will combine our theos-given powers to smite the resistance into an even more closed-minded cocked hat.

Ahh... blisss ;)

WTF?

[Darth Rotor]

DR, as ever, in things Theistic you are spot on

(amusing too)

By now I must be seeming to you a bit of a sycophant. But hopefully in the final reckoning the scorecards will not show it to be the case.

One Eutopian day you and I will combine our theos-given powers to smite the resistance into an even more closed-minded cocked hat.

Ahh... blisss ;)
I'll settle for a few Guinness.

More likely to happen, since on the internet, as in war and politics, the outcome is never final. :cool:

DR

[bruto]

And how can you be moral as a theist? If Scripture can be subjectively interpreted, what's to stop me from going on a murder spree because that's how I interpret the Bible?

The same thing that stops atheists from going on murder sprees, I would suppose.

If you can't find a better argument against theism than that, you'd better throw in the towel.

[Safe-Keeper]

If you can't find a better argument against theism than that, you'd better throw in the towel.I think my humor is too dry for this world:boggled:. As I said already, I was making a parody of the classic fundie 'if God's not real and morals are everchanging, what's to stop you from deciding murder sprees are OK?'.

In fact (for whoever's not up-to-date on current threads in this forum), the thread OP, too, seems to be a parody of plumjam's 'so you don't believe in gods - what now?' thread.

[Redtail]

Well if you can't identify ANY of the qualities of a deity, you have to reason to believe, let alone worship.

I'm guessing you mean "no reason to believe". (Not an attack btw I've just heard an argument saying you have to use reason to believe.) I just wanted to make sure what was wanted because I like the idea that god has a silly sense of humor and would appear as a duck billed platypus. Not really informative.

[ntropy]

Redtail, are you going to answer the question or continue squirming?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seems theist answers are not forthcoming. Per usual.

[El Greco]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there?

I don't know about the other Gods, but believing in Zeus means you can justify a lot of despicable pagan habits like taking the form of a bull and raping virgins, cheating on your wife with your daughter (or son) and doing terrible things to your enemies. All huge pluses in my book.

[Akhenaten]

I don't know about the other Gods, but believing in Zeus means you can justify a lot of despicable pagan habits like taking the form of a bull and raping virgins, cheating on your wife with your daughter (or son) and doing terrible things to your enemies. All huge pluses in my book.

By golly, you're right! From now on for me it's the Aten during the day and Zeus at night. The whole Alpha-Omega, so to speak. :)

[SirPhilip]

I don't know about the other Gods, but believing in Zeus means you can justify a lot of despicable pagan habits like taking the form of a bull and raping virgins, cheating on your wife with your daughter (or son) and doing terrible things to your enemies. All huge pluses in my book. In all fairness, the character of Zeus would have likely disapproved. Although it's very easy to lampoon Christians these days, the actual intention underneath the liturgy, ritual and metaphor was a humanization of the concept of God, and the crusades were a direct implication of that.

Even if 'divinely inspired', it was intentionally imperfect, and human nature being what it is also followed suit. Water seeks it's own level, and as we observe so often, amoral people always find ways to justify iniquity. The clergy, if they administer themselves 'reasonable', even have to assume this was intentional. Look at Iran's collective madness - they have no recognition of right or wrong even as it applies to common law. The middle east largely resembles the less poetic parts of Dante's inferno.

[AmyWilson]

Yeah, God forbid people look around existence and assume it couldn't have gotten there by itself.

[cyborg]

Yeah, meta-God forbid people look around existence and assume God couldn't have gotten there by itself.

[devnull]

Yeah, meta-meta-God forbid people look around existence and assume meta-God couldn't have gotten there by itself.

[Alice Shortcake]

Does anyone else cringe when they see the words "Critical thinker" under Amy Wilson's name?

[Tricky]

Easy. I do it all the time. Be moral.

It's not as hard as people might imagine.

Why do you think one can't be moral as a theist?

I'm not saying that at all. Of course there are many moral theists. I'm not saying any individual theist is immoral. It's just the ontogeny of your morality that leads to immoral systems. You see, there is no innate morality in religion. It all derives from some bit of dogma or scriptural text. It is not based on empathy or greater good or any of the things that atheists base their morality on.

So while some theists may naturally feel empathy or want greater good, it is not the natural direction of their teachings. I'm very glad that many theists do eventually come to morality in spite of their dogma. It's just that they have a general influence is in the direction to be immoral than atheists.
And yes, of course it's satire, particularly post 20 in his "so you're an atheist" thread

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not saying that at all. Of course there are many moral theists. I'm not saying any individual theist is immoral. It's just the ontogeny of your morality that leads to immoral systems. You see, there is no innate morality in religion. It all derives from some bit of dogma or scriptural text. It is not based on empathy or greater good or any of the things that atheists base their morality on.
I see. The Atheist Bible is printed in invisible ink, so I can't read it.

Love thy neighbor as thyself is thus faux morality.

Got it. ;)

This thread is fun.

Hey, SG, this is a parody thread. Lighten up. :D

DR

[bruto]

I think my humor is too dry for this world:boggled:. As I said already, I was making a parody of the classic fundie 'if God's not real and morals are everchanging, what's to stop you from deciding murder sprees are OK?'.

In fact (for whoever's not up-to-date on current threads in this forum), the thread OP, too, seems to be a parody of plumjam's 'so you don't believe in gods - what now?' thread.Sorry I was a little dense last night. I guess you can say your parody worked.

[ntropy]

1. More worthy of respect than you.

Hmm, look over there, beer. Think I'll go have some.

DR
I'm sure he/she/It/they contain an infinitely greater amount of respect than me, but that doesn't answer the question. If you find difficulty in answering the question, then remain silent.

[ntropy]

DR, as ever, in things Theistic you are spot on

(amusing too)

By now I must be seeming to you a bit of a sycophant. But hopefully in the final reckoning the scorecards will not show it to be the case.

One Eutopian day you and I will combine our theos-given powers to smite the resistance into an even more closed-minded cocked hat.

Ahh... blisss ;)
Translation: I don't know how to answer that question either.

[Safe-Keeper]

Sorry I was a little dense last night. I guess you can say your parody worked.No problem, mate :).

[Darth Rotor]

I'm sure he/she/It/they contain an infinitely greater amount of respect than me, but that doesn't answer the question. If you find difficulty in answering the question, then remain silent.
Hooray, another self important chapeau du derriere to play with. Now that Ion is gone, it's nice to have a suitable substitute.

While I am at it, numb nuts, see my first reply to that fine gentleman called sackett. That is called "a reply."

DR

[Tricky]

Hooray, another self important chapeau du derriere to play with. Now that Ion is gone, it's nice to have a suitable substitute.

While I am at it, numb nuts, see my first reply to that fine gentleman called sackett. That is called "a reply."
Tsk tsk, Darth. Such behavior for an administrator (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105387)!

[Darth Rotor]

Tsk tsk, Darth. Such behavior for an administrator (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105387)!
Oh dear, I shall skate off to the penalty box.

Two minute minor. :(

DR

[Tricky]

Oh dear, I shall skate off to the penalty box.

Two minute minor. :(
On a skeptic board where research and providing references are considered laudable, nobody ever gets a penalty for cross-checking.

[ntropy]

Hooray, another self important chapeau du derriere to play with. Now that Ion is gone, it's nice to have a suitable substitute.

While I am at it, numb nuts, see my first reply to that fine gentleman called sackett. That is called "a reply."

DR
Still avoiding the question. I'm not asking for evidence (that would doom the inquiry from the start), just tell me sincerely: what are the qualities of your God(s)? Sackett didn't ask this question--or have I misread?

And please resist insults and digressions.

[dglas]

Hmmm. This is kinda neat.

Lessee. Now that I'm a theist, I can be certain that God is the ultimate moral authority. Well, okay, to be honest, I cannot be certain, but I have to assume I can be. Otherwise, there's not much point in being a theist, now is there? I'll just have to act confidently and that'll be enough. I'll just not think about it. That works. If I say it often enough, even I'll believe it.

Now, how do I access this Divine knowledge? Luckily I have a couple of choices. I must assume that God has given me something to work with, so either this Bible tells me what's good or my capacity for "conscience" gives me access.

Either way, I can be absolutely confident that I will be in the Right because I have THE absolute authority at my disposal and that is so seriously cool!

Okay, I've got this Bible thingy. It is either, the inerrant direct word of God (Woot! That would be easy!) or it isn't (in which case, I suppose, the stuff in it expresses inerrant Truth by means of metaphor or some such). All I have to do is interpret properly.

Hmmm. I tried telling everyone that it was the inerrant word of God, but no one would believe me. All those damn unbelievers pointing out these contradiction things and such. And frankly those guys who claim it is the inerrant literal word of God are sooooo embarrassing... Half the time they can't decide whether we should be killing or not, whether slavery is good or not, or whether God defines Good or Good defines God or ... it's all so confusing.

So it's a matter of interpretation is it? So be it. Wait a minute. Revelation time! I've got this thing called a conscience that gives me direct internal access to the will of God. Now, I don't need the Bible to be literal Truth anymore, because I have conscience to interpret the metaphors and such correctly.

So let's check out this "conscience" thing. The way I feel about something is a reliable indicator of whether something is Right or not, because my conscience is a direct hotline to God, and of course, God wouldn't deceive me, because he's, like, Good and stuff, and I'm a faithful theist. Cool. Why are these atheist types arguing with me about this? Can't they see that my conscience has to be Right? What's wrong with them? No matter, I am Right and they are denying the word of God, so they can be ignored.

What the hell? How did we get blindsided by this "science" stuff? They're saying that they're discovering that a lot of what we thought was right is wrong, and the reason they are able to learn things the way they do is because they use this "verification" nonsense and it doesn't respect the authority of conscience. It's all changing so fast! TVs, medicine, computers, airplanes, satellite communications, space probes. Oh my God! I can't keep up. They're saying we can figure things out on our own...that we don't need God anymore.

It's ... it's okay... isn't it? I mean the end of times will vindicate me, right? Right?

Why are they laughing at me....?

(There. That was my poop-fizz at an indefensible mindset).

Oh, and Win Powerball!!

[Matt the Poet]

Ntropy’s question is quite incredibly valid, and I’ve never seen a theist answer it properly.

I’ve a more strongly phrased version, and would be interested in any answers. How do you, theists, know that your god is not, measured by your own standards, evil? How do you know that every minute you spend not killing babies contributes to the time you’ll be spending in the hell reserved for old-lady helping, charity-giving mofos like yourselves?

[sackett]

... the thread OP, too, seems to be a parody of plumjam's 'so you don't believe in gods - what now?' thread.

Thank you, Jeezuss! Somebody got it!

*My* humor seems to be too broad for most people, if that's possible.

[Darth Rotor]

I’ve a more strongly phrased version, and would be interested in any answers. How do you, theists, know that your god is not, measured by your own standards, evil?
1. Define theist.

2. Define evil.

3. We'll go from there.

Or not.

This began as a parody thread, sackett taking the piss out of plumjam's thread of a similar title.

" . . . answer it properly."

Please share with me what that construction means. It will be helpful in determining my reply.

Question: Does answering it properly mean answering it in your terms, and consistent with your predilections?

For sackett:
I got it from the title. So did some others

Now that Amy Wilson has arrived, the parody nature will compound.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. You got a bumper crop, sir, which means the fertilizer is strong in this thread.

*tips cap*

DR

[bruto]

Ntropy’s question is quite incredibly valid, and I’ve never seen a theist answer it properly.

I’ve a more strongly phrased version, and would be interested in any answers. How do you, theists, know that your god is not, measured by your own standards, evil? How do you know that every minute you spend not killing babies contributes to the time you’ll be spending in the hell reserved for old-lady helping, charity-giving mofos like yourselves?I've often wondered that in a different form. Look at the stories of Abraham and Isaac, Job, Onan, Noah, and whatnot. On the final day, you might find too late that this is just god's playground, and we've been stuck in a high stakes game of "giant steps." Sorry, kid, you forgot to say "May I," he cackles as he casts you into the flaming pit.

[Matt the Poet]

1. Define theist.
Anyone who actively professes a belief that there is some sort of conscious, intentional agency governing the reality that they experience.

2. Define evil.
Note the qualifier of 'by your standards' that I added to the word evil. You know what you, personally, would consider to be morally abhorrent - how do you know that this, whatever it is, is not exactly what 'god' wants you to do?

" . . . answer it properly."

Please share with me what that construction means. It will be helpful in determining my reply.

Question: Does answering it properly mean answering it in your terms, and consistent with your predilections?

DR

I suppose 'properly' might have been the wrong word to use. I meant, perhaps, 'fully and honestly'. I don't think that the question, as I'm framed it, requires me to define terms (and hence get into an endless side argument about whether that definition is correct), even though for the sake of argument I have done so.

I have no predilections here. I'm not laying any traps. My thrust is that I genuinely can't see how any 'minimal theist' can know that they are doing 'the right thing' by their god/ess/es. Which leaves you, as far as I can see, with two positions - either said entities are fundamentally unknowable, in which case you might as well not bother with them and just get on with it as if they didn't exist, or you assert that you have some non-rational way of knowing (i.e. 'faith') about some of their properties, which is fine as long as you acknowledge that that isn't in any way a rational, skeptical position.

[Tricky]

I've often wondered that in a different form. Look at the stories of Abraham and Isaac, Job, Onan, Noah, and whatnot. On the final day, you might find too late that this is just god's playground, and we've been stuck in a high stakes game of "giant steps." Sorry, kid, you forgot to say "May I," he cackles as he casts you into the flaming pit.
Me too. My basic question is... well... really two parts. 1) Is your God good? and 2) In what sense of the normal definition of "good" is He good?

Obviously if your God is Cthulhu, then there is no need to answer part 2.

[sackett]

Gagglegnash, you didn’t post into a black hole. Thank you for your well-written, humane, and good-tempered contribution. I can’t find a thing wrong with it,

except that I don’t buy it. Your Boss (odd choice of a word; I’ve heard a Catholic priest use it of his superior; rather crawlingly, I thought) is a construct of your own making. IOW, you, like Redtail, have created a God that your self respect allows you to believe in – and He does both of you credit, because He appears to combine Martin Gardner, Gandhi on a good day, Stephen Hawking, Charles Dickens, Dostoevsky, and a little of Curley and Moe, with a large portion of your own human grasp of good and evil. (Good and evil are concepts, after all, and as far as we know only humans have concepts.) I think that that’s the only way your god can be emotionally sufficient for you. It’s not just children who create imaginary friends, and I for one can sympathize.

Howsomever: Religion is something you feel, not something you think. I question the intellectual sufficiency of belief in the supernatural, especially the superdupernatural being that monotheists posit. You admit that your belief accomplishes nothing, and of course I posed the question because I was pretty sure nobody could answer it any other way. But doesn’t that tell you something?

It’s an old story around here that saying “goddiddit” is no answer to anything. I think it’s the stultifying dead end of religion that baffles me.

Let me pose another question: Where does religion exist?

(Darth, being the spoilsport he is, will tell you that I already know the answer, or think I do. But don’t listen to him!)

[Darth Rotor]

Anyone who actively professes a belief that there is some sort of conscious, intentional agency governing the reality that they experience.
OK.
Note the qualifier of 'by your standards' that I added to the word evil. You know what you, personally, would consider to be morally abhorrent - how do you know that this, whatever it is, is not exactly what 'god' wants you to do?
I note that the game is on.

To answer you: You learn it. I did. It think most people do.
I have no predilections here. I'm not laying any traps. My thrust is that I genuinely can't see how any 'minimal theist' can know that they are doing 'the right thing' by their god/ess/es.
You do the best you can. The rest you leave to God. People are imperfect, and tend to err. Best laid plans, and all that. Having the Faith doesn't make you perfect. (Certainly true in my case, anyway. Maybe I am the only one. :rolleyes: )
Which leaves you, as far as I can see,
Try looking a little further. You never have one last answer. There is no One Right Answer. In my experience, you never stop discovering, and uncovering, the subtleties at work when you try to apply the guiding principles that are the core of the Faith. Furthermore, I am hardly at the end of the journey. It's still mid flight for me. Still a work in progress, which I suspect it will ever be.

This makes the discussion erode, every time, when the querant wishes to discuss the matter in abstractions.

You never have one last answer. Life is a journey, and a revelation, for as long as it lasts.

with two positions - either said entities are fundamentally unknowable, in which case you might as well not bother with them
I disagree with you. Giving up is hardly an approach to a fulfilling life, be ye religious or irreligious. If you choose not to bother, fine, follow the path that will take you where you want to go.

One can, if one wishes, wring one's hands aplenty over how perfect or imperfect one's understanding of evil, or evil intent is.

Or, you can get on with it. I am trying to grasp why a perfect understanding of evil is a necessary tool here. I don't see it. Nor do I need a perfect understanding of how cracking towers function to know that 87 octane gas is the right mix for my car.

A guide to figuring out where one stands, regarding good or evil, begins with "is it rooted in selfishness or selflessness." That's a point of departure, not an end.

Sometimes the answer is easy, sometimes hard, sometimes it's a puzzle. (See discussions of the death penalty for a good example. )
and just get on with it as if they didn't exist, or you assert that you have some non-rational way of knowing (i.e. 'faith') about some of their properties, which is fine as long as you acknowledge that that isn't in any way a rational, skeptical position.
Is one to lose sleep over this latter prospect?

Skepticism is a tool, not a religion.

Or do I have that wrong?

@ sackett. My lips are sealed. :D

DR

[Matt the Poet]

To answer you: You learn it. I did. It think most people do.

How did you learn it? To be specific, I'm not asking how you learnt what it is to behave morally and well in the world. I'm asking how you learnt that to behave morally and well in the world is what your God wants?

Try looking a little further. You never have one last answer. There is no One Right Answer. In my experience, you never stop discovering, and uncovering, the subtleties at work when you try to apply the guiding principles that are the core of the Faith.

But that require me, as a first step, to accept a certain set of guiding principles. From whence to they originate, and how do I know they aren’t lies?
For that matter, why not change ‘apply the guiding principles that are the core of the Faith’ to ‘apply any set of guiding principles.’ I agree that having a set of guiding principles is a good thing (even if you don’t always live up to them). I’m just not seeing how theism helps me to build them.

This makes the discussion erode, every time, when the querant wishes to discuss the matter in abstractions.

No abstractions here. This about how you concretely live your life and make ethical decisions – and whether or not some form of theism inherently helps you to do this. Which, I don’t think it does

I disagree with you. Giving up is hardly an approach to a fulfilling life, be ye religious or irreligious. If you choose not to bother, fine, follow the path that will take you where you want to go.

I’m not giving up on anything except the belief in a god as previously defined. I agree, absolutely, that it’s necessary to continually think about and assess your moral positions and the way you live your life, based on introspection and feeling as much as analysis of the available data. The unexamined life, and all that...

What I can’t see is how belief in an unknowable entity whose motives you can’t rationally describe helps here. To paraphrase a fun bit of art-sloganeering I saw in Tate Modern the other day,
‘A considered moral outlook + belief in a god = a considered moral outlook’

I am trying to grasp why a perfect understanding of evil is a necessary tool here.

It's not. What I'm asking is how you know that evil, whatever you think is meant by that at the time of asking, is not what your god wants you to do?

A guide to figuring out where one stands, regarding good or evil, begins with "is it rooted in selfishness or selflessness." That's a point of departure, not an end.

But this still hasn’t answered the basic question. How do you know that your god doesn’t absolutely endorse selfishness, and finds your selfless acts disgusting?

Is one to lose sleep over this latter prospect?

Not necessarily, but it leads to the next question, which, put glibly, goes something like this:

In what way is the assertion that you just ‘know’, through faith, that god has certain properties and defineable intentions and wishes you to behave in a certain way different from the assertion that you just ‘know’, through faith, that your washing machine is posessed by the ghost of Scatman Crothers? Both positions suffer from a precisely equal lack of evidence.

A possible answer, I suppose, is that the former might lead you towards doing good things in the world. But then again, why not just cut out the middleman and do things that you percieve to be good anyway?

Skepticism is a tool, not a religion.
Indeed. But in professing ‘faith’ you have chosen to apply the tool in certain areas and not in others, and I can’t for the life of me see the intellectual basis of your decision.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Gagglegnash, you didn’t post into a black hole. Thank you for your well-written, humane, and good-tempered contribution. I can’t find a thing wrong with it,

Wow. I didn't really expect a response. :) Thanks! :)

except that I don’t buy it. Your Boss (odd choice of a word; I’ve heard a Catholic priest use it of his superior; rather crawlingly, I thought) is a construct of your own making. IOW, you, like Redtail, have created a God that your self respect allows you to believe in – and He does both of you credit, because He appears to combine Martin Gardner, Gandhi on a good day, Stephen Hawking, Charles Dickens, Dostoevsky, and a little of Curley and Moe, with a large portion of your own human grasp of good and evil. (Good and evil are concepts, after all, and as far as we know only humans have concepts.) I think that that’s the only way your god can be emotionally sufficient for you. It’s not just children who create imaginary friends, and I for one can sympathize.

Lol - I'm glad you mentioned the Howards. A lot of folks miss that bit. I think it was Voltaire that said that God was a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh. I laugh at The Boss's work... A LOT! You seem to have left someone out in that three-pronged reference, though, but that's fein.

From my point of view, if God exists, and I believe that he does, then thinking about my human concept of good and evil in relation to Him, and thereby refining it, is a way to draw closer to Him.

My love leads me to think about The Boss, and I believe that He wants me to use the gray thinkey-stuff between my ears and not just go for the, "God HATES sin, so he sent a hurricane to destroy New Orleans," explanations.

If The Boss sent a storm to wipe out New Orleans because they sin down yonder, how did New York, Chicago and San Francisco survive?

Heck: How did I survive??

The Boss said that I should love Him with ALL My garbanzos. Brains are part of the package.

It's a way I can try to be emotionally and intellectually closer to Him!

Howsomever: Religion is something you feel, not something you think. I question the intellectual sufficiency of belief in the supernatural, especially the superdupernatural being that monotheists posit. You admit that your belief accomplishes nothing, and of course I posed the question because I was pretty sure nobody could answer it any other way. But doesn’t that tell you something?

Oops - looks like I got ahead of myself here.

Ok: First, I'm not a monotheist. The old testament is pretty clear about there being other gods. After all, The Boss got into a head-cutting match with Baal, once, over who could set some wood on fire, right?

Second, my superdupernatural being isn't much of what what much of anybody posits. I started from the posiiton, as stated in the new testament that God is Love and Spirit and Truth and started THINKING... a LOT... about what that means.

My conclusions are far from definitive. They're also far from finished.

If you do it right, religion... mmm.... I have trouble with that... religion is this organized, codified, lock-step thing... I'll say FAITH, instead... FAITH IS something you feel, and if you feel it, and you follow that, "all your garbanzos," bit, you have to think about it too, and then try your best, and maybe a bit MORE than your best, to LIVE it.

...and I never said that it accomplishes nothing. Your question was, "What have you accomplished," and I said that I hadn't accomplished much. My faith has been a comfort to me in times of trouble, my strength when my strength failed, my hope when I was hopeless.

The fact that I'm a jerk who hasn't accomplished much has little bearing on what my faith has accomplished.

Faith is a two-edged sword, though, and I'll be the first to admit that faith is what gave the NAZIs the fortitude to keep marching people into the gas chambers, and what gives people the courage to blow themselves up just so they can murder others.

It all depends upon what your faith is in. Mine's in that Love, Spirit, Truth thing. I come to this faith by the testimony of people I believe, who did their best to record what actually happened, and who provided several points of view so that I can cross-reference the data.

At this point, though, I have to ask: In what do you place YOUR faith? How do you come to an acceptance of what you see as truth? Have you personally done all the experiments necessary to verify your world view, or do you accept the testimony of people you trust regarding, say, double-blind placebo-controlled testing and neutron decay?

Doesn’t that tell you something?

It’s an old story around here that saying “goddiddit” is no answer to anything. I think it’s the stultifying dead end of religion that baffles me.

Let me pose another question: Where does religion exist?

(Darth, being the spoilsport he is, will tell you that I already know the answer, or think I do. But don’t listen to him!)
Answering quickly so that Darth can't poison the well: 'Goddidit' is usually an insufficient answer to me, as well. People who insist on a, "the Bible is the TRUE AND LITERAL word of God," and don't own a sword aren't paying attention.

Jesus said to his disciples, in the garden of Gethsemane, (King James Version quote) "When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing?" And they said, "Nothing." then said He unto them, "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." A CLEAR COMMANDMENT in Jesus own words, right? Okokok - 2 swords per 11 people is the accepted rate, but STILL....

If the actual commandment of Christ is open to historical, social and contextual interpretation, then why is a story of creation, told father to son through generations amidst people who could not explain the inner workings of a fluorescent bulb, taken as scientific truth?

(Mmm... how DO fluorescent bulbs work, any how? I'll have to Google it!)

Ok - to the question... where does religion exist. There's that word again. Religion exists between a bunch of people that, between them, are in intellectual lock-step about things they can't prove.

FAITH, on the other hand, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," lives in your (metaphorical) heart, your mind, your imagination, and in your deeds. It tests you and you test it, and what comes out the other end is closer to the truth.

The Boss IS (Capital T) Truth. He wants me to get closer to him, and my love for Him makes me want to do it. His love for me makes Him willing to reach out to help me make the journey.

I'll take faith over religion, thanks.

My faith is in Love, Spirit and Truth as testified to by people who were there when it was loose, walking around on the Earth. What is your faith in?

Woops! The bit about the sword was at the last Supper, BEFORE going to the garden. My bad. Same commandment, though.

[sackett]

Thanks for answering, Gagglegnash. I can’t do multiquote for some reason, probably my pathetic ignorance, so I have to reply free-form.

I see that you want to make a distinction between faith and religion. Fair enough; but I think that in your case the distinction becomes unreal. You say that you believe in something you call “Love, Spirit and Truth,” and appear to regard this something as existing outside yourself. Sounds like religion to me.

But when I asked, “Where does religion exist?” I meant the question literally, and the literal-minded answer I’d give if asked is, “Inside people’s skulls.” Objectively speaking, forsaking metaphor, I think that’s all we can be confident that we know.

Now it’s a fact that we both have ideas of good and evil, and it’s a fact that you credit the existence of a (presumably) supernatural being you call the Boss. But that’s just saying that certain electrochemical events are occurring inside our skulls. We have no evidence that anything else is going on.

My faith? Christ, I hope I don’t have anything as feeble as faith! I hope I don’t believe in anything!

I may accept the truth of things I haven’t tested – after all, we don’t have time to labor through proofs of everything in our too-short lives – but I have the tools to assess what I’m told by others, and I can arrive at conclusions as to the probability of different assertions. All knowledge is subject to revision. If we keep revising our ideas as new data come in, we probably won’t stray too far from the truth; truth without a capital T. (There. I just uttered a statement of faith. I owe you and Darth a beer, I guess.)

Sounds as if you came to religion in a foxhole, metaphorically speaking. (Or in a literal foxhole? No need to supply details; silence is a perfectly decent response.) I have to doubt that it was your inchoate religiosity that got you out of difficulties; I give you the credit, however it may have seemed at the time and since.

And I’m not trying to belittle your expressions of faith. Inchoate and inexpressible religion is the usual kind: feelings, not thoughts. (I have a bunch of them myself. The only difference is that I usually experience them in the presence of material, not imaginary things, and I rejoice that it’s all in my head.) I hope you’ll go right on experiencing your religious feelings and examining them.

By god, this is refreshing after reading a bunch of DOC and the other christianoids!

[RobRoy]

I know this is meant sarcastically, but I still think it's an interesting discussion topic . . . at least I've given it some thought.

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there?

Since I believe in a diety, and I believe my diety is basically good, I try to find the morals that reflect said diety, and act accordingly.

What have you accomplished?

Personally, I've made a choice based on reflection and belief and acted upon it.

What can you learn further?

Hopefully, what comes next.

What have you explained?

What I should be doing at this time.

Seems to me you're just praying to the ceiling to bless and keep you.

And I would dispute your right to do that in the least.

[Glite]

I have a large stainless steel idol dedicated to the "beer keeper cold" gods. I have an opening and snagging ritual I like to do.

Also, as I move freely through snow, I say a simple prayer of thanks to the "Great FoMoCo" for delivering unto me my truck.

[Faithkills]

At this point, though, I have to ask: In what do you place YOUR faith? How do you come to an acceptance of what you see as truth? Have you personally done all the experiments necessary to verify your world view, or do you accept the testimony of people you trust regarding, say, double-blind placebo-controlled testing and neutron decay?

Doesn’t that tell you something?

The question tells me that you are confused and think everyone is similarly confused. An incorrect assumption.

Everyone accepts things they have not personally proven, because they work. That's not faith. I do know how an internal combustion engine works so it's no surprise when I get in my car that it takes me places. I am pretty sure that our understanding of nuclear reactions is not fictional.. lots of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are even more sure, or would be if they were alive.

We don't need faith. Things work or they don't. The scientific process works because it systematically questions itself. Even the language used suggests imperfection and invites questioning. We have "theories".

Demonstrate one is false and thats that. Done deal.

Demonstrate a god and we'll accept the theory of god, at least until something better comes along.

FAITH, on the other hand, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," lives in your (metaphorical) heart, your mind, your imagination, and in your deeds. It tests you and you test it, and what comes out the other end is closer to the truth.

Pure self delusion based on your natural desire for security, meaning, immortality, and desire not to be responsible for your own existence. It's all understandable.

Making crap up doesn't get you closer to any truth.

I'll take faith over religion, thanks.

Your faith is a religion. It's all the crap you've been fed slightly tweaked. You just don't put a tithe in the collection plate. Well that's something at least.

My faith is in Love, Spirit and Truth as testified to by people who were there when it was loose, walking around on the Earth. What is your faith in?

Nothing. Faith is the problem. Faith is the mind killer. (apologies to Frank Herbert;) Faith is simply this, belief without evidence. When you start believing crap because it feels good you just lost your handholds on reality. Truth becomes just another subjective, and you get on the path you are on, the path to thinking things that make you feel the best.

Absent faith the world would be a much less violent place.

And no I don't claim that I know the truth, but I do know lies. And believing lies, even pleasant ones, even ones I made up myself, is never going to get me closer to truth.

[nzric]

I have a Saviour who has been with me since I was a child.

He is wise and all-knowing. He is with me wherever I go.

I tell him my most secret thoughts and he is always understanding and ready to warm my soul.

His name is Mr Blankie.

When I die Mr Blankie is going to take me to the big hot water cupboard in the sky.

[blauregen]

If I would believe in Big Sky Daddy, who in my case would likely have an ethical stance similar to mine, I would have gained:

- an always available open ear for internal discussions of topics i am emotionally unsure about ( we not completely rational types have them sometimes ) and with which I do not want to burden my friends and loved ones. As opposed to e.g. Hillary Clinton i would not have to talk with the late Eleanor Roosevelt or myself about them.

- a source of forgiveness beyond atonement for my errors that could help alleviate my feelings of guilt.

This doesn't sound that bad, and sometimes makes me wish i could believe in a deity. As it is I have to carry the weight of my decisions without divine aid.

You might now argue that believing in a deity often comes with a big book of arbitrary rules of disputable value, which you are supposed to follow, but in my experience most theists choose the areas for the application of their faith (among others for spiritual and ethical guidance, but not for education and particle physics ) well enough, to not be handicapped by it.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Thanks for answering, Gagglegnash. I can’t do multiquote for some reason, probably my pathetic ignorance, so I have to reply free-form.

I can't either. I just Quote it and then chop it up by hand.

I see that you want to make a distinction between faith and religion. Fair enough; but I think that in your case the distinction becomes unreal. You say that you believe in something you call “Love, Spirit and Truth,” and appear to regard this something as existing outside yourself. Sounds like religion to me.

I'll accept that word if you accept my proviso that anything I say in its regard applies only to me, and I don't speak for any organization or establishment. I'm wrong WAAAAY too often to have anything I say taken too seriously. :p

But when I asked, “Where does religion exist?” I meant the question literally, and the literal-minded answer I’d give if asked is, “Inside people’s skulls.” Objectively speaking, forsaking metaphor, I think that’s all we can be confident that we know.

Now it’s a fact that we both have ideas of good and evil, and it’s a fact that you credit the existence of a (presumably) supernatural being you call the Boss. But that’s just saying that certain electrochemical events are occurring inside our skulls. We have no evidence that anything else is going on.

Good and evil is fine, but I use my faith not just to be GOOD, but to be BETTER. I strive to be as much like the Boss's Boy as The Boss gives me strength to be. I try to love others with the steadfast, bold and unrelenting love he demonstrated to be possible. I fail ALL the time, but I TRY! I analyze where I went wrong, then I ask for help fixing the shortcomings, sort of like I did when I was learning to shoot the rifle.

Without the target, I'd have nothing to shoot for, you see....

...and I'll agree: Religion happens inside my skull. JUSTICE, HONOR, AND DUTY happen there, too, but they exist BECAUSE we believe that they CAN exist. (I have to type them in all-caps because I'm quoting Death from Terry Pratchet's, "Hogfather." Sorry if it offends.)

In the case of God, though, I exist, as I am, because HE believed I could exist.

My faith? Christ, I hope I don’t have anything as feeble as faith! I hope I don’t believe in anything!

I may accept the truth of things I haven’t tested – after all, we don’t have time to labor through proofs of everything in our too-short lives – but I have the tools to assess what I’m told by others, and I can arrive at conclusions as to the probability of different assertions. All knowledge is subject to revision. If we keep revising our ideas as new data come in, we probably won’t stray too far from the truth; truth without a capital T. (There. I just uttered a statement of faith. I owe you and Darth a beer, I guess.)

I hope this doesn't offend, but everybody believes something.

You believe in the search for truth (small t). You believe the scientists. The scientists believe published, peer-reviewed experimentation. Doctors believe double-blind, placebo-controlled testing. I believe I'll have another cup of coffee....

At some point in everyone's life, they try something for the first time and they think, "I can't do this, but I think I'd like to. If I keep trying, I'll get better."

Some do. Some don't.

They believe that they would like doing it, though, and they have faith that skill will follow practice, even though they have no basis for the assumption, as it's a completely new experience.

Call it deductive reasoning, if you will: I've gotten better at many things I've stuck with before. It's still belief in one's self and faith in one's own abilities.

Now, please don't get me wrong! I LIKE atheists. They THINK about their relation to God, even though it's sort of in the rejection department. Still, they make ME think about MY relationship with Him and help me refine that thinking, and that's a good and enjoyable thing.

I think God likes atheists, too.

Yeah, yeah, yeah - God LOVES EVERYONE.

I'm not talking LOVE here; I'm talking LIKE!

In the book of Revelation, He's quoted as saying (Mmm - drat - better check this one BEFORE I post this time), "I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

See? I think God likes people who are ALL-IN about him.

Atheists, if nothing else, are all-in about God.

Sounds as if you came to religion in a foxhole, metaphorically speaking. (Or in a literal foxhole? No need to supply details; silence is a perfectly decent response.) I have to doubt that it was your inchoate religiosity that got you out of difficulties; I give you the credit, however it may have seemed at the time and since.

And I’m not trying to belittle your expressions of faith. Inchoate and inexpressible religion is the usual kind: feelings, not thoughts. (I have a bunch of them myself. The only difference is that I usually experience them in the presence of material, not imaginary things, and I rejoice that it’s all in my head.) I hope you’ll go right on experiencing your religious feelings and examining them.

Yep. I am a foxhole... ummm... God-ist, if you will (I see nor real difference between Father, Son and Spirit). I come by it honestly, though.

...and yes, I know a lot of Christians and... ummm... God-ists who just go with whatever someone else said to someone else about saying to them. I've read that word, "sheeple," here a few times and smiled to myself over it... smiled a bit too SMUGLY, too, and it's made me reevaluate my thinking about some of my beliefs.

If I go to bed believing differently than I did when I awoke, it's because I've learned something new, and it's a poor day when I don't learn SOMETHING new.

...and I’m not trying to belittle your expressions of... I dunno... secular humanism(?) but can you honestly say that you haven't felt delight upon coming up with an original joke or had an idea that thrilled you? Ok - well - you DID say that you usually experience them in the presence of material, not imaginary things. I'll just take that to mean, "not in conjunction with Big Sky Daddy."

By god, this is refreshing after reading a bunch of DOC and the other christianoids!

I'm quiet enjoying it, too. Considered atheism is an interesting point of view and really makes me think about what I believe. Sort of like sharpening a knife by rubbing the business bits against an abrasive stone.

Oh!

Not that you're being abrasive! Quite the contrary. You've been most pleasant. I just hope that what I'm saying is coming out reasonably pleasantly, as well, as that's how I mean it.

...and as for describing my thinking as a knife... welll... ummm.... :boggled:

[Iamme]

I mean, what the hell? Once you settle on God or Zeus or Chac or Bigfoot or whatever, where do you go from there? What have you accomplished? What can you learn further? What have you explained?



1. You go from not knowing how the puzzle pieces fit together, to solving the puzzle, which then unlocks the door to understanding of purpose and harmony. And the purpose may BE harmony.

2. You have accomplished that over time, that the forward progress of creation continues on the intended path.

3. You can learn from this that women should not be wearing makeup, and instead allow natural beauty to determine selection of the breed and further enhance beauty through natural selection. Same with death by disease: Our intervention to stop it only allows weak gened people to multiply, thwarting the advancemnet of the best breeds. Our own intelligence has become the enemy of nature.

4. I explained 1-3.

[Faithkills]

1. You go from not knowing how the puzzle pieces fit together, to solving the puzzle, which then unlocks the door to understanding of purpose and harmony. And the purpose may BE harmony.

What's entirely depressing is that the incoherence represented here accurately represents the thought processes of so many theists.

How does god make the puzzle pieces fit? Anything, except the claim that "god makes puzzle pieces fit." God explains nothing, just like your answer.

2. You have accomplished that over time, that the forward progress of creation continues on the intended path.

What path? Who intended?

3. You can learn from this that women should not be wearing makeup, and instead allow natural beauty to determine selection of the breed and further enhance beauty through natural selection. Same with death by disease: Our intervention to stop it only allows weak gened people to multiply, thwarting the advancemnet of the best breeds. Our own intelligence has become the enemy of nature.

Women may wear or not wear makeup as they individually damned well please. This is a fine example of the immoral results that come from deluded thought.

Nature is a weak tool for progress compared to intelligence and is no longer needed. We don't need your eugenics, we have genetic engineering. We can decide our own path now, thank you very much.

[Redtail]

Redtail, are you going to answer the question or continue squirming?

Sorry I asked you to clarify. (How dare I!:rolleyes:)

Ok. One quality of the god/ess I believe in is that he/she is far more concerned with how one lives rather than what name a person calls him/her.
Religion or lack thereof is moot.

[Redtail]

Ntropy’s question is quite incredibly valid, and I’ve never seen a theist answer it properly.

I’ve a more strongly phrased version, and would be interested in any answers. How do you, theists, know that your god is not, measured by your own standards, evil? How do you know that every minute you spend not killing babies contributes to the time you’ll be spending in the hell reserved for old-lady helping, charity-giving mofos like yourselves?

I don't. I could be dead wrong and every time I helped a stranger change a flat or give them a jump when their battery died, means the 7th circle when I run outta juice myself, or the light's will just go out, or whatever else happens. I'll find out when I die.

[bruto]

Same with death by disease: Our intervention to stop it only allows weak gened people to multiply, thwarting the advancemnet of the best breeds. Our own intelligence has become the enemy of nature.

.
So how does this new spurt of amateur eugenics fit in with your long and repeated diatribes about how medical science has not been working hard enough on cancer? Have you changed your mind, or are you just forgetting to think again?

Of course the idea that the highest value for humankind is to be physically robust requires a certain outlook itself. I have been trying to find a descriptive term or terms to describe that outlook, but so far all I can come up with is shallow, culturally barren, unimaginative, and intellectually vacant.

I suppose there's a point (a terrible and stupid point, but a point nonetheless) to the thought that we should withhold medical treatment to children, so that the gene pool will be culled. Let the little bastards die for the good of humankind. It certainly would be cheaper. All the potential beer money I spent on my kids over the last thirty years! Of course, many diseases depend on luck rather than genetics, and in the case of pandemics the herd could get pretty heavily thinned ( I presume, for example, that your theory means no vaccinations for things like polio), but let's assume for some horrifically stupid reason we decide that that's a good thing anyway. Once you've reached maturity, if you do, and once you've passed on your genes, if you do, the eugenic battle is lost. The "best breeds" may not always end up breeding the most.

Iamme, if you want to do your part in the advance of mankind, you should smash your keyboard.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I've spent the day thinking about the nature of belief.

....

What?

....

I DO that kind of thing!

....

ANYHOW...

Did you know that Koine Greek, the language of most of the new testament, has... like... FOUR words that we translate as, "love?"

The component meanings are... ummm... Google is your FRIEND!

Eros: Passionate love
Philia: Friendship and brotherly... errr... sibling-ey love (oh, LORD, I'm old),
Agapē: Emotional love,
Storge: Affection, and
Thelema: Desire
Thank you, Wikipedia!
FIVE! Koine Greek, the language of most of the new testament, has FIVE words that we translate as, "love?"

The word, "love," is what we programmers might call, "overloaded."

Overloaded is when a function has different actions when presented with different types of argument data. For instance, the friendly old, elementary school, "+," may mean addition when used with numeric arguments in most computers, integer-value and real-value addition are very different, as well. , but it could also mean concatenation if used with string-value arguments, a logical OR if used with boolean arguments, or any number of operations over defined class arguments.

To demonstrate that last bit, lets define a new data class, "flintstoneCharacters." Now, lets overload the, "+," as a test to see if the arguments are a firmly-bonded two-tuple within the class, so:

Barney + Betty

would evaluate as TRUE, while:

Fred + Bambam

would evaluate as FALSE.

I assume.

Anyhow!

I think that the word, "belief," has become, in the skeptical lexicon, an overloaded word!

I formerly said, "everyone believes something." To me, this is true. Belief is the acceptance of testimony, as in, "I believed the three eye-witnesses," as well as my mental acceptance of the validity of the claim, as in, "I believed that the defendant was guilty."

I no longer think the two are related when it comes to skeptics.

When a skeptic hears a scientist testify to the validity of a claim, and there's good evidence from other peer-review-ey scientists that the claim is true... or as true as we can get, right now... the skeptic doesn't believe the SCIENTIST!

The skeptic just ACCEPTS THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM!!

That's just ONE PART of what I, as a believer, would call, "belief."

Furthermore, poor old, "belief," also has a big chunk of the lock-step intellect and... is inchoate the word? GREAT word... and inchoate thinking which I ascribe to the word, "religion," that would lead a skeptic to abhor the poor, defenseless, OVERLOADED word!

So, please believe me when I say... ummm... errr... I mean... please ACCEPT my apology if I offended.

[Beerina]

Barney + Betty

would evaluate as TRUE

It does warm my heart to know that a short, obese homunculus can land a tall, gorgeous, dark brunette, to say nothing of a tall, obese, ignorant slob landing a gorgeous redhead, hey, wait, Audrey Meadows was a gorgeous redhead "married" to an obese ignorant slob, wait, they copied the Honeymooners.

They totally copied the Honeymooners!

Hey, Peter Griffin is married to a gorgeous redhead. WTF! This is starting to piss me off, hey there's brownies in the break room.

[dglas]

Hi

I've spent the day thinking about the nature of belief.

....

What?

....

I DO that kind of thing!

....

ANYHOW...

Did you know that Koine Greek, the language of most of the new testament, has... like... FOUR words that we translate as, "love?"

The component meanings are... ummm... Google is your FRIEND!

Eros: Passionate love
Philia: Friendship and brotherly... errr... sibling-ey love (oh, LORD, I'm old),
Agapē: Emotional love,
Storge: Affection, and
Thelema: Desire
Thank you, Wikipedia!
FIVE! Koine Greek, the language of most of the new testament, has FIVE words that we translate as, "love?"

The word, "love," is what we programmers might call, "overloaded."

Overloaded is when a function has different actions when presented with different types of argument data. For instance, the friendly old, elementary school, "+," may mean addition when used with numeric arguments in most computers, integer-value and real-value addition are very different, as well. , but it could also mean concatenation if used with string-value arguments, a logical OR if used with boolean arguments, or any number of operations over defined class arguments.

To demonstrate that last bit, lets define a new data class, "flintstoneCharacters." Now, lets overload the, "+," as a test to see if the arguments are a firmly-bonded two-tuple within the class, so:

Barney + Betty

would evaluate as TRUE, while:

Fred + Bambam

would evaluate as FALSE.

I assume.

Anyhow!

I think that the word, "belief," has become, in the skeptical lexicon, an overloaded word!

I formerly said, "everyone believes something." To me, this is true. Belief is the acceptance of testimony, as in, "I believed the three eye-witnesses," as well as my mental acceptance of the validity of the claim, as in, "I believed that the defendant was guilty."

I no longer think the two are related when it comes to skeptics.

When a skeptic hears a scientist testify to the validity of a claim, and there's good evidence from other peer-review-ey scientists that the claim is true... or as true as we can get, right now... the skeptic doesn't believe the SCIENTIST!

The skeptic just ACCEPTS THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM!!

That's just ONE PART of what I, as a believer, would call, "belief."

Furthermore, poor old, "belief," also has a big chunk of the lock-step intellect and... is inchoate the word? GREAT word... and inchoate thinking which I ascribe to the word, "religion," that would lead a skeptic to abhor the poor, defenseless, OVERLOADED word!

So, please believe me when I say... ummm... errr... I mean... please ACCEPT my apology if I offended.

Good tone. Good content. I like this post.
Certainty, except in a definitional sense, does not exist. All "belief" is conditional and subject to revision for the skeptic, both on an intellectual and emotional level. It really is THAT simple.

Faith is emotional "certainty."
And with the eschewing of belief qua certainty, science is suddenly possible.

Now tell me...
What (with your understanding as a programmer) does "True" mean to a computer... :)

Oh, and Win Powerball!!!

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
It does warm my heart to know that a short, obese homunculus can land a tall, gorgeous, dark brunette, to say nothing of a tall, obese, ignorant slob landing a gorgeous redhead, hey, wait, Audrey Meadows was a gorgeous redhead "married" to an obese ignorant slob, wait, they copied the Honeymooners.

They totally copied the Honeymooners!

Hey, Peter Griffin is married to a gorgeous redhead. WTF! This is starting to piss me off, hey there's brownies in the break room.
Speaking AS a tall, obese, ignorant slob, I'm still waiting to find my tall, gorgeous redhead so I... brownies??

[Gagglegnash]

Hi
Good tone. Good content. I like this post.
Certainty, except in a definitional sense, does not exist. All "belief" is conditional and subject to revision for the skeptic, both on an intellectual and emotional level. It really is THAT simple.

Faith is emotional "certainty."
And with the eschewing of belief qua certainty, science is suddenly possible.

Now tell me...
What (with your understanding as a programmer) does "True" mean to a computer... :)

Oh, and Win Powerball!!!
Emotional certainty. That fits. My book calls it, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," but the only thing I am CERTAIN of is my love for the Boss and my gratitude to Him.

Emotional certainty.

On the other hand, I'm the kind of guy that sits around and thinks about stuff and revises what I believe and what I think. I'd like to say that if someone presented scientific evidence, independently verified, peer-reviewed and repeatable, that God did NOT exist... then I'd pretty much have to go with that.

As for TRUE meaning something to a computer...

Fergeddabattit.

Computers can't even tell the difference between program and data. TRUE is just a bit pattern, differing from machine to machine and language to language, that lacks any inherent meaning to the computer itself. It's value is entirely contextual within the functioning of the program that had defined its location, value and use.

[dglas]

Hi

Emotional certainty. That fits. My book calls it, "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," but the only thing I am CERTAIN of is my love for the Boss and my gratitude to Him.

Emotional certainty.

I was emotionally certain my ex loved me.
I had to learn the hard way. How I feel about reality doesn't change what it is. Pluto is not the sort of thing that cares whether we call it a planet or not. Two thousand pounds of onrushing plastic and steel doesn't care at all about how we feel getting run down.
Intuition is notoriously unreliable and we are, as a species, are prone to error.

To not realize, accept and account for our error prone-ness (my turn with the word creation) is irresponsible at best - potentially lethal. To assume we cannot be morally mistaken, for example, might lead one to think that it is Right to decimate the species in nuclear devastation. An extreme example, but one I grew up with.

So we set up systems of checks and double-checks that assume the individual is possibly mistaken. No other approach is even remotely responsible or rational.


On the other hand, I'm the kind of guy that sits around and thinks about stuff and revises what I believe and what I think. I'd like to say that if someone presented scientific evidence, independently verified, peer-reviewed and repeatable, that God did NOT exist... then I'd pretty much have to go with that.

Now I can see why this might seem a logical extension of verificationism,
there are some small difficulties with this approach that have some serious repercussions and implications.

Firstly to prove that something does not exist is effectively impossible, even if one imagines being capable of encompassing the realms of all things, accounting for all interactions and noting no additional content that would suggest any other active factor. A rather tall imagined scenario indeed. Therefore, if we wish to working with the world, we must default to assuming something does not exist unless there is some evidence for it existing.

The problem is especially exacerbated if, as in the case of God(s), the stipulation is such that verification simply does not apply - there are no possible ways to verify or refute the existence of the thing in question.

Frankly anyone can make up anything, define it such that it does not admit of verification/refutation and defy anyone to prove it is not the case. This is not particularly clever. Such things are easy to imagine - from gremlins in your engine to Sagan's dragon to pink unicorns to God. (Honestly, the orbiting teacup is a terrible example). That is the point of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). Just because there is no proof (or even cannot be any proof) of the existence of a thing does not mean it exists.

Because then we have to think about the effects of the assumption of that existence upon the mind of the believer. For example, suppose you have a thing that suggests that we are all intrinsically evil - whatever that means.
...or...
We cannot prove the existence of the Id-Ego-Superego trio, nor can we prove its non-existence. But we can sure see the stressful effects of someone who believes themselves three separate conflicting entities in a constant power struggle. Now, that's how you drum up business...

As for TRUE meaning something to a computer...

Fergeddabattit.

Computers can't even tell the difference between program and data. TRUE is just a bit pattern, differing from machine to machine and language to language, that lacks any inherent meaning to the computer itself. It's value is entirely contextual within the functioning of the program that had defined its location, value and use.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. That's what I thought. Now what does it mean to us when we use True in programming?

[edge]

Gagglegnash
That was really good.

[nzric]

Gagglenash - you sound like a patient, logical guy who thinks things over when coming up with an idea. I hope you see the flaw in the reasoning of someone ever being able to "prove that something doesn't exist".

You're much better off looking for "scientific evidence, independently verified, peer-reviewed and repeatable" that God is absolutely unecessary in the equaion, then give the question a quick once-over with occam's handy bathroom implements. Modern science does this to a fine degree, or if it leaves room for a potential God it is from the point of view of a Prime Mover hiding in the shadows of the early Big Bang (i.e. read relegated to areas that are by definition impossible to ever corroborate so just as good as saying the FSM did it), but after that singular point is now at best a bystander with nothing to do.

As for Emotional Certainty? Take a tab of LSD or an E, and look at what your brain is capable of being emotionally certain about (Mods note that I would never condone drug use and I am using this purely as a symbolic reference to the conversation topic at hand :) :) ).

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I haven't forgotten you guys, but I'm forced to brief answers by arthritis/shoulder and arm related problems.

This is turning out to be a, "No Brief Answers," thread.