Pascal's Wager

[valis]

Randi said:

So, it appears that it’s a much better bet to believe in God, which, though Pascal didn’t go into it, requires that you give the money, say the prayers, believe the stories, accept the limitations on your free will, subjugate yourself, and mumble “Hallelujah!” at every opportunity – among other indignities. No, Blaise, I’ll walk upright, with my eyes open – maybe right into Hell, but I don’t think so.

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

I belive in God, I used to be an Atheist (for the majority of my life) and I don't recall paying a fee for changing my mind. In fact all I did was change my mind. No ritual or anything. I might have murmured Hallelujah once and while in my life but only sarcastically. Certainlly not at every opportunity.

If I didn't know what a level headed skeptic Mr. Randi was I would think that he was harbouring prejudices based on stereotypes.

[Orphia Nay]

What made you change your mind about being an atheist?

[jimtron]

...say the prayers, believe the stories...

Hmmm, the prayers and stories of which interpretation of which religion?

[BPScooter]

Excellent, far-out-and-groovy question. "minds" are something of an issue, as are words like "being" and "knowing"...

Philosophy is the major discipline, in my humble opinion. I know, to the best that my mind can concoct, that I have reasons for my beliefs. Reason is a well-understood method of thinking.

When an athesitic/philosophic mind changes its beliefs, it is only because the evidence persuades a rational mind to do so.

Faith and charisma, persuasion in general, do rest on a foundation of non-reason. Wait, I take that back... rational persuasion based on evidence CAN persuade an open mind to change its beliefs. Science provides this sort of case for study.

Get ready for tons of definitions of 'mind' and 'belief' and such. Welcome to the rational hell of philosophy.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

If you believe in a "philosophical" idea, but don't follow it, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

You say one thing, but do another?

[BPScooter]

"epistemolgy" is a tough word to use in daily conversation. I parse it to little kids like this:

'How do you know that what you think you know is true?'

or.. what is the epistemology of that?''

This does work with 10-year-old kid, just be sure that the issue is something like "girls have cooties" or "the Earth is about to melt."

*editd 4 speling

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
If I didn't know what a level headed skeptic Mr. Randi was I would think that he was harbouring prejudices based on stereotypes.No, I think Randi's remark is simply directed at those religious types who DO live up to the sterotypes. He has no beef with people who just say "I belive, and you can do what you will".

If the stereotypes don't fit you, he isn't talking to you.

Hans

[SkepticScott]

The "fee" involved may be opportunity cost. If you go to a religious service, you're giving up the chance to do something else during that time. Similarly, when you're thinking about one thing, you can't think about something else. Some people also think acting submissive, or acknowledging unworthiness as "costing" self-esteem.

The main problem with Pascal's wager is that humans have worshipped several thousand detities throughout history. Most of them demand exclusivity. Which one do you pick? Pascal assumed that there was only one, but that is not a valid assumption. Even if there is just the one the Abrahamic religions worship, which one? Do you go with the Jewish deity, Christian deity or Islamic deity? If Christian, which variety? Mormon? Roman Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Moonie? One of the small cults that spring up each year? Maybe the Branch Davidians were the religion? Maybe it's one that will be founded tomorrow? Next week?

It's not a simple 'yes or no' choice.

Another problem is that worshipping any deity might be a losing proposition. What if there is a deity, call it "Idnar". Idnar created everything, including all the other religions, and carefully concealed evidence of its existence. Idnar plans to reward those humans that showed the most intelligence and rational behavior. Anyone who believes in any religion loses; atheists get paradise.

I consider "Pascal's Wager" a fatally flawed argument.

[valis]

What made you change your mind about being an atheist?

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

That is you have just as much reason to belive there is a God as not; in fact I have a very hard time defining what the definition of a God would be or what the lack of one would imply. Why? Because all the answers would lie in a 'time' before the creation of the uninverse, in other words in a time before time itself existed.

How I came to decide that Christianity makes sense; that is a long story that basically involved trying approach the subject withouth prejudice (as much as possible of course) and then coming to a personal decision.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith. Now here is the point where someone will feel compelled to reply with either:

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

This post is already way longer than I like for posts; I just don't want to seem like I am ducking the question. Not to sound close minded but I see little to no point in discussing religion in general until someone comes up with a way to test the answers. I find it really difficult to belive that I am going to change anyones mind here; nor do I care to.

So in summary there are two answers to your question.

1. It was a personal decision.

2. Who cares anyway?

[valis]

I consider "Pascal's Wager" a fatally flawed argument.

I do as well. My post was in regards to Randi's statement about religion. You have fleshed it out a bit but it is still incorrect in my limited experience. I belive in God and it costs me nothing. I guess there is an oppurtunity cost. Let's see I go to church maybe five or six times a year. If I didn't go I would be laying on the couch watching the NFL pregame shows. Probably not costing me much.

[valis]

No, I think Randi's remark is simply directed at those religious types who DO live up to the sterotypes. He has no beef with people who just say "I belive, and you can do what you will".

If the stereotypes don't fit you, he isn't talking to you.

Hans

I can't see where he said anything even remotely like that. Perhaps I misunderstood it but I sure can't find any way to get that value out of the words I quoted.

[valis]

If you believe in a "philosophical" idea, but don't follow it, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?

You say one thing, but do another?

One of the few things I have learned in life that I am fairly certain of; everybody is a hypocrite.

In fact if someone did manage to be totally un-hypocritical they would probably be insufferable.

[Mojo]

I'll have a fiver each way on the FSM.

[Aepervius]

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.


... But I disagree on that. In one case you presupose an existence without proof (god belief, whatever the god). In the other since there is no proof of existence , then you presupose a non-existence.

Do you believe in Sasquash ? In fairy ? Kobold ? Loch ness monster ? UFO ? EVP ?

This is the same thematic.

[MRC_Hans]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

So you took Pascal's wager?

That is you have just as much reason to belive there is a God as not; in fact I have a very hard time defining what the definition of a God would be or what the lack of one would imply. Why? Because all the answers would lie in a 'time' before the creation of the uninverse, in other words in a time before time itself existed. We tend to call that "the god of the gaps". The differende between you and us is just that we simply accept the existence of the gaps.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

Then you have not understood at least one of them (belief and non-belief).

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.
No, that is logically wrong. To believe in something that has no proof is not the same as not believing in it. In fact, it is just the opposite.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

Strictly logical answer: There is no such thing as "before the big bang".
More pragmatic answer: Nobody will ever know.

However, the Q and A constitute a non-sequiteur. The big bang is not a logical inconsistency, and even if it were, pointing out an inconsistency in atheism does not defend inconsistencies in religions. Actually, releigions claim to know the answers, atheism (or more appropriately, I suppose, materialism) does not.

Hans

[Santa666]

Valis,

Forgive an old man for sticking his two cents where it likely does not belong, but I must admit finding a couple of very glaring flaws with your argument.

First, especially as it pertains to christianity, there is quite a bit of cost involved (perhaps not actual money, mind you). If you follow traditional bible following christianity, getting into heaven involves much more than just "believing in god", you must believe that jesus was the son of god, died to forgive you of your sins, and accept him as your savior. If you subscribe to this religion, then anyone who does not, is not following this biblical principle for entry into heaven, thus, they are hell bound. Secondly, what makes your brand of religion "correct", versus the thousands of Hindus or Buddists, muslims, or any other religious follower out there. If you are not correct, you are wasting your time, and likely some amount of money, on precepts that will mean nothing because the afterlife you are expecting actually belongs to another religion (assuming it exists at all).

On a secondary note, what precisely about Atheism makes it equal to christianity or scientology?

Thanks in advance,



Santa (following charlie monoxide) Clause

[Kimpatsu]

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith. Now here is the point where someone will feel compelled to reply with either:

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.

Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?
Your first question is fatally flawed, for it is based on the misapprehension that atheism is the beleif there is no god. It isn't; it's the absence of belief. Consequently, your conclusion is totally incorrect. There is, however, no evidence for the existence of any god, and you do not need a god to explain the existence of the universe or the existence of life, so applying Occam's razor, it is most likely that there is no god. But you are hankering for a certainty that doesn't exist.
Your second assertion is utterly nonsensical, as time started at the big bang. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking "when is yellow?" or "why is Thursday?"; the question is utterly meaningless.

[Segnosaur]

Randi said:

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

I belive in God, I used to be an Atheist (for the majority of my life) and I don't recall paying a fee for changing my mind.

Well, as others pointed out, there may be 'costs' associated with religious belief in the form of opportunity costs (e.g. modifying behaviour to please a deity.)

However, lets assume that you are a person who said "I believe in god" yet did not affect your actions at all...

How exactly would that benefit society? One of the supposed benefits of religion is that it provides a 'moral code' (flawed as it is). If you're a seriel killer BEFORE finding religion, and you're still a seriel killer AFTER finding religion, do you think that 'god' will be happy?

Another issue... yes, it may be possible for an individual to start believing in god with no outward signs. However, humans are flawed creatures, and even a smart person may take the belief in god to mean that they must "do something" to appease said god (give money, go to church, etc.). In that case, the 'cost' of a belief is that lost A) by society (as resources go to a 'false' concern), and B) by the average believer.

[Orphia Nay]

Taking Pascal's Wager doesn't have anything to do with paying money (Randi was talking about money for his own separate reasons). It means gambling with your 'soul' whether heaven and hell exist. It is based on the fact that there is neither proof of heaven, hell, souls nor God. And, as SkepticScott has well described, it is also a gamble on the Old Testament religions being right about those concepts, and therefore fatally flawed.

So you took Pascal's wager?


I get that impression, too.

Valis, I understand it is difficult confronting one's own beliefs, and that it is personal.

As an atheist, I am very interested in hearing why someone would change their mind about being one. My belief in Christianity dwindled slowly over the years until I realised I was only a Christian because I was ostensibly betting Pascal was right (although I didn't know of the term 'Pascal's Wager' until later). I am much happier now I have got rid of that last niggling uncertainty, but am still open to hearing others' opinions and experiences. Confronting my beliefs has got to be a habit, but these days my 'non-belief' seems to only get 'stronger'.

I care about why you changed my mind, because there is always the possiblity that you have found some undeniable proof that has dire implications.

[valis]

... But I disagree on that. In one case you presupose an existence without proof (god belief, whatever the god). In the other since there is no proof of existence , then you presupose a non-existence.

But I disagree with your disagreement. This is the point that I changed my mind about. Why should I pre suppose a non existnece? There is an equal amount of evidence for existence as there is for non existence; less than none.

The reason I say less than none is if 'God' created the Universe than he exists outside of anything I am able to understand. I have no frame of reference. But the nature of existence without a creator is also beyond my understanding. I have come to the conclusion that; when faced with the unfathomable it is not valid that we should presuppose one possiblity over another when we cannot, or at least I cannot even envision the possiblities fully.

Do you believe in Sasquash ? In fairy ? Kobold ? Loch ness monster ? UFO ? EVP ?


1=very unlikely but possible I suppose, 2 less possible than 1, 3 I don't know what that is (is it some sort of dwarf that lives underground or is it the Yiddish monster thingy, I'll look it up later), 4 probably less likely than 1 but certainly more likely than 2, 4 certainly true; I have personally looked up in the sky and said 'I wonder what that is' thus UFO's are real because I saw something I did not identify. 5 very unlikely but makes a good episode of Art Bell's show from time to time.

[valis]

Your second assertion is utterly nonsensical, as time started at the big bang. Asking what happened before the big bang is like asking "when is yellow?" or "why is Thursday?"; the question is utterly meaningless.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make. Not that I want to skip any one persons questions but these discussions always end up going the same way.

I do not feel it is valid; if there is a point beyond which nothing can be known or tested, to give any one possibility any advantage over another. You simply can't know.

I belive Atheism is a religion because it is a system of dealing with the unknowable on the terms of the Universe we understand. Thus the rhetorical question of what happened five minutes before the big bang.

In other words we take our observations in A, the material universe we exist in and attempt to apply it to B, the whatever is beyond the bounds of our universe that we cannot begin to comprehend.

[valis]

So you took Pascal's wager?


Actuall no. I had completely different reasons for becoming a Christian.

The point of my post is this:

Randi's statement was factually incorrect. The reason I mentioned my own belifes is so that I can state with authority beliving in God does not result in a bill or a requirement to say any catch phrases. Or for that matter any of the other cartoonish behaviour that Mr. Randi assigned.

[valis]

I care about why you changed my mind, because there is always the possiblity that you have found some undeniable proof that has dire implications.

I highly doubt that I have. I just tried to think about the subject with an open mind. I also tried to put aside my anti Christian prejudice, and read the bible with an open mind. There is nothing anyone told me to change my mind, so I doubt I could change yours. And if I could I wouldn't want to. What good would faith be if it was based on someone else talking you into it?

[politas]

I belive Atheism is a religion because it is a system of dealing with the unknowable on the terms of the Universe we understand.

Is that your definition of the word "religion"? Your entire definition?

religion: a system of dealing with the unknowable.

That's a completely new definition of the word as far as I'm concerned, but using just that definition, then atheism is still not a religion, because atheism involves not dealing with the unknowable. Atheism is saying "bugger the unknowable, let's concentrate on the knowable."

Feel free to refine your definition of the word "religion" further. I'm sure if you expand it sufficiently, you can find a definition which does include atheism. I suspect that such a definition would be difficult to find that does not also include such things as watching television, jogging, buying christmas presents for your children, and cooking.

[geni]

That's a completely new definition of the word as far as I'm concerned, but using just that definition, then atheism is still not a religion, because atheism involves not dealing with the unknowable. Atheism is saying "bugger the unknowable, let's concentrate on the knowable."


No that would be agnostic position. Athism spends long enough dealing with the unknowable to delcare that certian unknowable (in fact argubly an infinite number of unknowables) does not exist.

[Darat]

No that would be agnostic position. Athism spends long enough dealing with the unknowable to delcare that certian unknowable (in fact argubly an infinite number of unknowables) does not exist.

No that is not the agnostic position, the agnostic position is that there are some things that are not knowable.

(Albeit that a common usage of agnostic today is to describe fence sitting.)

[geni]

No that is not the agnostic position, the agnostic position is that there are some things that are not knowable.

(Albeit that a common usage of agnostic today is to describe fence sitting.)

One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.

Relisticaly there is going to be space for a god of the gaps for a long time yet.

[SezMe]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.
Aha! You're an agnostic! Nothing wrong with that at all. So am I.

That said, I would be interested in learning how you resolve your agnosticism and your Christianity. Those positions seem fudamentally inconsistent, but maybe I don't understand your POV.

[Pup]

I have come to the conclusion that; when faced with the unfathomable it is not valid that we should presuppose one possiblity over another when we cannot, or at least I cannot even envision the possiblities fully.

And yet that's exactly what Christianity and most religions require you to do, to presuppose that god caused things which are unfathomable, such as how the universe was created.

Having to force yourself to reject conclusions which you'd otherwise think were reasonable, is one good example of the cost of believing in god.

[Rasmus]

Aha! You're an agnostic! Nothing wrong with that at all. So am I.

Ah, but do you believe in god?

My guess is that no, you don't and hence you are still an atheist, albeit an agnostic one.

You can only either be an atheist or a theist. There is, by definition, no middle ground.

[SezMe]

Yes, a more complete description of me would be "agnostic atheist". I don't know whether there is a god (I think, more strongly, that for any traditional definition of "god" that its existence is fundamentally unknowable) but I do not have a belief in one.

[valis]

And yet that's exactly what Christianity and most religions require you to do, to presuppose that god caused things which are unfathomable, such as how the universe was created.

Having to force yourself to reject conclusions which you'd otherwise think were reasonable, is one good example of the cost of believing in god.

What other conclusions?

For personal reasons I picked a conclusion that I liked. I'm not too terribly pig headed; as soon as you can come up with proof of what happened to set the universe in motion I will be more than happy to reconsider.

In the meantime I don't see any price associated with a self aware choice to belive in the existence of God. If you feel otherwise then by all means do what works for you.

[dv82matt]

Aha! You're an agnostic! Nothing wrong with that at all. So am I.

That said, I would be interested in learning how you resolve your agnosticism and your Christianity. Those positions seem fudamentally inconsistent, but maybe I don't understand your POV.
I don't think that agnosticism is nessessarily inconsistent with a God belief. One could say that it is not possible to know whether God exists yet still believe that God exists.

[valis]

That said, I would be interested in learning how you resolve your agnosticism and your Christianity. Those positions seem fudamentally inconsistent, but maybe I don't understand your POV.

Well it does sound a bit confusing. Basically I feel when faced with an infinite number of choices all of which are equally valid then you can pick a choice that works for you for other reasons. That sounds pretty incoherent.

Allow me to try again. After reading the bible and thinking about it at length I decided that I enjoyed and valued many of the things I found in Christianity. All things being equal I made an informed descision to be a Christian. It was a personal decision and I have no desire to convert others or argue over the merits of one world view over the other.

There is an element of Pascal's wager in that I don't see the harm if it turns out I am wrong. Although there are other elements of his argument that I disagree with.

[politas]

Allow me to try again. After reading the bible and thinking about it at length I decided that I enjoyed and valued many of the things I found in Christianity. All things being equal I made an informed descision to be a Christian. It was a personal decision and I have no desire to convert others or argue over the merits of one world view over the other.

The trouble with that from my perspective is that "being a Christian" doesn't involve accepting some of the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, it involves accepting all the tenets and beliefs of Christianity. And there are a hell of a lot of those tenets I don't agree with, and cannot accept.

Do you accept all the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, or are you cherry-picking the parts you like, and therefore not really being a Christian at all?

I consider it perfectly acceptable for me to agree that killing people and stealing are wrong, but disagree about the need to venerate some mystic sky-father and stone homosexuals. I cherry-pick the parts of the Bible I agree with, so clearly I can't call myself a Christian.

[geni]

The trouble with that from my perspective is that "being a Christian" doesn't involve accepting some of the tenets and beliefs of Christianity, it involves accepting all the tenets and beliefs of Christianity. And there are a hell of a lot of those tenets I don't agree with, and cannot accept.

Where have you been for the last 200 years. It isn't as if "Christianity" is a single homogenius religion. Compare C of E to Catholic to Southern Baptist.

[Aepervius]

You do not need to believe in all of the bible to be a christian. You only need to believe in christ as a savior (and its teaching). Now there are various flaviour of christian (catholic, protestant, lutheriste, last day, etc...etc...) some having mainstream following in the billions, some not even enough to fill a congregation.

Now accepting parts or all the tenets of the bible make you part of the big christinist family, what it *does not make* you is a catholic/protestant and so on.

[Pup]

What other conclusions?

I was referring to the conclusion in your previous post (emphasis added): "I have come to the conclusion that; when faced with the unfathomable it is not valid that we should presuppose one possiblity over another when we cannot, or at least I cannot even envision the possiblities fully."

To be a faithful Christian (edited to add: according to the beliefs of all the major sects I'm aware of), you're not allowed to think like that, because when faced with such unfathomable things like how the universe was formed, you're required to believe that God did it, and reject other possibilities, including the possibility that we don't know and may never know.

For personal reasons I picked a conclusion that I liked.

That's fine, but I'm just looking for some logical consistency. It can't be both valid, and invalid, to pick one possibility over another. If the conclusion in your previous post is your personal best shot at reasoning, you've had to reject that to become a Christian, by presupposing that "God did it."

That's a cost: giving up some of your freedom to reason for faith, even if it's a cost you're gladly willing to pay.

The cost becomes more obvious when knowledge advances to the point where the unfathomable becomes at least a little comprehensible. The current classic example is evolution. Depending on the particular sect, some have taken it easily, others are obviously hurting with some major cognitive dissonance.

as soon as you can come up with proof of what happened to set the universe in motion I will be more than happy to reconsider.

I agree with that outlook, but the difference is that an atheist or agnostic doesn't have to worry whether they'll suffer eternal torment if they reject their former conclusions (or give up their lack of conclusions), based on new scientific-based evidence. A faithful Christian may, since "reconsidering" basic tenets of the church isn't exactly encouraged. Guilt over accepting new evidence is a cost that atheists/agnostics don't have to pay.

[politas]

Where have you been for the last 200 years. It isn't as if "Christianity" is a single homogenius religion. Compare C of E to Catholic to Southern Baptist.

Well, my experience with religious authority has been that they all say it's an all-in proposition. If you want to be a Christian, you have to believe it all. Yes, every single one of those authorities have a slightly different set of beliefs, which just makes the entire thing completely ridiculous as far as I can see.

Christians cherry-pick from the bible, while simultaneously claiming that they don't. It's the ultimate hypocrisy. They claim that the book is the ultimate authority, but ignore large parts of it.

This is why I could never be a Christian. I have other reasons for not following other religions.

[politas]

You do not need to believe in all of the bible to be a christian. You only need to believe in christ as a savior (and its teaching).
This wussy liberalistic view of Christianity I consider rank hypocrisy. The only authority that defines Christianity is the bible. Either it's an authority, or it's not an authority. If you can ignore some of it, you can ignore all of it. Are you saying that you can believe that murder is fine and dandy and still be a good Christian?

Have you read the book "Life of Pi"? The early chapters of that book really annoyed me, with the main character professing to believe Christianity, Islam and Hinduism all at the same time. That's called atheism. No real belief in either of those three religions is compatible with a real belief in the other two.

Now accepting parts or all the tenets of the bible make you part of the big christinist family, what it *does not make* you is a catholic/protestant and so on.
Bull. I can agree that we should be nice to each other, that helping people is a good thing, that murder and theft are wrong, and many other tenets from the bible without being a Christian. You just said above that I "only need to believe in christ as a savior". The reverse of that is that if I don't believe in Christ as a saviour (which I don't), I can't be a Christian, however much of the bible I agree with.

[SezMe]

I don't think that agnosticism is nessessarily inconsistent with a God belief. One could say that it is not possible to know whether God exists yet still believe that God exists.
I agree, but that was not my point. I asked about agnosticism and Christianity. The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus, the earthly manifestation of god, appeared on earth, died for humanity's sins, and returned to heaven. How you can subscribe to this and yet still remain uncertain of the existence of the god that put it all in motion is, in my book, inconsistent.

The responsive post by valis says to me that (s)he is not concerned with such issues but just finds something rewarding in what they read in the bible and became a Christian as a result. Ya know, I can accept that. In fact, I'll take 1000 of people like valis over one of the ilk of Dobson any day of the week.

BTW, welcome to the fora, dv82matt.

[SezMe]

This wussy liberalistic view of Christianity I consider rank hypocrisy. The only authority that defines Christianity is the bible. Either it's an authority, or it's not an authority. If you can ignore some of it, you can ignore all of it. Are you saying that you can believe that murder is fine and dandy and still be a good Christian?
Look out! Here goes an atheist defending Christianity!

I think you are making the same mistake that fundamentalist make - you are reading the bible literally. What you denigrate as "wussy" and "liberalistic" can better be understood by viewing the bible as metaphor. It is a series of stories that describe (in an admittedly obtuse way) an ideal way of life, namely that old, simplistic saying "God is Love". For example, the stoning of sinners means to throw out your bad thoughts and behaviors.

Now you can insist that Christians have to follow every "jot and tittle" of the bible but then you are being just as dogmatic, rigid and judgemental as people like Falwell, Dobson, etc. In my mind, the real enemy today is not religion, per se, it is rigid dogmatism wherever it is found. Sure, that POV is fostered by religion but it doesn't HAVE to. But that attitude can creep in without religion - you're dangerously close to being an example.

[thatguywhojuggles]

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?


This is like asking what kind of person was I before I was conceived.

[jimtron]

Are you saying that you can believe that murder is fine and dandy and still be a good Christian?

In the OT of the Bible, god often encourages murder. The Ten Commandments forbid murder that is against the Jewish law--not all killing, if I'm not mistaken. Most Christians believe that killing people is OK sometimes, don't they?

It seems to me all Jews and Christians cherry-pick from the Bible, even fundamentalists. How come no one (that I've heard of) follows the part that says that disobedient children should be stoned to death?

[Wowbagger]

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.
The key difference is that atheists tend to think scientifically, and a good scientist builds their beliefs on scientifically determined facts.
A good atheist (and not all of them are) will change their views as the science changes. Religious believers, and other believers of an ideology, will hold on to their beliefs even when evidence strongly contradicts them.

Q: How can you belive in things for the sake of beliving in them when there is no proof, and how can you pick one belife system over another when they are all equally likely?

A: the answer is that the quetion applies to Atheism as well as religion.
It does not apply to scientifically minded atheists. Their belief system is based on what there is evidence for. Of course, some people who call themselves atheists might not really be scientifically minded. But, don't be fooled into thinking science is the same as religion.


Q: What about <Insert logical inconsistency in religion of your choice>?

A: Beats me, what happened five minutes before the big bang?

Nobody believes in the Big Bang all willy-nilly, just for the sake of it. Or, if anyone does, they are a fool.

The "Big Bang" provides a scientific model for the origins of our known universe, based on observations made in the cosmos, and in studies of physics. Like all models, it is provisional - it is subject to change, depending on the outcome of future evidence.

Many people are under the mistaken belief that there was "nothing" in the universe before the Big Bang. Technically, this might not be true. Scientists refer to the "time" before the Big Bang as the "Initial Condition" of the Universe.

What was the Initial Condition like? Well, unfortunately science can not determine that conclusively, yet. But, that does not mean the Big Bang model doesn't hold any value. It is meaningful to scientists because it provides a useful explanation for what goes on in their physics experiments.

So, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is anyone's guess, right now. However, I would caution against asserting the supernatural, here, and calling such an appeal "science". Science doesn't work like that. Only your personal philosophy might.

[Kimpatsu]

I think you are making the same mistake that fundamentalist make - you are reading the bible literally. What you denigrate as "wussy" and "liberalistic" can better be understood by viewing the bible as metaphor. It is a series of stories that describe (in an admittedly obtuse way) an ideal way of life, namely that old, simplistic saying "God is Love". For example, the stoning of sinners means to throw out your bad thoughts and behaviors.
This is the sin of present-mindedness in modern historicity. The question is not whether you can read the Bible as metaphor; you can read anything, including recipes for making chicken fajitas, as metaphor if you so choose. (See "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris for just such an example.) The real question is whether the authors of the various books of the Bible intended their writings to be read as metaphor and interpreted accordingly, and of course, the answer to that is no, they did not. There are some metaphors--for example, the Judgement of Solomon is really about partitioning the kingdom to keep warring princes from tearing apart their father's legacy--but exhortations to stone unbelievers are not some convoluted plan to manipulate readers into doing the opposite by means of reverse psychology; such rulings mean exactly what they say--take unbelievers, adulterers, those who work on Sundays, etc., and kill them. Any attempt to pass off the intended meaning as otherwise is another sin--political spin, which is dishonest.
Let's face it: the Bible is a barbaric Bronze Age text that urges murder, rape (which has long been a weapon of war), genocide, and the cruel treatment of women. It even condones slavery. And there's no getting around that without resorting to the kind of mental gymnastics that would make George Orwell proud.

[Kimpatsu]

So, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is anyone's guess, right now.
FYI, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is nonsensical. Time began at the Big Bang; there was no time before that, so to ask what came "before" is as meaningless as asking what would happen if an unstoppable force struck an immovable object.

[Wowbagger]

FYI, "5 minutes before the Big Bang" is nonsensical. Time began at the Big Bang; there was no time before that, so to ask what came "before" is as meaningless as asking what would happen if an unstoppable force struck an immovable object.
True enough. I did not intend to mean "5 minutes before the Big Bang" literally. I was only alluding to the parent post's verbiage.
It is the nature of the Initial Condition that is anyone's guess right now.

[dv82matt]

I agree, but that was not my point. I asked about agnosticism and Christianity. The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus, the earthly manifestation of god, appeared on earth, died for humanity's sins, and returned to heaven. How you can subscribe to this and yet still remain uncertain of the existence of the god that put it all in motion is, in my book, inconsistent.
…
BTW, welcome to the fora, dv82matt.
Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is it that the Christian God belief is too specific for agnosticism to apply to it? That is you can believe in some sort of general idea of God and be agnostic but the more you flesh out your concept of God the more of a stretch agnosticism becomes.

Thanks for the welcome. :)

[politas]

I think you are making the same mistake that fundamentalist make - you are reading the bible literally. What you denigrate as "wussy" and "liberalistic" can better be understood by viewing the bible as metaphor. It is a series of stories that describe (in an admittedly obtuse way) an ideal way of life, namely that old, simplistic saying "God is Love". For example, the stoning of sinners means to throw out your bad thoughts and behaviors.

Now you can insist that Christians have to follow every "jot and tittle" of the bible but then you are being just as dogmatic, rigid and judgemental as people like Falwell, Dobson, etc. In my mind, the real enemy today is not religion, per se, it is rigid dogmatism wherever it is found. Sure, that POV is fostered by religion but it doesn't HAVE to. But that attitude can creep in without religion - you're dangerously close to being an example.

Actually, my point is that as soon as you have individuals making up their own interpretations, the bible loses any claim as an authority. If I can choose to believe that the passages about stoning adulterers is merely a metaphor, what's to stop me deciding that the part about Jesus rising from the dead is just a metaphor? Or the part about him being born in a manger? Or any other part? What makes any single part of the bible more authoritative than any other?

I think fundamentalists are a pretty scummy bunch generally, but the concept of fundamentalism is at least an honest one.

[Rasmus]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is it that the Christian God belief is too specific for agnosticism to apply to it? That is you can believe in some sort of general idea of God and be agnostic but the more you flesh out your concept of God the more of a stretch agnosticism becomes.

Well, I think it is theoretically possible for someone to believe in a god, no matter how specific, and yet be an agnostic.

I am guessing, though, that such a person would be drooling lots and not be able to eat without assistance.

We are not talking about a general guess about which world view is more likely. It is not the same as believing that it will rain tomorrow. To actually believe in a god requires a big step that I think rules out agnosticism.

And the more specific a religion is, the more impossible it becomes to stay agnostic.Agnosticism is an intellectual outlook on a question; and frankly I don't see how you can have the capability of understanding what it means and entails and *still* come to the conclusion that the Christian God is as real as the keyboard I am typing with now.

[Kimpatsu]

True enough. I did not intend to mean "5 minutes before the Big Bang" literally. I was only alluding to the parent post's verbiage.
It is the nature of the Initial Condition that is anyone's guess right now.
Fair enough.
The IC is a hot topic in cosmology right now, not least because certain strides have been made in the understanding of Planck Time. And theists accuse atheists of having no sense of wonder...!

[SezMe]

Hmmm... I'm not sure I understand. Is it that the Christian God belief is too specific for agnosticism to apply to it?
No. It is believing in an effect without a cause. In the present case, a Christian has to believe that god "sent" Jesus to earth to redeem mankind ('cause if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, by definition). So god is the (sole and only) cause and Jesus is the effect. But then to be unsure of the existence of god, would necessarily imply an uncertainty about the Jesus and the resurrection.

QED.

[SezMe]

The real question is whether the authors of the various books of the Bible intended their writings to be read as metaphor and interpreted accordingly, <snip>
I disagree. All kinds of literature is read and interpreted in a different manner than the author originally intended. Doesn't mean the reader is wrong, it just means that the meaning is open to interpretation.

That the authors of the bible wrote for a different audience than in 2006 and intended a different meaning for their audience does not mean that the 2006 audience cannot get their own meaning out of it.

Bear in mind, I think the bible is a mess, that people read all kinds of meanings into it, cherry-pick it to death, blah, blah, blah. Practically, I completely agree with your position. But I am pointing out that if someone like dv82matt can get an important message out of it by doing a very selective reading of it, so be it. Who cares, as long as he keeps his interpretation to himself. If he starts prosyletizing, legislating, or in any other way forcing his views on someone else, particularly me, then all bets are off.

[SezMe]

Actually, my point is that as soon as you have individuals making up their own interpretations, the bible loses any claim as an authority.
The bible does not make any claim to authority; Christians (people) make claims of authority about the bible. (Sorry if that is nitpicking and missing your point.)

Repeating part of my previous post, if dv82matt finds that the bible has some "authority" for his personal, private philosophy, then I don't think that he has to interpret the bible to get that authority matters to him.

If, however, he wants to impose that interpretation and authority on anyone else, then he is up s**t's creek. So the difference between us is that we are using authority too broadly. I mean in a private sense, you mean in a public sense. If we are talking "public authority" then I completely agree with you.

[politas]

I agree, but that was not my point. I asked about agnosticism and Christianity. The core belief of Christianity is that Jesus, the earthly manifestation of god, appeared on earth, died for humanity's sins, and returned to heaven. How you can subscribe to this and yet still remain uncertain of the existence of the god that put it all in motion is, in my book, inconsistent.

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.

In truth, most people are agnostic.

[Darat]

Actually, my point is that as soon as you have individuals making up their own interpretations, the bible loses any claim as an authority. If I can choose to believe that the passages about stoning adulterers is merely a metaphor, what's to stop me deciding that the part about Jesus rising from the dead is just a metaphor? Or the part about him being born in a manger? Or any other part? What makes any single part of the bible more authoritative than any other?

I think fundamentalists are a pretty scummy bunch generally, but the concept of fundamentalism is at least an honest one.
It’s a very common misconception in the USA and UK, that the Bible is the authority for a Christian.

We tend to believe this because both countries predominant religion is based on protestant Christianity. But it should be remembered that this is a relatively “new” version of Christianity that still represents a minority of Christians.

Your question is answered by what is and always has been the dominant form of Christianity, i.e. what we call Roman Catholicism. In very simplified terms "The Bible" is not to be interpreted by your or I, indeed there is no real reason for us to ever even read the Bible, according to RC the “church” provides people with the doctrine they should follow. And ultimately the matter of what is “metaphor” or “literal” is decided by God’s representative on earth i.e. the Pope.

[NiallM]

Of course there are costs involved in being religious.

Some of them may even be financial. Here's a few:

Time. Many religions demand a significant investment of time to observe their rituals. This may be daily, weekly, monthly, whatever. There may be a daily requirement for less formal activities, but it's all time.
Money. Tithing still exists in many churches. Some churches may also demand pilgrimages for atonement etc. These are not cheap.
Restriction of mating potential. Many churches frown on a member's marrying outside their religion.
Loss of family. Sometimes changing religion will ensure separation from your own family as will leaving their religion.
Health. JW anybody? They're not the only religion to come down against blood transfusions.
Education. Do I need to cite how the fundamentalists are trying to destroy science education to fit it in with their literalist interpretations of events in their holy books?
Freedom. Many decisions are simply taken away from the adherent, to be made in accordance with the rules of the holy books.
Life Experience. Many of these are frowned upon or outright banned by Churches, even though legal in secular society.
Civil Rights. In many churches, women have a subservient role and cannot participate fully in ceremonies and are considered incapable of interpreting scripture themselves.
Self-respect. Many religions regard common and natural human bevaiours as sinful and stimulate an over-powering sense of guilt among its adherents as a way to keep them on the straight and narrow. Hell, in xtianity, the child is guilty of serious sin even as it is born! No wonder they cry immediately.

These are just a few of the costs at the personal level. At the level of society there are more:

Violent tensions between religious groups which break out into war. Frequently.
Repression and censorship of literature, philosophy, science.
The weak and the less-intelligent being preyed on for their money.
Dehumanising of those of other religions.
Religious lobbying which impacts sections of society.
Application of religious laws which apply to even non-adherents of that religion.
Exclusion within society of minority religions or disbelievers.

These are merely a few. I could add many more, but the point is made that the costs are very high indeed.

[NiallM]

Dup

[valis]

To be a faithful Christian (edited to add: according to the beliefs of all the major sects I'm aware of), you're not allowed to think like that, because when faced with such unfathomable things like how the universe was formed, you're required to believe that God did it, and reject other possibilities, including the possibility that we don't know and may never know.

I am allowed to think any way I please. As someone mentioned above being a Christian means you belive Jesus was God or the Son of God ( even that is disputed). Nothing else.


That's a cost: giving up some of your freedom to reason for faith, even if it's a cost you're gladly willing to pay.

I can still reason just fine thanks. I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe until proven otherwise. As soon as there is one scintilla of evidence otherwise I will consider it. Also I think about these matters all the time and try to apply reason to them.


I agree with that outlook, but the difference is that an atheist or agnostic doesn't have to worry whether they'll suffer eternal torment if they reject their former conclusions (or give up their lack of conclusions), based on new scientific-based evidence.

A: I spend 0 time worrying about going to Hell or suffering eternal torment, it simply is not something I think about.

B: I don't mix science and religion. Religon to me is for areas beyond science.

[valis]

This is like asking what kind of person was I before I was conceived.

That was my point.

[Beady]

I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe until proven otherwise. As soon as there is one scintilla of evidence otherwise I will consider it.

We've got a reasonable idea of what happened. Why add God to the mix? If a perfectly ordinary explanation will suffice, what is the purpose of adding an extraordinary element?

I don't mix science and religion. Religon to me is for areas beyond science.

I could live with this, if you change "beyond" to "outside of." By which I mean the five criteria of science, as outlined in McLean v Arkansas, 1974:

Science is concerned solely with the physical universe
Science seeks answers with reference to physical law
Scientific propositions are testable
Scientific propositions are falsifiable
Scientific conclusions are tentativeNotice, though, that your statement above, "As soon as there is one scintilla of evidence otherwise I will consider it," is rendered meaningless and faithless. You are demanding evidence for God's noninvolvement, while rejecting the process and criteria by which the evidence is to be gathered and judged. In short, you're setting science up for failure.

[valis]

Of course there are costs involved in being religious.

Some of them may even be financial. Here's a few:

Time. Many religions demand a significant investment of time to observe their rituals. This may be daily, weekly, monthly, whatever. There may be a daily requirement for less formal activities, but it's all time.
Money. Tithing still exists in many churches. Some churches may also demand pilgrimages for atonement etc. These are not cheap.
Restriction of mating potential. Many churches frown on a member's marrying outside their religion.
Loss of family. Sometimes changing religion will ensure separation from your own family as will leaving their religion.
Health. JW anybody? They're not the only religion to come down against blood transfusions.
Education. Do I need to cite how the fundamentalists are trying to destroy science education to fit it in with their literalist interpretations of events in their holy books?
Freedom. Many decisions are simply taken away from the adherent, to be made in accordance with the rules of the holy books.
Life Experience. Many of these are frowned upon or outright banned by Churches, even though legal in secular society.
Civil Rights. In many churches, women have a subservient role and cannot participate fully in ceremonies and are considered incapable of interpreting scripture themselves.
Self-respect. Many religions regard common and natural human bevaiours as sinful and stimulate an over-powering sense of guilt among its adherents as a way to keep them on the straight and narrow. Hell, in xtianity, the child is guilty of serious sin even as it is born! No wonder they cry immediately.

These are just a few of the costs at the personal level. At the level of society there are more:

Violent tensions between religious groups which break out into war. Frequently.
Repression and censorship of literature, philosophy, science.
The weak and the less-intelligent being preyed on for their money.
Dehumanising of those of other religions.
Religious lobbying which impacts sections of society.
Application of religious laws which apply to even non-adherents of that religion.
Exclusion within society of minority religions or disbelievers.

These are merely a few. I could add many more, but the point is made that the costs are very high indeed.

I truly wish I had the time to comment on each of the above. In short I will paint them all with the same brush. If you think any of the behaviours above are caused by religion and would not exist in a world of rational atheists I think you and I have totally opposing views of human nature.

Try to imagine a world run by Ayn Rand and Madelyn Murray O'Hara.

[valis]

We've got a reasonable idea of what happened. Why add God to the mix?
I don't belive we do. I think we have a good idea what happened a very small amount of time after the creation of the universe. In fact a mind boggilingly small amount of time. But we can't know what set it in motion it lies Outside or or Beyond; I would use those terms interchangeblly.


You are demanding evidence for God's noninvolvement, while rejecting the process and criteria by which the evidence is to be gathered and judged. In short, you're setting science up for failure.

I am not demanding anything.And as I said science should not enter into it. There is no process I know of to gather or judge evidence from a place we can't go or observe,and in fact that defies the definition of time or place.

[dv82matt]

valis, I somewhat agree with your initial critisism of Randi's take on Pascal's Wager, although he is essentially just saying that he doesn't think it's a good bet, the more salient point to me is that it's based on a false premise.

I wonder if you would agree that any God belief is inherently an abdication of logic since it is not based on evidence.

[NiallM]

I truly wish I had the time to comment on each of the above. In short I will paint them all with the same brush. If you think any of the behaviours above are caused by religion and would not exist in a world of rational atheists I think you and I have totally opposing views of human nature.

Try to imagine a world run by Ayn Rand and Madelyn Murray O'Hara.
Pick a couple then. Pick tithing, guilt, time spent observing the religious rituals that go with membership, along with the health risks that obtain with certain belief systems.

I have no intention of imagining a world run by your examples. There's simply no point because you are proposing a false dichotomy. By asking me to, you are inferring that that is the alternative option. Nobody - Pascal included - suggested that that was the case.

I'm interested to hear how a rather smaller brush - applied to the points that I have pulled out - will demonstrate that they are not costs.

ETA: Since you haven't addressed even one of my points, I will use an illustrative example to demonstrate the cost of one of my examples.

I mentioned the cost to education of religious belief.

Here in France education is determinedly secular. As a result we do not have the xtian fundamentalists hammering away at Science eduation and trying to force their version of events on our children. Creationism is not taught in the schools and will never find its way into the science books.

In America we have seen the repeated and costly efforts to dilute the science curriculum and to enforce side-by-side teaching of creationism and evolution. The efforts to maintain the integrity of the science teaching have absorbed huge resources that could be better used in the schools: enormous amounts of time and energy are spent by educators defending the syllabus; enormous amounts of money are spent on court cases to defend science; scientists themselves have to spend time away from the field, away from their labs, to prepare for, and testify in, court cases. This is, quite simply, a waste of resources, money and energy, and is equally clearly, a cost.

[Beady]

I am not demanding anything.And as I said science should not enter into it. There is no process I know of to gather or judge evidence from a place we can't go or observe,and in fact that defies the definition of time or place.

Then please explain the underlined part:

"I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe until proven otherwise."

Proof demands evidence, therefore you are demanding evidence as a requirement for changing your mind. Proof and evidence are the province of science, therefore you, yourself, are subjecting the question to science. By your own criteria, science enters into it.

However, you have also effectively said there is no evidence that you will accept. You, yourself, are stating that your conclusion is definite, not tentative. Your implied offer to change your conclusion upon presentation of sufficient evidence was therefore either dishonest or illogical.

[dv82matt]

Pick a couple then. Pick tithing,Atheists may also choose to give to what they consider worthy causes.guilt,Do atheists never suffer from guilt? Religion may also be used to assuage guilt.time spent observing the religious rituals that go with membership,If one enjoys these rituals pehaps they are benefits and not costs.along with the health risks that obtain with certain belief systems.It may be wise to choose a faith that does not compromise your health.
I have no intention of imagining a world run by your examples. There's simply no point because you are proposing a false dichotomy. By asking me to, you are inferring that that is the alternative option. Nobody - Pascal included - suggested that that was the case.I think you missed the point. Many of the "costs" you are attributing to religion are really products of human nature.

[SezMe]

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven known, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.
There, I made a nit-picky correction because even religion doesn't claim to prove god exists; it is a matter of faith. That said, reading my post that you replied to, I don't see that we disagree.

[SezMe]

In my posts 54 and 55, I used "dv82matt" when I should have used "valis"

My bad. :blush:

[dv82matt]

No. It is believing in an effect without a cause. In the present case, a Christian has to believe that god "sent" Jesus to earth to redeem mankind ('cause if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, by definition). So god is the (sole and only) cause and Jesus is the effect. But then to be unsure of the existence of god, would necessarily imply an uncertainty about the Jesus and the resurrection.

QED.Would this argument apply to any God concept where God is believed to be the cause of something, or does it only appy in some cases? I can see that it would be conceptually difficult to maintain both positions simultanouesly but could that be an artifact of our limited ability to reason rather than with the position itself?

[dv82matt]

In my posts 54 and 55, I used "dv82matt" when I should have used "valis"

My bad. :blush:
No problem. Truth be told I hadn't noticed it until just now. :)

[NiallM]

Atheists may also choose to give to what they consider worthy causes.
Do atheists never suffer from guilt? Religion may also be used to assuage guilt.
If one enjoys these rituals pehaps they are benefits and not costs.

It may be wise to choose a faith that does not compromise your health.

I think you missed the point. Many of the "costs" you are attributing to religion are really products of human nature.
Atheists "may choose". That is the point: choice.

As for guilt: atheists aren't born with guilt; atheists don't feel guilty about enjoying, for instance, pre-marital sexual relationships; in a secular country one isn't forced to endure insitutionalised guilt - which is forced on its members by a moral code which exceeds the requirements of law and of concern for your fellow humans. Guilt is, of course, a human construct, but the atheist who feels guilty probably does so as a result of an act which he knows to have been either illegal or which he knows to have hurt or exploited someone. However, he will not necessarily feel guilt at the desire to do any of this if he hasn't acted on it. Yet in most churches the mere presence of a perfectly normal human impulse is considered sinful and tantamount to *acting* on that impulse. I reject your claim that religion "assuages" guilt; rather it highlights it, it emphasises it, it imposes threats of the direst consequences, and it uses guilt rather than simple concern for your fellow-man as a means to coerce behaviours.

It's not merely a matter of "enjoying" these rituals. Attendance demands more than simple respect for the spectacle. You must buy in to them too. Intellectually and emotionally. I must attend them with my heart and soul; I must commit to their demanded behaviours; I must swear to bring my children up in accordance with their creeds. In many cases, I must also commit my children's education to them. This is not simply a matter of wearing a collar and tie and turning up for the regular services. The churches themselves are very explicit about this.

Regarding choice of a faith that is not injurious, what about the injuries visited by churches on people who have no choice. What about the JW parents who won't allow a life-saving transfusion to be administered to their child? What about the misinformation that is peddled to them by their church as to why it is not allowed? WHat about the mutilation that is circumcision? Your point is glib and offhand. Many people - either thorugh the society in which they were born, or their parental adherence to obnoxious, illogical and dangerous practices, or through overwhelming pressure of their peers, have no real choice in their religious affiliation.

I am aware that some of things things are part of human nature. Religion exploits this, though, in instituting rigorous formalities around them and ensuring their continuation - even for such heinous policies as refusing blood donations. Only when we recognise this things and deal with them in a human and humane way can we progress. Religion stifles that progression to the detriment of all humanity.

[dv82matt]

Atheists "may choose". That is the point: choice.You seem to be assuming that theists "may not choose". This may be the case in some situations but it does not seem to be true in valis's case.
As for guilt: atheists aren't born with guilt; atheists don't feel guilty about enjoying, for instance, pre-marital sexual relationships; in a secular country one isn't forced to endure insitutionalised guilt - which is forced on its members by a moral code which exceeds the requirements of law and of concern for your fellow humans.Would an atheist feel guilty about practicing bigamy? Should they? Your point is well recieved but it is a bit of a generalization. You are also assuming that it is inappropriate to feel guilty about pre-marital sexual relationships but that is not nessessarily a given, fundamentalists for example would likely disagree.
Guilt is, of course, a human construct, but the atheist who feels guilty probably does so as a result of an act which he knows to have been either illegal or which he knows to have hurt or exploited someone. However, he will not necessarily feel guilt at the desire to do any of this if he hasn't acted on it. Yet in most churches the mere presence of a perfectly normal human impulse is considered sinful and tantamount to *acting* on that impulse. I reject your claim that religion "assuages" guilt; rather it highlights it, it emphasises it, it imposes threats of the direst consequences, and it uses guilt rather than simple concern for your fellow-man as a means to coerce behaviours.In many cases this is accurate but far from all. Being an atheist is no guarantee against inappropriate feelings of guilt, nor is theism guaranteed to produce them.
It's not merely a matter of "enjoying" these rituals. Attendance demands more than simple respect for the spectacle. You must buy in to them too. Intellectually and emotionally. I must attend them with my heart and soul; I must commit to their demanded behaviours; I must swear to bring my children up in accordance with their creeds. In many cases, I must also commit my children's education to them. This is not simply a matter of wearing a collar and tie and turning up for the regular services. The churches themselves are very explicit about this.Just because you do not see the things that you mention as benefits does not mean that others will not.
Regarding choice of a faith that is not injurious, what about the injuries visited by churches on people who have no choice. What about the JW parents who won't allow a life-saving transfusion to be administered to their child? What about the misinformation that is peddled to them by their church as to why it is not allowed? WHat about the mutilation that is circumcision? Your point is glib and offhand.This is irrelevant. We are talking about the choice to practice a religion.
Many people - either thorugh the society in which they were born, or their parental adherence to obnoxious, illogical and dangerous practices, or through overwhelming pressure of their peers, have no real choice in their religious affiliation.Or lack of it, if it were to come to that.
I am aware that some of things things are part of human nature. Religion exploits this, though, in instituting rigorous formalities around them and ensuring their continuation - even for such heinous policies as refusing blood donations. Only when we recognise this things and deal with them in a human and humane way can we progress. Religion stifles that progression to the detriment of all humanity.Indeed it does. But don't paint all religions with the same brush just because some of the most prominent ones are so dispicable. And don't neglect the fact that there are positives to religion as well as negatives. For better or worse many people seem to have a 'need' for a God belief. Such people can make a positive contribution to society whatever you may think of their religious tendencies.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Valis,

Two questions:

1) How can you belive in specifically the xian god/xianity if no-one had told you about it?

2) What created god?

[SezMe]

Would this argument apply to any God concept where God is believed to be the cause of something, or does it only appy in some cases? I can see that it would be conceptually difficult to maintain both positions simultanouesly but could that be an artifact of our limited ability to reason rather than with the position itself?
Dunno. Your post reminds me of that old question, "Can god create a four-sided triangle?" Seems to me that if you have a cause that is the sole and only cause of an effect, and you have no doubt about the effect, then you must therefore have no doubt about the cause....no matter what the cause and effect are.

Maybe one of our resident philosophers/logicians can point out an error in my argument if there is one.

[NiallM]

You seem to be assuming that theists "may not choose". This may be the case in some situations but it does not seem to be true in valis's case.
Would an atheist feel guilty about practicing bigamy? Should they? Your point is well recieved but it is a bit of a generalization. You are also assuming that it is inappropriate to feel guilty about pre-marital sexual relationships but that is not nessessarily a given, fundamentalists for example would likely disagree.
In many cases this is accurate but far from all. Being an atheist is no guarantee against inappropriate feelings of guilt, nor is theism guaranteed to produce them.
Just because you do not see the things that you mention as benefits does not mean that others will not.
This is irrelevant. We are talking about the choice to practice a religion.
Or lack of it, if it were to come to that.
Indeed it does. But don't paint all religions with the same brush just because some of the most prominent ones are so dispicable. And don't neglect the fact that there are positives to religion as well as negatives. For better or worse many people seem to have a 'need' for a God belief. Such people can make a positive contribution to society whatever you may think of their religious tendencies.
I never stated that everything associated with religion is bad. What I *am* pointing out is that there is a cost to religious adherence. The question is whether the putative benfits outweigh the costs.

And, no, I think that to say that we are talking about the choice to practice a religion is to ignore real world conditions. There are communities in America where adherence is more than a simple matter of following the prevailing religious trend. Looking further than them, we can see sharia-run locales where there is no choice whatever about following, and the alternative is simply not an option. Even in more moderate climes, familial as well as societal pressure can be overwhelming for many.

It's not as if we are left until we have achieved our majority and are then shown powerpoint presentations of the world's major religions and asked then which one we'd like to sign up to. By that stage, many have been thoroughly indoctrinated, robbed of body parts (in extreme cases), are under the influence of a powerful, paternalistic and misogynistic ruling elite.

To ignore that and to retreat to a position where we all have the choice to avail or not to avail of Pascal's Wager is to hypothesise a dream world.

And the real-world example utterly undermines the exercise by showing the dreadfully high cost involved in religious adherence, anyway.

Both ways, the Wager is dead in the water, and can be seen for what it is: an act of whimsy and the results of a not very well thought through piece of intellectual masturbation.

[NiallM]

Point by point:You seem to be assuming that theists "may not choose". This may be the case in some situations but it does not seem to be true in valis's case.No. I'm not assuming. I'm asserting. An enormous amounts of theists have no choice about being theists and have even less about whih form of theism they must practice.
Would an atheist feel guilty about practicing bigamy? Should they? Your point is well recieved but it is a bit of a generalization. You are also assuming that it is inappropriate to feel guilty about pre-marital sexual relationships but that is not nessessarily a given, fundamentalists for example would likely disagree.I don't know where bigamy came from, but, yes, if an atheist lives in a society where bigamy is illegal, he or she may feel guilty about it - or at least fearful as to the consequences if said bigamy is discovered. Bigamy is almost uniquely an act committed by only one of the partners, by the way. I struggle to find a pattern of two people bigamously marrying each other with each other's knowledge. I would certainly feel that it would be a gross manipulation of the affections of another person to marry them while remaining married to another. I would be telling the grossest lies in that instance and would be potentially ruining their life. I would certainly feel some anguish about the possible legal outcome as well as the outcome when they - and the third party involved - discovered my deception.
In many cases this is accurate but far from all. Being an atheist is no guarantee against inappropriate feelings of guilt, nor is theism guaranteed to produce them.I never proposed that atheism is a prrof against feelings of guilt, but I will strongly maintain that guilt is an inevitable and inextricable aspect of xtianity as well as other religions. xtianity even imposes sin on new-borns. One of its major sacraments is confession! Atonement is one of the keystones of many religions. I notice that you haven't responded to my point about normal human urges being considered equal - as sins - to the deed of acting on these urges. That is a crucial difference between atheism and theism. I can carry a lustful thought as an atheist and dismiss it without acting on it. Result: a rueful acknowledgment of the human condition. A theist, on teh other hand, has already committed a sin, and is burdened with that sin until he or she is absolved of it by confession and penance.
Just because you do not see the things that you mention as benefits does not mean that others will not.The benfits that you mentioned about observing religios ceremonies are purely aesthetic. I as an atheist sometimes drop in on religious services in various Cathdrals. They knew their music, their acoustics, and their harmonies, did the church. The point about others having a different view is precisely the reason I am typing here. The wrold would be rather dry, and debate rather irrelevant if everyone agreed at all times.
This is irrelevant. We are talking about the choice to practice a religion.
Or lack of it, if it were to come to that.I've covered that in my previous post.
Indeed it does. But don't paint all religions with the same brush just because some of the most prominent ones are so dispicable. And don't neglect the fact that there are positives to religion as well as negatives. For better or worse many people seem to have a 'need' for a God belief. Such people can make a positive contribution to society whatever you may think of their religious tendencies.Replace "some of the most prominent ones" with "all of the most prominent ones", and you're getting there. The barbarity and inhumanity that has been inflcited by organised religions is too well-documented to ignore. Their collusion, encouragement and blessings have followed and buoyed up their adherents as they have maimed, murdered, raped, pillaged and tortured those who didn't share the same ideas. It's the history of man.

This "need" you speak of, though. What is that other than a fear of what lurks beyond the light of the fire around which we huddle? What is it other than a fear of what happens when our elders die? What is it other than a hope that we can all eventually be reunited with our loved ones? Fear, fear again, and hope. All eminently human conditions. Nothing supernatural about them at all. And what's more, they're things which can be addressed and dealt with one at a time - without need for a divine recourse, or the promise of a grand reunion party in the celestial sphere.

The need for something as abstruse as comfort in teh face of an unremitting life cycle doesn't in itself confer any credibility of any religion which attempts to explain it. And when the price is as high as I perceive it to be, then it appears that there is no place for religion in the human condition.

[dv82matt]

I never stated that everything associated with religion is bad. What I *am* pointing out is that there is a cost to religious adherence. The question is whether the putative benfits outweigh the costs.Well you only listed the costs and not the benefits. Do you feel that there are no benefits? (Other than heaven if it's true.)
And, no, I think that to say that we are talking about the choice to practice a religion is to ignore real world conditions. There are communities in America where adherence is more than a simple matter of following the prevailing religious trend. Looking further than them, we can see sharia-run locales where there is no choice whatever about following, and the alternative is simply not an option. Even in more moderate climes, familial as well as societal pressure can be overwhelming for many.:confused: But that's what we were talking about. I still don't see the relevance of bringing people who don't have a choice into it. Obviously if they don't have a choice they don't have a choice. What is there to discuss?
It's not as if we are left until we have achieved our majority and are then shown powerpoint presentations of the world's major religions and asked then which one we'd like to sign up to. By that stage, many have been thoroughly indoctrinated, robbed of body parts (in extreme cases), are under the influence of a powerful, paternalistic and misogynistic ruling elite.There are all kinds of things that figure into a person's choice. It's not always as draconian as you make out to be though. Many Christians lead quite happy lives.
To ignore that and to retreat to a position where we all have the choice to avail or not to avail of Pascal's Wager is to hypothesise a dream world.I realize that not everyone has a choice. And that even those that do have a choice are heavily influenced by a number of factors like upbringing, culture, religion and nationality. So what? Every choice that we make is influenced in this way. Do you think that nothing influences your own choices?And the real-world example utterly undermines the exercise by showing the dreadfully high cost involved in religious adherence, anyway.Only to some people. There are rational people who choose to be religious you know.
Both ways, the Wager is dead in the water, and can be seen for what it is: an act of whimsy and the results of a not very well thought through piece of intellectual masturbation.Well yes, the wager is dead in the water no matter what. Anyone who uses it as the basis of their choice to be religious is making an ill informed choice.

[dv82matt]

No. I'm not assuming. I'm asserting. An enormous amounts of theists have no choice about being theists and have even less about whih form of theism they must practice.Okay asserting then. I don't see much practical difference.
I don't know where bigamy came from,Same place as premarital sex did apparently.
but, yes, if an atheist lives in a society where bigamy is illegal, he or she may feel guilty about it - or at least fearful as to the consequences if said bigamy is discovered.Perhaps one could assuage ones feelings of guilt by joining a cult then. Or are you saying that feelings of guilt would be appropriate in this case?
Bigamy is almost uniquely an act committed by only one of the partners, by the way. I struggle to find a pattern of two people bigamously marrying each other with each other's knowledge. I would certainly feel that it would be a gross manipulation of the affections of another person to marry them while remaining married to another. I would be telling the grossest lies in that instance and would be potentially ruining their life. I would certainly feel some anguish about the possible legal outcome as well as the outcome when they - and the third party involved - discovered my deception.Right I agree.
I never proposed that atheism is a prrof against feelings of guilt, but I will strongly maintain that guilt is an inevitable and inextricable aspect of xtianity as well as other religions.Historically that may be true but there has been a significant liberalization of many sects of Christianity over the last half century or so.
xtianity even imposes sin on new-borns.Somedenominations do. Emphasis on 'some'.
One of its major sacraments is confession!You're talking as if all denominations are identical. This is mostly a Catholic thing.
Atonement is one of the keystones of many religions.Indeed it is.
I notice that you haven't responded to my point about normal human urges being considered equal - as sins - to the deed of acting on these urges. That is a crucial difference between atheism and theism. I can carry a lustful thought as an atheist and dismiss it without acting on it. Result: a rueful acknowledgment of the human condition. A theist, on teh other hand, has already committed a sin, and is burdened with that sin until he or she is absolved of it by confession and penance.Some theists, not all theists, not even all Christians. There is much variety to choose from.
The benfits that you mentioned about observing religios ceremonies are purely aesthetic. I as an atheist sometimes drop in on religious services in various Cathdrals. They knew their music, their acoustics, and their harmonies, did the church.I'm not sure that it would be purely aesthetic to a person who truly believed though.
The point about others having a different view is precisely the reason I am typing here. The wrold would be rather dry, and debate rather irrelevant if everyone agreed at all times.Agreed.
Replace "some of the most prominent ones" with "all of the most prominent ones", and you're getting there. The barbarity and inhumanity that has been inflcited by organised religions is too well-documented to ignore. Their collusion, encouragement and blessings have followed and buoyed up their adherents as they have maimed, murdered, raped, pillaged and tortured those who didn't share the same ideas. It's the history of man.Yes, it is the history of humanity. I think you could make an equally compelling case against the nation state as you could against religion however. What nation has not commited atrocities at one time or another? What king was ever not a tyrant? So it goes.
This "need" you speak of, though. What is that other than a fear of what lurks beyond the light of the fire around which we huddle? What is it other than a fear of what happens when our elders die? What is it other than a hope that we can all eventually be reunited with our loved ones? Fear, fear again, and hope. All eminently human conditions. Nothing supernatural about them at all.Very true. Well put.
And what's more, they're things which can be addressed and dealt with one at a time - without need for a divine recourse, or the promise of a grand reunion party in the celestial sphere.How would you address and deal with the fear of death and are you sure that your solution would be satisfying to everyone? Some may need to cling to their cherished beliefs and in fact not be better off without them.The need for something as abstruse as comfort in teh face of an unremitting life cycle doesn't in itself confer any credibility of any religion which attempts to explain it. And when the price is as high as I perceive it to be, then it appears that there is no place for religion in the human condition.Indeed, but that is your conclusion. It may not work for everyone.

[Aepervius]

This wussy liberalistic view of Christianity I consider rank hypocrisy.

Whatever rock your boat. The definition I gave above is the dictionary definition :

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (*)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christian

Where does it say the whole bible must be the authorithy ?

Maybe you do not like websters :

(*) I think quoting a sentence is fair use as long as you give the original web page, or is it now completly forbidden ?

[macgyver]

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.

In truth, most people are agnostic.

I've always felt that agnosticism is a somewhat transistional stage on the way to or from atheism.

To be agnostic is in many ways "keeping a foot in the door....just in case".

However, I've since moved on to atheism for several reasons. The most prominent being:

1) God doesn't have a job. There's litterally no reason for him
2) What's the difference between there being no God, and there being a God that leaves no evidence?

The second is very much like Sagan's dragon in Demon Haunted World.

Other reasons deal more specifically with the different flavours that organized religion takes on and the fact that any depth of review will result in coming to a few conclusions:

1) God, or Gods; non have been described that are worthy of worship. They all have critical flaws

2) Heaven would be a horrible exclusionary place of infinite boredom...

[dv82matt]

Dunno. Your post reminds me of that old question, "Can god create a four-sided triangle?" Seems to me that if you have a cause that is the sole and only cause of an effect, and you have no doubt about the effect, then you must therefore have no doubt about the cause....no matter what the cause and effect are.

Maybe one of our resident philosophers/logicians can point out an error in my argument if there is one.The logic seems to hold but I'm not sure of its relevance to the question at hand. It seems to me that the salient question is whether Christianity permits doubt of it's core tenets or not.

[NiallM]

Okay asserting then. I don't see much practical difference.
Same place as premarital sex did apparently.
Perhaps one could assuage ones feelings of guilt by joining a cult then. Or are you saying that feelings of guilt would be appropriate in this case?
Right I agree.
Historically that may be true but there has been a significant liberalization of many sects of Christianity over the last half century or so.Somedenominations do. Emphasis on 'some'.
You're talking as if all denominations are identical. This is mostly a Catholic thing.
Indeed it is.
Some theists, not all theists, not even all Christians. There is much variety to choose from.
I'm not sure that it would be purely aesthetic to a person who truly believed though.
Agreed.
Yes, it is the history of humanity. I think you could make an equally compelling case against the nation state as you could against religion however. What nation has not commited atrocities at one time or another? What king was ever not a tyrant? So it goes.
Very true. Well put.
How would you address and deal with the fear of death and are you sure that your solution would be satisfying to everyone? Some may need to cling to their cherished beliefs and in fact not be better off without them.Indeed, but that is your conclusion. It may not work for everyone.
Damn you anyway! We're pretty much agreed. Maybe even converging on the same point from different sides of the line.

[Rissask]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.

That is you have just as much reason to belive there is a God as not; in fact I have a very hard time defining what the definition of a God would be or what the lack of one would imply. Why? Because all the answers would lie in a 'time' before the creation of the uninverse, in other words in a time before time itself existed.

How I came to decide that Christianity makes sense; that is a long story that basically involved trying approach the subject withouth prejudice (as much as possible of course) and then coming to a personal decision.

In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

You are right in that you cannot 'prove' a negative; there is no way of proving whether or not God exists.

But to me, that is like saying, well, heck- I cannot prove there are no fairies living in my garden (I believe this a Dawkins analogy), so therefore I should be open minded on the subject of fairies in my garden. I should be agnostic on the subject of fairies. :rolleyes:

Um, no- that makes no rational sense, believing something to be even possibly true, for which there exists no evidence!

And saying atheism is a religion is like calling bald a haircolour.:eek:

[macgyver]

And saying atheism is a religion is like calling bald a haircolour.:eek:

That's awesome! Can I use that?

[gnome]

2 cents here myself...

It appears that valis has chosen Christianity as a result of concluding that atheism is just another choice about the unknowable.

I explain the logical difference this way: arbitrarily choosing Christianity involves supposing very specific things that are unknowable. The divinity and sacrifice of Jesus, in particular.

Atheism does not require you to suppose the existence of anything without reasonable evidence. Where atheism leaves a blank, theism (especially choosing a specific theism) has the gumption to fill in the blank, based on what?

[macgyver]

To further Gnome's point:

It appears that many theists view atheists as having a "belief" just as they do.

However, atheists are not saying that they have a disbelief in something for which there is evidence (ie water) because that also would require "faith".

I believe water exists, because there is ample evidence, and I (or scientists) can test it's qualities. If I stated that I don't believe in water, only my faith could help me hold onto that belief.

Atheism is the lack of that kind of belief.

I don't believe in God because no evidence has been offered that proves his existence. No faith required!

[SezMe]

That's awesome! Can I use that?
Don't worry, that's not original with Rissask. It's public domain.

[Jon.]

After reading the bible and thinking about it at length I decided that I enjoyed and valued many of the things I found in Christianity. All things being equal I made an informed descision to be a Christian. It was a personal decision and I have no desire to convert others or argue over the merits of one world view over the other.

This position is sometimes known as credo consolans: I believe because it makes me happier to do so. It is a position that asks no proof of the existence of god(s) and acknowledges that there is no such proof. It is therefore an unassailable position, philosophically. It is also quite respectable, held by no less a skeptic than Martin Gardner.

I would, however, ask one question: why Christianity? Why not Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, or innumerable other belief systems?

[macgyver]

Allow me to try again. After reading the bible and thinking about it at length I decided that I enjoyed and valued many of the things I found in Christianity. All things being equal I made an informed descision to be a Christian. It was a personal decision and I have no desire to convert others or argue over the merits of one world view over the other.



I'm also curious as to why you would necessarily buy the subscription, if you only had to read a few articles to take away the information?

I can understand, perhaps, that after filtering out the vast majority of what's written in the Bible one could distill some words of wisdom to live by. How does one make the leap to believing in God's only Son being killed on a cross and then resurrected?

That's the price of admission to that show, and it's far too steep for this skeptic...

[politas]

Whatever rock your boat. The definition I gave above is the dictionary definition :

Main Entry: 1Chris·tian
Pronunciation: 'kris-ch&n, 'krish-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin christianus, adjective & n., from Greek christianos, from Christos
1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ b (*)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christian

Where does it say the whole bible must be the authorithy ?

Maybe you do not like websters :

(*) I think quoting a sentence is fair use as long as you give the original web page, or is it now completly forbidden ?

I've got nothing against Websters. I like dictionaries. I sometimes read them for pleasure.

But a dictionary definition is only the start of a concept, it is not the entirety, otherwise there would be no need for non-fiction books other than a comprehensive dictionary.

What exactly is involved in belief in the teachings of Jesus? Well, for a start, it involves a belief that what is written in the bible is an accurate record of Jesus' teachings, since no one can hear him speaking today. (Ok, there are some people that claim to do so, but most of them are considered mentally unsound).

So being a Christian implies acceptance that at least some of the bible is accurate. Given that, how does a person choose which parts are accurate, and which parts are metaphors or inaccurate? Some metaphors are obviously metaphors, obviously intended to be metaphors by the authors. The rest is presented as fact. How do we decide what is fact and what is not out of the parts which are not obviously metaphors?

One way would be to compare the biblical record with other extant historical sources. That doesn't work very well, since none of the extant historical sources provide any confirmation for the events in the bible. Indeed there are parts that are quite clearly fictional, since known writers would surely have written of such events, e.g. the Slaughter of the Innocents from Matthew.

So we're left with merely choosing the parts we agree with, and that's a very slippery path for Christianity to base itself on. That's what all christians actually do, in effect, though they rarely admit to it. That is hypocrisy.

[SezMe]

Fortunately, as macgyver points out, valis is NOT a hypocit. He admits upfront that his religion makes him feel good and therefore he is religious. Thus, I do not think you are correct that "all christians" do this. Other examples are those extreme sects that do, in fact, agree with all parts.

[macgyver]

One way would be to compare the biblical record with other extant historical sources. That doesn't work very well, since none of the extant historical sources provide any confirmation for the events in the bible.

I would say that worked VERY well. You just proved that the Bible is not historically accurate, especially if multiple extant sources are in agreement and the Bible is not.

Also, you mentioned that nobody can hear Jesus speaking today. First of all, you have to accept that there actually was a single man named Jesus (rather than Jesus being an amalgam of many existing, and pre-existing messiah figures) and that you actually speak his language. The writers of the Gospels didn't hear him either, since they were written generations after his alleged death. Two of them most likely copies of Mark, and then there's Paul/Saul..

Then there's the striking similarities between the Jesus story and that of Mithras...hundreds of years prior to Jesus being "born"

I'm by no means an expert in this...but evidence seems overwhelmingly against accuracy of any kind in the Bible...

[valis]

valis, I somewhat agree with your initial critisism of Randi's take on Pascal's Wager, although he is essentially just saying that he doesn't think it's a good bet, the more salient point to me is that it's based on a false premise.

I wonder if you would agree that any God belief is inherently an abdication of logic since it is not based on evidence.


I wish I could be a little more literate in explaining this but simply put no I don't because I readily admit there is no evidence. This is where I get a little stumped trying to explain: It is not a matter to be proved or disproved. It does not require evidence because it deals with non material matters.

The actual criticism I had of Randi's article is the way he derisivly treats all Christians as brainwashed buffons Hallelujahing and tithing their way through life. My wife was raised by fundementalists and even though they are about as far from me belief wise as you can get they are still nothing like the carictacure Mr.Randi and many others seem to have.

[SezMe]

I wish I could be a little more literate in explaining this but simply put no I don't because I readily admit there is no evidence. This is where I get a little stumped trying to explain: It is not a matter to be proved or disproved. It does not require evidence because it deals with non material matters.
I don't think you are stumped at all. You just say, "I take it as an article of faith."

The skeptic say, "But there is no evidence!"

You say, "I take it as an article of faith."

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to defend your religious beliefs as being logical, you are OK. It is when someone tries to defend their religion or justify its application to others that they go off track.

[BPScooter]

Hi again, I'm prophetic because in post #3 on this thread I predicted that we would get into issues like 'mind' and 'belief.' I neglected to mention 'self' but we have plenty of time for that.

This quote comes from John Derbyshire, whose writings are available (thanks to his own scupulous archive) on www.olimu.com

" Nobody even glancingly acquainted with the history of the last quarter-millenium would assert that you can arrive at a rational social order by dumping religion overboard. My own estimate of the power of reason in human affairs is, I am willing to bet, a lot smaller than Ponnuru’s—it is, I think, smaller than that of anyone I have ever met—and I am sure that poor beleaguered reason needs all the help it can get. A sophisticated religious belief (I am not speaking of shamanism or voodoo) can indeed supply an organizing principle within which reason might usefully operate, “might” being of course the key word there. "

Ponnuru is having his book reviewed, and arguing a Right to Life case, but not from entirely religious grounds. Derbyshire is disagreeing. This is an interesting development for anyone that thinks that all Conservatives are Christian, or all scientists are atheists, or all mathematicians can't write decent English.

[valis]

along with the health risks that obtain with certain belief systems.

Here I'll pick an easy one. Did you consider the health benifits of some religions. Mormons are some healthy little devils. In fact isn't Utah one of the healthiest states in the US if I recall correctly. I would bet that some eastern religions call for meditation has some health benifits. Many religouse folks don't drink or smoke (although frankly I drink enough to make up for it and I'm reading the same bible so go figure).

So here is what I guess we have to do. Add up the health benifits from religion and then weigh that against the detrimental effects from some of the other religions. BTW at least in the US the number of people that refuse health treatment on biblical grounds is a tiny minority so I would wager that the good far outweighs the bad. But please by all means run the numbers, worldwide of course and get back to me.

I have no intention of imagining a world run by your examples. There's simply no point because you are proposing a false dichotomy. By asking me to, you are inferring that that is the alternative option.

Only I can truly know what I am in inferring and I am inferring no such thing. I am trying to point out that crappy behaviour and irrational decison making can be done just as easily by the Atheist as by the believer.


I'm interested to hear how a rather smaller brush - applied to the points that I have pulled out - will demonstrate that they are not costs.

ETA: Since you haven't addressed even one of my points, I will use an illustrative example to demonstrate the cost of one of my examples.

I mentioned the cost to education of religious belief.

Here in France education is determinedly secular. As a result we do not have the xtian fundamentalists hammering away at Science eduation and trying to force their version of events on our children. Creationism is not taught in the schools and will never find its way into the science books.


Then again maybe the public debate is good in an overall fashion. I would bet at the end of the day there will be less belief is the fundementalist view of creation and not more as the result of the issue being discussed in public.

Also I almost forgot, what about the church's contribtation to education. My Sister in law is spending her own money and vacation time to go on a church trip to Central America to work on a school. She and the other members of her church belive that they are compelled to do such things by Jesus.

Perhaps the school will poison the little shoeless children's minds with religion but at least they will learn to read and write and do a little math.

[dv82matt]

I wish I could be a little more literate in explaining this but simply put no I don't because I readily admit there is no evidence. This is where I get a little stumped trying to explain: It is not a matter to be proved or disproved. It does not require evidence because it deals with non material matters.But by bypassing evidence aren't you nessessarily also bypassing logic? Are you utilising logic in some other way? I admit that your position is not specifically ruled out by logic but I don't see how it can be derived from logic either. (other than in a purely pragmatic way of course)
The actual criticism I had of Randi's article is the way he derisivly treats all Christians as brainwashed buffons Hallelujahing and tithing their way through life. My wife was raised by fundementalists and even though they are about as far from me belief wise as you can get they are still nothing like the carictacure Mr.Randi and many others seem to have.Yeah, I hear you.

[valis]

."
The skeptic say, "But there is no evidence!"

You say, "I take it as an article of faith."

As long as you are clear that you are not trying to defend your religious beliefs as being logical, you are OK. It is when someone tries to defend their religion or justify its application to others that they go off track.

I would prefer to say that 'I am logical in things that call for the application of logic'. But then I am splitting hairs.

As far as pushing my beleifs on others, no way, people should decide on their own. I normally never even bring the subject up but it is dang hard not to fall in the trap of discussing religion on this site. Anyhow if I were to encourage people to share my beleifs or come to a service with me and they were to get bit by one of the snakes, well I would just feel awful :)

[BPScooter]

This is so interesting and good and well-written, that you all might want to click on the whole article. Ponnuru and Derbyshire are both frequent contributors to National Review. They are both smart and able. What I wonder is which of them will be disappearing? I bet both of them will continue to write and disagree...I hope so.

http://www.olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Reviews/Party%20of%20Death.htm

[Darat]

...snip...

What exactly is involved in belief in the teachings of Jesus? Well, for a start, it involves a belief that what is written in the bible is an accurate record of Jesus' teachings, since no one can hear him speaking today. (Ok, there are some people that claim to do so, but most of them are considered mentally unsound).

...snip...



I've italicized a part of your post above - I address this misconception in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1698673&postcount=57

I'll say it again your view of Christianity is a comparatively recent position that at best applies to a small minority of people who today would describe themselves as Christians.

[Darat]

I've always felt that agnosticism is a somewhat transistional stage on the way to or from atheism.

...snip....

That is indeed how it is often used in the modern world but it's not really what agnosticism means and we should fight its misuse! :)

Agnosticism takes a very definite position regarding the existence or not of a God, its simplest expression is "we can never know if God exists or if God doesn't exist".

It is a philosophy that sets, as one of its axioms, a limit on what we can ever know about God, for an agnostic it will never mater how much we know about the universe they have faith that we can never know about God.

[gruk]

Dunno. Your post reminds me of that old question, "Can god create a four-sided triangle?" Seems to me that if you have a cause that is the sole and only cause of an effect, and you have no doubt about the effect, then you must therefore have no doubt about the cause....no matter what the cause and effect are.

Maybe one of our resident philosophers/logicians can point out an error in my argument if there is one.

It, roughly, depends on what you mean by sole and only cause of an effect.

Let me hark back to the well-loved domain of logic expressions. I will use C to signify a cause, E to signify an effect, & for logical and, | for logical inclusive or, ~ for negation and -> for logical implication.

If you mean:
~C -> ~E (without Cause C, there will be no effect E)
we can conclude that E is sufficient evidence for C.

An implication is false only if the left-hand side is true and the right-hand side is false, so given that we hold the implication to be true, the existence of E (thus, ~E being false), we will need ~C to be false and the only way that can happen is if C is true.

[politas]

I would say that worked VERY well. You just proved that the Bible is not historically accurate, especially if multiple extant sources are in agreement and the Bible is not.

...

I'm by no means an expert in this...but evidence seems overwhelmingly against accuracy of any kind in the Bible...

I agree with you, but we're not arguing whether or not the bible is accurate, here. We're talking about what it takes to be a christian believer.

[politas]

It’s a very common misconception in the USA and UK, that the Bible is the authority for a Christian.

...

Your question is answered by what is and always has been the dominant form of Christianity, i.e. what we call Roman Catholicism. In very simplified terms "The Bible" is not to be interpreted by your or I, indeed there is no real reason for us to ever even read the Bible, according to RC the “church” provides people with the doctrine they should follow. And ultimately the matter of what is “metaphor” or “literal” is decided by God’s representative on earth i.e. the Pope.

Yes, but the Roman Catholic church only draw their authority from the bible. While it is their prerogative to interpret the bible on behalf of adherents, the bible is still the source of their claimed authority. The authority which says that Jesus was god is the bible. No other document claims this without referencing the bible.

[politas]

Fortunately, as macgyver points out, valis is NOT a hypocit. He admits upfront that his religion makes him feel good and therefore he is religious. Thus, I do not think you are correct that "all christians" do this.

Isn't he? he agrees with and values some things from the Bible, so he has decided to be a Christian, even though he doesn't agree with or value all the things in the Bible. So either he is not completely being a Christian, or he is abrogating his personal morality to a book/church. To me, that is hypocrisy, though I understand that other people may disagree.

It's far more a societal hypocrisy, rather than a personal one, and it has existed since the early days of the Roman Catholic church (one of the most hypocritical organisations in the world). After all, the RC church claims that its doctrinal position is infallible, even though they have changed their doctrinal position constantly over the years.

Other examples are those extreme sects that do, in fact, agree with all parts.

I challenge you to present a single person that does. There are many that claim they do, but if you ask them to give you their wallet, I bet they won't.

In any case, agreeing with every single part of the bible is literally impossible, since it includes contradictory exhortations.

[Hellbound]

You know...

I do think we tend to fall into a reverse of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy when discussing religion, and valis does have a point.

As skeptics, we become most familiar with the extremes of religion, as that's what tends to get more press (so to speak). And it is easy to start grouping them all into that category.

Even outside that, we have a tendency to do much of what we're doing here..."If you're a Christian then you have to X" or "If you're a Muslim then you have to Y". Personally, I tend to think if one claims to be a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) then that's what they are.

Is it hypocritical to believe in Jesus without believing in the Bible? Possibly, but not necessarily. One could believe that Jesus existed, and was the divine incarnate, but also recognize that the Bible is the work of men, and distrust its accuracy. While this does take some mental gymnastics, to a degree, as long as one accepts that this is purely an article of faith, and not a logical belief...and as long as one does not allow this article of faith to take the place of logic in other decisions of import, I don't really see a problem. None of us are 100% skeptical or 100% logical in all our beliefs or actions. We're human :)

The insistence that all Christians must believe the Bible or be hypocrits is, frankly, a strawman that we are throwing up. At best, it's simply a matter of categorization, at worst it's a strawman. Does it matter if we call valis a Christian or not? He could call himself a Neochristipatomian and it really doesn't change any part of the central argument he's making.

This is analogous to those who make accusations against skeptics about what we must believe, or against those calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or whatever. I think we really do aourselves a dis-service with this type of argument, as one the one hand it's somewhat strawish, and on the other it's primarily semantic.

[macgyver]

That is indeed how it is often used in the modern world but it's not really what agnosticism means and we should fight its misuse! :)



I think that you know that I wasn't offering a definition of agnosticism, but rather an observation of those who call themselves that.

It's fence sitting, and I sat that fence for a very long time. However, to stay at that place I'd suggest that you have grown weary of the debate, and have decided not to decide.

which, in itself, is a decision I suppose....

What's interesting about it, however, is that as an atheist, I don't know that my position has changed much. I'm still of the philosophical position that perhaps we can never know, however, all indications are that God(s) don't/cannot exist.

The difference here, is that I've decided not to believe until proven there's something to believe in. As an agnostic, I was giving either possibility equal billing. Almost a half-assed Pascal's Wager of sorts...(to come back to the topic).

[macgyver]

As skeptics, we become most familiar with the extremes of religion, as that's what tends to get more press (so to speak). And it is easy to start grouping them all into that category.


Actually I try to be careful to avoid that, we do need to understand that even if people subscribe to a particular dogma, there is variation because of the individuality of the person



Even outside that, we have a tendency to do much of what we're doing here..."If you're a Christian then you have to X" or "If you're a Muslim then you have to Y". Personally, I tend to think if one claims to be a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) then that's what they are.


This is not true. There are actually basic tennants of each of these religions that need to be met before you can adopt the label. Otherwise you've just started something uniquely your own. Which is fine, because that's how they all start. Just don't call yourself something you're not, or you'll upset the ones who are.



Is it hypocritical to believe in Jesus without believing in the Bible? Possibly, but not necessarily. One could believe that Jesus existed, and was the divine incarnate, but also recognize that the Bible is the work of men, and distrust its accuracy. While this does take some mental gymnastics, to a degree, as long as one accepts that this is purely an article of faith, and not a logical belief...and as long as one does not allow this article of faith to take the place of logic in other decisions of import, I don't really see a problem. None of us are 100% skeptical or 100% logical in all our beliefs or actions. We're human :)


It's not necessarily hypocritical to believe in Jesus and not the Bible, unless you belong to a church that requires that of you. If you do, perhaps the hypocrisy will motivate you to look elsewhere (as it did me). However, is it hypocrisy to be a skeptic, and believe in the Jesus myth? I'd say that your skepticism is, at least, severly impaired.


The insistence that all Christians must believe the Bible or be hypocrits is, frankly, a strawman that we are throwing up. At best, it's simply a matter of categorization, at worst it's a strawman. Does it matter if we call valis a Christian or not? He could call himself a Neochristipatomian and it really doesn't change any part of the central argument he's making.


Again, not necessarily a strawman, if believing in the Bible is part of defining a Christian. We're not saying HOW the Bible needs to be believed, but it's obviously central to the faith. This thread is about Pascal's wager, which is to say that it's a "safer bet" to believe. So the question of belief is still central to the debate.

This is analogous to those who make accusations against skeptics about what we must believe, or against those calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or whatever. I think we really do aourselves a dis-service with this type of argument, as one the one hand it's somewhat strawish, and on the other it's primarily semantic.

I don't see a diservice in the debate at all. As long as mutual respect is applied. I've personally travelled the path from believer to non-believer so I'm not unsympathetic to the believer's position.

My main dislike of ANY supernatural belief is that it's intellectually stunted, and requires faith to maintain. I think faith is the central problem, and perhaps we need to find a way to spell it with only four letters...

[Darat]

Yes, but the Roman Catholic church only draw their authority from the bible. While it is their prerogative to interpret the bible on behalf of adherents, the bible is still the source of their claimed authority. The authority which says that Jesus was god is the bible. No other document claims this without referencing the bible.

Not quite, the Roman Catholic Church claims its authority comes from the fact that is governed by "the successor of Peter". That is not biblical but it is self-referential.

[Rissask]

Don't worry, that's not original with Rissask. It's public domain.

Very true.:) I read it on a quotations site, I think it was this one:

www dot wisdomquotes dot com (I guess I can't do links yet, sorry)

[SezMe]

Linky (http://forums.randi.org/www.wisdomquotes.com) for those who are interested. Nice site, Rissask.

[Rissask]

I think that you know that I wasn't offering a definition of agnosticism, but rather an observation of those who call themselves that.

It's fence sitting, and I sat that fence for a very long time. However, to stay at that place I'd suggest that you have grown weary of the debate, and have decided not to decide.

which, in itself, is a decision I suppose....

What's interesting about it, however, is that as an atheist, I don't know that my position has changed much. I'm still of the philosophical position that perhaps we can never know, however, all indications are that God(s) don't/cannot exist.

The difference here, is that I've decided not to believe until proven there's something to believe in. As an agnostic, I was giving either possibility equal billing. Almost a half-assed Pascal's Wager of sorts...(to come back to the topic).

I think the correct term for those of us who think the way you (and I!!) do are 'agnostic atheists'. We are different from both atheists and agnostics.....we don't believe in the christian god, or any other god or goddess, but as far as being able to say we are 100% certain that there is no higher power at all in the universe, we are agnostic.

Does that fit you too? :blush:

I believe there is an entry in Wiki with the terms....or maybe it was religioustolerance.org, I can't recall now.

[Rissask]

Yes, that is a good one, Sez Me. This one is even better, though (I meant to post it the first time, sorry again :blush: ) I believe the bald/atheist quote may be on this one.


www(dot)nobeliefs.com(backslash)SomethingToThinkAb out

[macgyver]

as far as being able to say we are 100% certain that there is no higher power at all in the universe, we are agnostic.

Does that fit you too? :blush:


Well, by that reasoning, it's the same stance I would say ANY atheist would have.

I can't be 100% certain, because absence of proof is not proof of absence.

But that means that every theory, and every God(s) and every human thought has the infintessimal chance of being true. That's too many things to keep track of as having "truth potential".

That's why I state that my atheism is best described as having no belief.

I do not believe in Santa Claus for the same reason. I do not believe in the efficacy of homeopathy for the same reason.

They are all bereft of evidence to convince me otherwise.

However, it's not in anyone's best interest to put on blinders. Randi has even stated himself that he's more than willing to pay the million to have paranormal events be proven true. Until that happens, however, there's no point to believing they are.

It's up to the claimant to prove their statement, not for me to disprove it.

[bruto]

edit: oops, sorry a double post.

[bruto]

Backing up a bit, I was under the impression that Pascal considered the choice as much more limited than we might. When he opted for religion, he did so on the assumption the Catholic Church was the only religious option, and that he would join in the rites and sacraments of the R.C. Church. The fix was already in, or the bet would not have been such a safe one. It that is the only religious choice, then there is indeed some personal cost to making it.

[politas]

Because that's not what agnosticism means. Agnostics claim that the question of whether god exists or not is something which cannot be proven known, leaving it as a matter of faith to believe or not believe.There, I made a nit-picky correction because even religion doesn't claim to prove god exists; it is a matter of faith. That said, reading my post that you replied to, I don't see that we disagree.

I disagree with your correction, because I was using a nonmathematical definitition of "prove".

I have asked many religionists to show me "proof", and they have sometimes responded by telling me it is "in the bible", or that they have been "given proof" on a personal level which they cannot effectively share. Clearly, therefore, some theists do claim that the existence of god is proven.

[politas]

Even outside that, we have a tendency to do much of what we're doing here..."If you're a Christian then you have to X" or "If you're a Muslim then you have to Y". Personally, I tend to think if one claims to be a Christian (or Muslim or whatever) then that's what they are.
I completely agree. if someone claims to be a Christian, then they are a Christian. I just don't think that really means all that much, since "Christianity" is such an inclusive term that it gives you no additional information about the person.

Is it hypocritical to believe in Jesus without believing in the Bible? Possibly, but not necessarily. One could believe that Jesus existed, and was the divine incarnate, but also recognize that the Bible is the work of men, and distrust its accuracy. While this does take some mental gymnastics, to a degree, as long as one accepts that this is purely an article of faith, and not a logical belief...and as long as one does not allow this article of faith to take the place of logic in other decisions of import, I don't really see a problem. None of us are 100% skeptical or 100% logical in all our beliefs or actions. We're human :)
The bible is the only source for knowledge about Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to believe some of the bible. The bible is the ultimate and single authority for belief in Jesus as a divine entity. Therefore, since it is impossible to follow every jot and tittle of the bible, all christian faiths, whether personal or intitutional, involve a selection of which parts of the bible to believe in. To then claim that they "follow the bible" is strictly a lie, since they only follow parts of the bible. To accept a single source as both an authority and not an authority is hypocrisy. There are far worse forms of hypocrisy, but it is still hypocrisy. (Actually, the Mormons may be excluded from this, since the book of Mormon apparently replaces the Old and New Testaments. I haven't read enough of it to determine whether it is internally consistent.)

The insistence that all Christians must believe the Bible or be hypocrits is, frankly, a strawman that we are throwing up. At best, it's simply a matter of categorization, at worst it's a strawman. Does it matter if we call valis a Christian or not? He could call himself a Neochristipatomian and it really doesn't change any part of the central argument he's making.
As I said above, being a Christian implies believing some of the bible. Pascal's Wager implies far more than merely believing in the divinity of Jesus, though. Very few, if any, Christians think that merely believing is sufficient to gain Pascal's "infinite reward".

This is analogous to those who make accusations against skeptics about what we must believe, or against those calling themselves atheists, or agnostics, or whatever. I think we really do aourselves a dis-service with this type of argument, as one the one hand it's somewhat strawish, and on the other it's primarily semantic.
I don't believe it is analogous. Christians claim to be part of a community of believers, claim that their beliefs bring them together. Atheists and skeptics make no such claims. Atheists claim no belief in gods, which is entirely different to communal belief.

On the other hand, I can say that anyone claiming to be a Humanists should agree with the entire Humanist Manifesto. The Humanist Manifesto is an internally consistent and complete document making clear moral statements. If a person accepts the Humanist credo, then they can accept the entire document.

The Apostolic Creed is a workable definition of beliefs, but it is an incomplete statement. It requires knowledge of the bible to define its terms, where the Humanist Manifesto only requires a dictionary.

[politas]

Not quite, the Roman Catholic Church claims its authority comes from the fact that is governed by "the successor of Peter". That is not biblical but it is self-referential.

Its claim to being the "successor of Peter" is where it bases its claimed right to interpret on behalf on adherents, but the Bible is still the source of the religion.

They are the authority for interpretation of the Bible's authority, which gives them the effect of being the ultimate authority, but it is not the same as claiming the ultimate authority. The leaders of the Catholic church do not decide how to change the bible. They do not adjust the bible. All their deliberations are about interpreting and explaining how the bible should apply and what it means.

Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the Bible to be their ultimate authority? That's nonsense.

[macgyver]

The leaders of the Catholic church do not decide how to change the bible. They do not adjust the bible.

any longer....

[politas]

any longer....
But they never claimed to do so. We're not talking about actuality, here, we're talking about justification.

[valis]

This position is sometimes known as credo consolans: I believe because it makes me happier to do so. It is a position that asks no proof of the existence of god(s) and acknowledges that there is no such proof. It is therefore an unassailable position, philosophically. It is also quite respectable, held by no less a skeptic than Martin Gardner.

I would, however, ask one question: why Christianity? Why not Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, or innumerable other belief systems?

The first paragraph hits it right on the head. I wish I could have put my own thoughts as well and as succintly as you did!

To answer your question:
Two things mainly: 1. familiarity. Even though I used to get in fights in grade school when I declared I did not belive in God; I have been exposed to the bible much of my life and have a, I feel, good basic understanding of the religion. It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.

2. Accesibitlity: There is a Unity church nearby that fits my needs fine and I can relate to the other people there. If I were to be say a Hindu; well there are quite a few Indians in this area so I don't doubt there are Hindu places of worship around. But then I would not only have to learn the religion but also there would be a cultural and perhaps language barriers.

[macgyver]

It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.



Why would you have to learn and understand another one?

I would urge you to have doubt of the usefullness of the other religions...in fact of religion at all.

There's certainly no harm in asking the questions at least.

[Yahzi]

Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?
When Pascal said it, there was a fee.

How very odd that you should excuse Pascal for not going into a subject because, hundreds of years after his death, after the Catholic Church has been forced out of temporal power, it should be the case that the required fees, donations, and payments extorted by the Church in Pascal's lifetime are no longer compelled by law.

In the world we live in today, many, many religions still extract money from their adherents in a variety of ways, from the Mormon tithe to the Baptist collection to the Vatican's bank.

To assert that your personal view on religion should trump several billion other people's understanding of the matter is... arrogant, to say the least. To accuse Randi of prejudice because he is aware of historical facts you seem to have forgotten is indescribable. At least according to the rules of this forum.

[Yahzi]

Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the Bible to be their ultimate authority? That's nonsense.
No, it it not nonsense; it is true. The RCC fairly plainly asserts its right to correct Scripture when necessary. RCC doctrine is considered at least as correct as scripture.

They declared their Popes are infalliable. They have never said the Bible was infalliable.

[Yahzi]

The first paragraph hits it right on the head. I wish I could have put my own thoughts as well and as succintly as you did!
Suppose you meet a KKK wizard handing out hate literature in the streets, arguing that black people are dangerous sub-human animals who should be enslaved for their own benefit. Suppose you ask him why he believes this. Suppose he says,

"Because it makes me happy to believe it."

Imagine what your reaction would be.

Now you know how I feel.

I can't remember who said it, but...

"Not caring whether something is true or not because it makes you happy, is the moral equivalent of not caring how you got your money because it makes you wealthy."

[valis]

When Pascal said it, there was a fee.
That is an interesting point; in Pascal's time it was true that religion was a much more top down affair. On the other hand you did not have the multitude of choices either. Most people viewed it either as believe or don't.

That said Mr. Randi is quite the stickler for precise language and he did say Requires not Required.


In the world we live in today, many, many religions still extract money from their adherents in a variety of ways, from the Mormon tithe to the Baptist collection to the Vatican's bank.

There is a wide range to that though. Many ministers hold regular jobs because their churches cannot afford to pay them. In fact the Minister who lived two doors down from me and had a large role in changing my opinion of religion, he is a full time pharmacist and runs his church for free.

Many others receive enough pay to live a middle class life but then they perform a lot of valuble services. When the woman across the street from me, who already had severe mental problems lost her husband and basically lost what was left of her mind, it was the leader of her church that interceded. I am sure most paid Ministers spend a great deal of time doing such work. The opulence of the Catholic church hirachy or the big name evangelists is what people think of when they think of giving money to the church but I would guess they are the exception and not the norm.


To assert that your personal view on religion should trump several billion other people's understanding of the matter is... arrogant, to say the least. To accuse Randi of prejudice because he is aware of historical facts you seem to have forgotten is indescribable. At least according to the rules of this forum.
I feel from reading Mr. Randi's newsletter faithfully for years, by email before the web page existed, that he has a clear prejudice against religous people and religion in general. If you feel other wise you are entitled to your opinion.

I had a much better rebutal but it was indescribable.

[valis]

Suppose you meet a KKK wizard handing out hate literature in the streets, arguing that black people are dangerous sub-human animals who should be enslaved for their own benefit. Suppose you ask him why he believes this. Suppose ....


Suppose we just say that we disagree. I get the idea you have some deep seated feelings at work here.

[macgyver]

I feel from reading Mr. Randi's newsletter faithfully for years, by email before the web page existed, that he has a clear prejudice against religous people and religion in general. If you feel other wise you are entitled to your opinion.

I had a much better rebutal but it was indescribable.

I don't think it's any more prejudiced than his feelings for any type of paranormal claim. I can't speak for him, but I know that in my mind there is no special treatment deserved by religion. There's nothing about religious beliefs that make them any more important than say belief in alternative medicine, or telepathy, or perpetual motion machines...

I lump it all together in the same bag. There's no proof for any of it, so why believe it?

[politas]

No, it it not nonsense; it is true. The RCC fairly plainly asserts its right to correct Scripture when necessary. RCC doctrine is considered at least as correct as scripture.

They declared their Popes are infalliable. They have never said the Bible was infalliable.

Bull. The RCC do not officially change scripture. They change interpretation and explanation of scripture.

I believe one of their defining principles since the Age of Reason has been "Where our understanding of scripture disagrees with physical evidence, it is our understanding of scripture that is at fault." Understanding of scripture, not the scripture itself.

[valis]

I don't think it's any more prejudiced than his feelings for any type of paranormal claim. I can't speak for him, but I know that in my mind there is no special treatment deserved by religion. There's nothing about religious beliefs that make them any more important than say belief in alternative medicine, or telepathy, or perpetual motion machines...

I lump it all together in the same bag. There's no proof for any of it, so why believe it?


The challenge is for TESTABLE ideas.
There is really no point in saying anything more; the rest of this has already been discussed a few times in this thread.

[macgyver]

To answer your question:
Two things mainly: 1. familiarity. Even though I used to get in fights in grade school when I declared I did not belive in God; I have been exposed to the bible much of my life and have a, I feel, good basic understanding of the religion. It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.

2. Accesibitlity: There is a Unity church nearby that fits my needs fine and I can relate to the other people there. If I were to be say a Hindu; well there are quite a few Indians in this area so I don't doubt there are Hindu places of worship around. But then I would not only have to learn the religion but also there would be a cultural and perhaps language barriers.

I don't know that this really answers Jon's question. You are basically saying that you chose Christianity because it fell in your lap?

It seems like such an important thing to attach one's life to, yet you're saying you didn't give it much more thought than you heard of it before and there was a church within walking distance?

With all due respect, but to sum it up: you chose christianity because you're lazy?

That's the part that is so hard to believe. I know that my own journey to atheism was long and required a LOT of time and thought. It also required that I look at many of the other offerings out there as well.

So the question was why Jesus, why not Zeus or Mithras or countless other deities?

I'm honestly not trying to beat up on you, I'm genuinely astounded that these kind of life decisions can be made (seemingly) so flippantly.

There must be more to the story?

[valis]

There's certainly no harm in asking the questions at least.

I asked the question for many years, decades I guess really. I came to a different conclusion than you.

[macgyver]

I asked the question for many years, decades I guess really. I came to a different conclusion than you.

Fair enough. Interestingly, we also apparently started at different ends of the field. I spent my childhood as a christian and left it later in life, you did the opposite.

Perhaps there's something about where you start?

[joller]

Bull. The RCC do not officially change scripture.
Unofficially, they don't do it either.

They change interpretation and explanation of scripture.
I believe one of their defining principles since the Age of Reason has been "Where our understanding of scripture disagrees with physical evidence, it is our understanding of scripture that is at fault." Understanding of scripture, not the scripture itself.
Hmm.. well.. do they really change the interpretation?
Could you give some examples?
I thought it's the catechism that changes, and it is based on other sources as well as bible. Different vatican congregations etc can also change the rules. the whole infallibility of the pope is often misunderstood as well, there's a number of conditions that need to be present for the papal teachings to be considered 'ex cathedra'

Source from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility :
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must make it clear that it is definitive and binding. There is not any specific phrasing required for this, but it is usually indicated by one or both of the following: (1) a verbal formula indicating that this teaching is definitive (such as "We declare, decree and define..."), or (2) an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church. For example, in Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of the Virgin Mary, there are attached these words: "Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

Of course RCC is not the whole christianity, but the truth is, officialy, if you do not accept any of the papal 'rulings' and catechism of the RCC, you're not a part of RCC, so you shouldn't call yourself a 'roman catholic', although you can of course still remain christian. There is no single body governing the rules of christianity.
Not accepting the rulings excludes one from being a part of RCC, although if you accept them, but disobey them from time to time, you're OK, you're a sinner though and will burn in hell if you won't do something about it (confession and other methods).

EDIT:
that's interesting, from the same source, directly following the previous paragraph:
An infallible teaching by a pope or ecumenical council can contradict previous church teachings, as long as they were not themselves taught infallibly. In this case, the previous fallible teachings are immediately made void. Of course, an infallible teaching cannot contradict a previous infallible teaching.
That's the only way it can work of course, but it opens the whole infallibility to abuse, what if a pope goes mad (or becomes an extremist) and infallibly declares something he shouldn't? there's no way to reverse it.

[macgyver]

The challenge is for TESTABLE ideas.


I didn't realize we were discussing the challenge. I thought we were discussing Randi's supposed prejudice against religious folk.

I was just offering an explaination for why I don't think it's prejudice necessarily.

[valis]

I didn't realize we were discussing the challenge. I thought we were discussing Randi's supposed prejudice against religious folk.

I was just offering an explaination for why I don't think it's prejudice necessarily.
Okay sorry for any confusion. Forget the part about the challenge, I belive the other part has been addressed in the previous posts.

Edit to add: Many people believe many things. I know of one person, one of the most skeptical level headed people ever, who liked to believe that mammoths still roam the Earth. He knows that there is no hard evidence. It doesn't make him any less the critical thinker.

[dv82matt]

Suppose you meet a KKK wizard handing out hate literature in the streets, arguing that black people are dangerous sub-human animals who should be enslaved for their own benefit. Suppose you ask him why he believes this. Suppose he says,

"Because it makes me happy to believe it."

Imagine what your reaction would be.

Now you know how I feel.

I can't remember who said it, but...

"Not caring whether something is true or not because it makes you happy, is the moral equivalent of not caring how you got your money because it makes you wealthy."Absolute nonsense! You are equating abhorent beliefs with unevidenced ones. If the KKK wizard told you he had evidence for his beliefs would that make you feel any better? Seriously, think about it.

[Hellbound]

Politas:

I completely agree. if someone claims to be a Christian, then they are a Christian. I just don't think that really means all that much, since "Christianity" is such an inclusive term that it gives you no additional information about the person.

That was kinda my point. "Christian" can vary from a raving fundie who thinks Jesus was a divine space alien to a person, such as valis, who simply has a rather non-specific belief in his divinity.

The bible is the only source for knowledge about Jesus. To believe in Jesus is to believe some of the bible. The bible is the ultimate and single authority for belief in Jesus as a divine entity. Therefore, since it is impossible to follow every jot and tittle of the bible, all christian faiths, whether personal or intitutional, involve a selection of which parts of the bible to believe in. To then claim that they "follow the bible" is strictly a lie, since they only follow parts of the bible. To accept a single source as both an authority and not an authority is hypocrisy. There are far worse forms of hypocrisy, but it is still hypocrisy. (Actually, the Mormons may be excluded from this, since the book of Mormon apparently replaces the Old and New Testaments. I haven't read enough of it to determine whether it is internally consistent.)

I don't believe the Bible is the only source, there are a few references to him (or, at least, the movement in his name) from other sources. I would agree that the Bible is the only source claiming his divinity, though.

As I said above, being a Christian implies believing some of the bible. Pascal's Wager implies far more than merely believing in the divinity of Jesus, though. Very few, if any, Christians think that merely believing is sufficient to gain Pascal's "infinite reward".

Well, I was moving away from PAscal's Wager to speak more generally, because, to be honest, Pascal's Wager was not really all that central to the OP (IMHO). The contention was about the characterization of Xians.

I don't believe it is analogous. Christians claim to be part of a community of believers, claim that their beliefs bring them together. Atheists and skeptics make no such claims. Atheists claim no belief in gods, which is entirely different to communal belief.

And I would disagree here. Christians are no more a single community than atheists. There are thousands of Christian sects, some of whom consider themselves together and some who do not. There are many who hold their own personal beliefs, and don't ascribe to a particular sect's dogma. I'd say that it is similar to atheist, to a degree. I'd be suprised if you could find one statement (other than the required "belief that Jesus existed and was divine") thayt was accepted by all groups labelling themselves Christian.

On the other hand, I can say that anyone claiming to be a Humanists should agree with the entire Humanist Manifesto. The Humanist Manifesto is an internally consistent and complete document making clear moral statements. If a person accepts the Humanist credo, then they can accept the entire document.

This I can agree with, and I'd see the point of your argument if valis had claimed to be, for example, Roman Catholic, or Southern Baptist. Both of these specify a particular set of rules and dogmas within the larger Christian set, just as Humanist specifies a set of values within the larger atheist set.

Macgyver:

Actually I try to be careful to avoid that, we do need to understand that even if people subscribe to a particular dogma, there is variation because of the individuality of the person

Well, as I see it, valis has not claimed to subscribe to a particular dogma. As I stated earlier, the only thing required to be Chrisitna is belief in the divinity of Jesus.

This is not true. There are actually basic tennants of each of these religions that need to be met before you can adopt the label. Otherwise you've just started something uniquely your own. Which is fine, because that's how they all start. Just don't call yourself something you're not, or you'll upset the ones who are.

Yes, but Christian is a label that simply means "belief in Christ's divinity". The rest varies from sect to sect. I made similar points above, in a bit more detail.

It's not necessarily hypocritical to believe in Jesus and not the Bible, unless you belong to a church that requires that of you. If you do, perhaps the hypocrisy will motivate you to look elsewhere (as it did me). However, is it hypocrisy to be a skeptic, and believe in the Jesus myth? I'd say that your skepticism is, at least, severly impaired.

I agree with this statement, to a degree. Skeptisim impaired? Yes, in this instance, but I could easily make the claim that this applies to all of us, only in differing areas. NONE of us are completely skeptical in all aspects, and often we choose to put aside skepticism for other reasons. Is it a failure of slepticism? Yes, that case could be made, and I'd probably agree with it. But I don't think it would necessarily refute the label of skeptic applied to such a person. I think that would depend more on the pattern of applying skepticism...if the person acknowledges and admits that this was not a view arrived at logically or skeptically, and is skeptical in other areas, I really don't see it as "severe" impairment.

Again, not necessarily a strawman, if believing in the Bible is part of defining a Christian. We're not saying HOW the Bible needs to be believed, but it's obviously central to the faith. This thread is about Pascal's wager, which is to say that it's a "safer bet" to believe. So the question of belief is still central to the debate.

THe bolding is mine. The label Christian simply requires a belif in the divnitiy of Jesus, and that's pretty much it. IOf there was a requirement for belief in the Bible, I'd agree. But there isn't for the label Christian. IF valis had claimed to be, say, Church of Christ, then I'd say he was hypocritical :).

I don't see a diservice in the debate at all. As long as mutual respect is applied. I've personally travelled the path from believer to non-believer so I'm not unsympathetic to the believer's position.

I too made that journey. My main point is that we tend to treat almost every believer as if they were leaning far to the fundie side. I'm generalizing, not necessarily saying we all do it or even that it's common among people, but enough do it that the idea comes across in almost every religious discussion I've seen on this board. And for some beliefs, I can see going a bit stronger after them ;). But valis's statements of belief seem fairly benign, he's givewn his reasons for them, and admits that they aren't completely skeptical, and I really don't see that as much of an issue.

And I think the diservice done is that almost immediately we set up the discussion as an adversarial exchange, consciously (for some) or unconsciously. My main worry with this is that it rarely causes re-evaluation. Not to say we can't disagree, or have to wear kid gloves, or anything oif that nature, but it seems that we all get a bit more rabid about religious beliefs than some other irrational or paranormal ideas (and I include myself in this statement, as well. Something I'm thinking through as I write here).

My main dislike of ANY supernatural belief is that it's intellectually stunted, and requires faith to maintain. I think faith is the central problem, and perhaps we need to find a way to spell it with only four letters...

*chuckle*

Well, I can't say I disagree in all aspects of faith. We are human, and faith is a part of that. The difference is in the grounding of faith, and how faith is viewed as a validation.

I have no problem with faith, as long as a person accepts and understands that faith is not evidence, and is not acceptible means for reaching truth. I don't think skepticism necessarily precludes faith, although skeptical process does (hopefully I'm making sense there). I mean that a person can be skeptical, and still hold some irrational or faith-based beliefs...as long as that person accepts and understands the reasons for his or her beliefs, and admits that. You could easily make a similar argument about choice of music or reading preference. It's not logical to waste two hours watching a movie about fictional space ships, for example, when one could be learning, improving oneself or others, etc (the argument could be made). However, enjoying a movie each weekend is not enough to label the person a lazy bum. Likewise, religious belief alone is not necessarily preclusive to skepticism...when religious belief becomes a persons personal assigner of truth, then I think it becomes a problem. Valis, however, seems to apply logic and skeptical thought without religion being a factor in that thought, which is the type of religion/skepticism blend I really don't take issue with.

[bruto]

Okay sorry for any confusion. Forget the part about the challenge, I belive the other part has been addressed in the previous posts.

Edit to add: Many people believe many things. I know of one person, one of the most skeptical level headed people ever, who liked to believe that mammoths still roam the Earth. He knows that there is no hard evidence. It doesn't make him any less the critical thinker.

I think it depends on what you mean by "like to believe." I would "like to believe" that there are monsters in Lake Champlain, but if I went beyond that and asserted that I actually believe it because it has not been entirely disproven, I think that would be a lapse of critical thought at least worth noting, and if I touted such a belief publicly, I would be a skeptical and level headed person in about the same way as a person who gets drunk only on Saturday night is a sober person.

That said, I think Yahzi's argument against credo consolans is a bit of a low blow. To accept one thing is not to accept everything else. To go along with something you cannot be sure of because it feels right is not quite the same thing as suspending moral judgment because it feels good.

[politas]

Unofficially, they don't [change scripture] either.
Well, not since Gutenberg's wonderful invention, anyway.

Hmm.. well.. do they really change the interpretation?
Could you give some examples?

Well, the RCC now teaches that slavery is wrong, although they used to be happy with it.

From the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church, http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm):100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.I think that's pretty clear, but here it is in more detail:
The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."

There you go. The authority for interpretation is servile to the "Sacred Scripture" and "Sacred Tradition", and the RCC quite clearly claims the right to change that interpretation in the CCC.

I thought it's the catechism that changes, and it is based on other sources as well as bible. Different vatican congregations etc can also change the rules. the whole infallibility of the pope is often misunderstood as well, there's a number of conditions that need to be present for the papal teachings to be considered 'ex cathedra'

To a large extent, the Catechism is an interpretation of some parts of the bible, as well as the "Sacred Tradition." After some reading, it appears that I have been to some extent mistaken. The RCC draws far more authority from "Sacred Tradition" than I previously stated. That doesn't mean that they abandon the "Sacred Scripture", though.

[politas]

Politas:

I don't believe the Bible is the only source, there are a few references to him (or, at least, the movement in his name) from other sources. I would agree that the Bible is the only source claiming his divinity, though.

The references you are thinking of are only to "Christians", from my understanding. I cannot consider such references to be any kind of support for the existence of Jesus, much less the details of his life and associated miracles. They only prove that Christianity was around then.

Well, I was moving away from PAscal's Wager to speak more generally, because, to be honest, Pascal's Wager was not really all that central to the OP (IMHO). The contention was about the characterization of Xians.

My characterisation of Christianity as being inherently hypocritical, or Randi's characterisation of Xians?

And I would disagree here. Christians are no more a single community than atheists. There are thousands of Christian sects, some of whom consider themselves together and some who do not. There are many who hold their own personal beliefs, and don't ascribe to a particular sect's dogma. I'd say that it is similar to atheist, to a degree. I'd be suprised if you could find one statement (other than the required "belief that Jesus existed and was divine") thayt was accepted by all groups labelling themselves Christian.

I think the majority of Christians consider themselves part of such a community. Certainly the Catholic Church considers all believers to be Christians, even if they are going to hell for not taking communion and receiving forgiveness. Those sects which affirm that other sects are "not Christian" are by far the minority, and you could argue that as far as they are concerned, they still share a community of belief with all Christians.

Whereas, I think the majority of, if not all atheists, consider atheism no more than a descriptive label. People don't choose to be atheists, they realise that they are atheists, having chosen not to believe in any offered religion.

[Hellbound]

My characterisation of Christianity as being inherently hypocritical, or Randi's characterisation of Xians?

I was speaking of the Op, which was more about Randi's characterization than about Pascal's Wager itself.

I think the majority of Christians consider themselves part of such a community. Certainly the Catholic Church considers all believers to be Christians, even if they are going to hell for not taking communion and receiving forgiveness. Those sects which affirm that other sects are "not Christian" are by far the minority, and you could argue that as far as they are concerned, they still share a community of belief with all Christians.

Only becuase they have the same basic belief, though. This really seems to be a non-argument, and I'm still not seeing your point. I consdier myself part of the "atheist community", simply as a descriptive label. For many Christians, this is their view as well. I don't really see a difference here, socially, or why this matters. Perhaps you coudl clarify this?

Whereas, I think the majority of, if not all atheists, consider atheism no more than a descriptive label. People don't choose to be atheists, they realise that they are atheists, having chosen not to believe in any offered religion.

I chose to be atheist. But again, I fail to see what this has to do with anything. Some Christians chose to be Christian, others will make the same statements (I didn't chose it, I realized it). It's a choice either way, the only real point of contention is what you base that choice on, and whether or not it is valid.

[Jon.]

The first paragraph hits it right on the head. I wish I could have put my own thoughts as well and as succintly as you did!

To answer your question:
Two things mainly: 1. familiarity. Even though I used to get in fights in grade school when I declared I did not belive in God; I have been exposed to the bible much of my life and have a, I feel, good basic understanding of the religion. It would literaly take years to learn and understand another one. I have no doubt that there are many useful things in other religions.

2. Accesibitlity: There is a Unity church nearby that fits my needs fine and I can relate to the other people there. If I were to be say a Hindu; well there are quite a few Indians in this area so I don't doubt there are Hindu places of worship around. But then I would not only have to learn the religion but also there would be a cultural and perhaps language barriers.

I applaud you for your honesty, both to yourself and to us. What you have said, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), can be summed up in the following points:

1. You feel better by being part of a community of people that believes in some cosmic purpose and order.

2. The most convenient such community for you to join is a Christian one.

3. You therefore adopt the beliefs of the Christian community near you.

4. You make no claims about the truth of the beliefs of the Christian community to which you belong, either in the absolute sense or in comparison to the beliefs of other religious communities.

Fair enough. And, I suspect, quite common among believers. I wish they were all as intellectually honest about it.

[macgyver]

valis,

I stand corrected. Apparently you did answer Jon's question sufficiently, and he interpreted your answer much differently than I did.

My curiosity in what motivated your choice is really just that; curiosity. A basic "rule" that I live by is that we all need the freedom to choose and think independantly. In that way, I honestly do respect your choice.

However, in that same way, it's perhaps fundamental to my difficultly in understanding the dichotomy of being (obviously) an intelligent and critical thinker, but reserving one place in your mind for "magic".

I understand that it can be done (and has been by far greater minds than my own) but do you need to weave your christian belief into the rest of your world view (including science) or are you truly content to just have it be something that IS and doesn't need to be rational?

I only ask that, because I remember going through a period myself, where I attempted to explain God's hand in the world by simply saying "science is uncovering the mechanism by which HE works". So evolution, physics etc. all fit into my christian worldview quite nicely, since those were the "mysterious ways" that God got things done.

[Yahzi]

I feel from reading Mr. Randi's newsletter faithfully for years, by email before the web page existed, that he has a clear prejudice against religous people and religion in general.
I completely agree, although I would describe it as a conclusion rather than a prejudice.

My point was that the evidence you cited did not support the case you cited it for.

[Yahzi]

Absolute nonsense! You are equating abhorent beliefs with unevidenced ones.
The abhorrent ideas are abhorrent precisely because they are unevidenced. If black people really were dangerous sub-human animals, then it wouldn't be abhorrent, it would just be another unpleasant fact of life. Like tigers. Are tigers abhorrent?

What is abhorrent is the injustice of labeling people something they are not. What is abhorrent is the untruth, and thus the injustice.

If the KKK wizard told you he had evidence for his beliefs would that make you feel any better?
Of course it would. In fact, if the KKK wizard had valid and compelling evidence for his position, I would agree with him. So would every rational person. That's what "rational" means.

You seem to think that only ideas that you like should be considered to be true. But this puts you in exactly the same position as the KKK wizard. To him, the idea that black people are human is abhorrent. Why isn't his disgust as valuable as yours?

Because you do not value his opinions. While you are shouting for equal rights for everybody, you are in fact demanding that the KKK wizard be treated unequally. Your goal is not really equal rights; it is rights for people you like, and non-rights for people you don't like. Which is exactly what the KKK wizard's goal is.

The only difference between your position and the KKK position is who you give rights to. Not how you give them, but who. Not qualititative, but quantitative. A difference of degree, not quality. A difference of flavor, not substance.


Now, if you would like to consider the rational position: that evidence decides truth, regardless of who the evidence comes from or what the truth is; then you will see that position is fair to everyone. If you can prove your case, then we have to agree; and if you can't, then you have to shut up. See how this is absolutely, qualitatively different than your position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to you) and the KK position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to them)? See how it is fair to everyone, because it relies on objective facts instead of personal emotional responses?

[Yahzi]

Bull. The RCC do not officially change scripture. They change interpretation and explanation of scripture.
Looking carefully at my post, I do not see where I used the word "change."

If your position is that they leave the words on the page alone, but change what they mean, and this does not count as "correcting" scripture, then your position is what we call "hair-splitting."

The point is that if the text on the page says one thing, and the Church wants it to say another thing, then it says what the Church wants it to say. This demonstrates that the Church does not consider scripture to be the sole source of truth about God. Which was my point.

[Yahzi]

Suppose we just say that we disagree. I get the idea you have some deep seated feelings at work here.
What a brilliant, reasoned, logical, compelling counter-argument.

But of course - trying to defend your position logically wouldn't make you feel good, so why would you even think about doing it?

I'll tell you what: we'll agree to disagree. And when that KKK wizard starts stomping on your face, I'll just walk away and forget about the whole thing, with my fingers in my ears so I can't hear your screams.

Because, after all, thinking about you being beaten up doesn't make me feel good. So why would I think about it?

I have demonstrated that your position is selfish to the point of immorality. Your response is to ignore any evidence or conclusion you don't like. Well, doh!

[Yahzi]

After some reading, it appears that I have been to some extent mistaken. The RCC draws far more authority from "Sacred Tradition" than I previously stated. That doesn't mean that they abandon the "Sacred Scripture", though.
I didn't mean to imply that they had abandoned scripture. Just that they do not consider it the final word.

As one Catholic explained to me, the concept of "Sola Scriptura" was a Protestant invention.

[dv82matt]

The abhorrent ideas are abhorrent precisely because they are unevidenced. If black people really were dangerous sub-human animals, then it wouldn't be abhorrent, it would just be another unpleasant fact of life. Like tigers. Are tigers abhorrent?No matter how slavery is justified, whether by evidence and logic or by ignorance and lies, it is still immoral. Tigers are not immoral simply because they are not expected to abide by human morality.

What is abhorrent is the injustice of labeling people something they are not. What is abhorrent is the untruth, and thus the injustice.In that case you should be very careful about what labels you apply to people such as valis.

Of course it would. In fact, if the KKK wizard had valid and compelling evidence for his position, I would agree with him. So would every rational person. That's what "rational" means.You are implicitly assuming that you and the KKK wizard share a common moral outlook. I very much doubt that this is the case. Consider a hypothetical eugenics program which is based on solid evidence. Would you really abandon your right to object to it on purely moral grounds?

You seem to think that only ideas that you like should be considered to be true.Not as true but as moral. You continue to conflate the two.

But this puts you in exactly the same position as the KKK wizard. To him, the idea that black people are human is abhorrent. Why isn't his disgust as valuable as yours?Morals are funny that way. They are valued relative to the culture in which they exist.

Because you do not value his opinions. While you are shouting for equal rights for everybody, you are in fact demanding that the KKK wizard be treated unequally. Your goal is not really equal rights; it is rights for people you like, and non-rights for people you don't like. Which is exactly what the KKK wizard's goal is. The only difference between your position and the KKK position is who you give rights to. Not how you give them, but who.We do not deny the right to own slaves only to the KKK wizard, we deny everyone that right.

Not qualititative, but quantitative. A difference of degree, not quality. A difference of flavor, not substance.Right morality is relative not absolute.

Now, if you would like to consider the rational position: that evidence decides truth, regardless of who the evidence comes from or what the truth is; then you will see that position is fair to everyone. If you can prove your case, then we have to agree; and if you can't, then you have to shut up. See how this is absolutely, qualitatively different than your position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to you) and the KK position (that truth should be decided by what is abhorrent to them)? See how it is fair to everyone, because it relies on objective facts instead of personal emotional responses?The evidence only decides truth, not morality. I do not and never have said that the truth should be decided by what I personally find abhorrent, but I can see how you would misunderstand as morality and truth are one and the same to you.

[politas]

Looking carefully at my post, I do not see where I used the word "change."

If your position is that they leave the words on the page alone, but change what they mean, and this does not count as "correcting" scripture, then your position is what we call "hair-splitting."

The point is that if the text on the page says one thing, and the Church wants it to say another thing, then it says what the Church wants it to say. This demonstrates that the Church does not consider scripture to be the sole source of truth about God. Which was my point.

But they do consider scripture to be the "Revealed Word of God", and thus inerrant. This is why they do not actually change scripture. It goes to the status of scripture as an authority. They certainly do consider scripture to be authoritative and inerrent. Any errors by definition are in the interpretation, which is not inerrent, since it is not part of the "Revealed Word of God".

Thus, from the RCC perspective, no part of scripture can be simply ignored. If it appears to say something other than what they wish it to say, they must find a way to interpret another meaning from it.

The RCC and the Fundies have quite similar positions on the bible, really. The difference is that fundamentalism accepts no argument against its interpretation.

[Rustle]

Edit to add: Many people believe many things. I know of one person, one of the most skeptical level headed people ever, who liked to believe that mammoths still roam the Earth. He knows that there is no hard evidence. It doesn't make him any less the critical thinker.

YES YES IT DOES AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH

[Rustle]

I can still reason just fine thanks. I have reasoned that I will belive God created the Universe ...


...except you really have not reasoned. You've done an emotional inventory, not an intellectual one. You are entitled to your beliefs. You do not have to justify them if you don't care to. However, the way you use phrases like "critical thinking", "logic", and "skeptical" is causing my brain to bleed a little.

[Darat]

Its claim to being the "successor of Peter" is where it bases its claimed right to interpret on behalf on adherents, but the Bible is still the source of the religion.

They are the authority for interpretation of the Bible's authority, which gives them the effect of being the ultimate authority, but it is not the same as claiming the ultimate authority. The leaders of the Catholic church do not decide how to change the bible. They do not adjust the bible. All their deliberations are about interpreting and explaining how the bible should apply and what it means.


What we now call the Roman Catholic Church existed before the Bible, the Bible was and is a creation of that church. It is also accurate to say that the recent (in terms of Christian history) Protestant based churches also existed before their Bible. You may not be aware but there are significant differences in what the Roman Catholic Chruch considers to be the Bible and what (most) Protestant denominations consider the to be the Bible.


Are you really trying to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider the Bible to be their ultimate authority? That's nonsense.

You may consider it nonsense but the Roman Catholic Church doesn't. As far as it is concerned the Church itself and the Pope in particular is the ultimate authority on the faith.

[Darat]

But they never claimed to do so. We're not talking about actuality, here, we're talking about justification.

Yes they did and still do.

A good starting point to gain a better understanding of what has been (and still is) the dominate form of Christianity is to start reading up on the First Council of Nicaea.

(ETA)

I hadn't read it before but Wikipedia also has a good introductory peice on the history of the Christian Bible.

[Darat]

...snip...


That's the only way it can work of course, but it opens the whole infallibility to abuse, what if a pope goes mad (or becomes an extremist) and infallibly declares something he shouldn't? there's no way to reverse it.

I tend to be a strong critic of the Roman Catholic Church but we should never forget it has been around for a long, long time. It has had to deal with mad popes, popes that are murderers, one pope that kept a little boy under his papal garments and so on. As an institution is has proven to be very, very resilient to internal and external attacks and one of the things it excels at is being able to explain why when the Pope of yesterday said 2+2=5 and the Pope of today says 2+2=4 neither of them were wrong -as they say practice makes perfect and it's had almost 2000 years of practice!

[politas]

What we now call the Roman Catholic Church existed before the Bible, the Bible was and is a creation of that church. It is also accurate to say that the recent (in terms of Christian history) Protestant based churches also existed before their Bible. You may not be aware but there are significant differences in what the Roman Catholic Chruch considers to be the Bible and what (most) Protestant denominations consider the to be the Bible.
I must admit to having never studied a Catholic bible. Just how different are they?

You may consider it nonsense but the Roman Catholic Church doesn't. As far as it is concerned the Church itself and the Pope in particular is the ultimate authority on the faith.

Um, the debate's moved on a bit. I have already admitted to being mistaken on that point. They do still consider the bible to be authorative, though. Read the Catchism.

[politas]

Yes they did and still do.

A good starting point to gain a better understanding of what has been (and still is) the dominate form of Christianity is to start reading up on the First Council of Nicaea.

I think the Catholic Church, in the form of the Catechism I posted a link to and quoted earlier, is a much better source for what the RCC claims than Wikipedia.

THe CCC quite clearly claims that scripture and "Sacred Tradition" are the "Revealed Word of God". "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God". Neither trumps the other, they work as a unity.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.
(bolding mine)

The RCC claim that scripture is inerrant. This is indisputable. It says so, right there, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(edited for spelling)

[Darat]

I think the Catholic Church, in the form of the Catechism I posted a link to and quoted earlier, is a much better source for what the RCC claims than Wikipedia.



I was pointing you to that link since it demonstrates that historically it is the Church that has determined what Christianity is and quite often that is not done with reference to scripture but to the doctrines the Church wishes to have as the foundation of the Church.


THe CCC quite clearly claims that scripture and "Sacred Tradition" are the "Revealed Word of God". "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God". Neither trumps the other, they work as a unity.


Which is not what you originally was saying - originally your point was that the Bible is the authority for Christians, you are now agreeing that it it isn't.



(bolding mine)

The RCC claim that scripture is inerrant. This is indisputable. It says so, right there, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

(edited for spelling)

Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church can't be found in the Bible, yet without agreeing to that Catechism you are not a "true" Christian (according to the Roman Catholic Church). Just believing in the Bible according to the Roman Catholics is not enough, the way to God can only be found through the Roman Catholic Church - again you will not find that anywhere in the Bible.

[politas]

I was pointing you to that link since it demonstrates that historically it is the Church that has determined what Christianity is and quite often that is not done with reference to scripture but to the doctrines the Church wishes to have as the foundation of the Church.
Yes, but what has factually happened has little relevence to their justification and claims to authority, and that is what my argument is based on.

Which is not what you originally was saying - originally your point was that the Bible is the authority for Christians, you are now agreeing that it it isn't.
Yes, I am, because I have discovered I was mistaken. (Isn't that the point of having these discussions?) The conclusion of my original argument is the same, though. To Protestant churches, the Bible is the authority. To the Catholic church, the bible is an inerrant authority. In either case, ignoring parts of the bible in favour of the parts you like is, in my opinion, a form of hypocrisy.

Yet the Catechism of the Catholic Church can't be found in the Bible, yet without agreeing to that Catechism you are not a "true" Christian (according to the Roman Catholic Church). Just believing in the Bible according to the Roman Catholics is not enough, the way to God can only be found through the Roman Catholic Church - again you will not find that anywhere in the Bible.
No, but they still claim the bible as an inerrant authority, which means that you cannot ignore parts of it willy-nilly, and they claim that they do not. Rather, they interpret each part of the bible in relation to the entire bible, since they claim the bible to be a single united message from god.

I call that hypocrisy. I call their entire stance on an inerrant bible, "Sacred Tradition" and the authority of interpretion to be rank hypocrisy.

Other people can disagree. Clearly, they do.

[valis]

What a brilliant, reasoned, logical, compelling counter-argument.

But of course - trying to defend your position logically wouldn't make you feel good, so why would you even think about doing it?

I'll tell you what: we'll agree to disagree. And when that KKK wizard starts stomping on your face, I'll just walk away and forget about the whole thing, with my fingers in my ears so I can't hear your screams.

Because, after all, thinking about you being beaten up doesn't make me feel good. So why would I think about it?

I have demonstrated that your position is selfish to the point of immorality. Your response is to ignore any evidence or conclusion you don't like. Well, doh!

My response is to read your post and say this:

This person seems to have some serious anger towards religion, look at the imagery you use above; stomping of faces and fingers in ears to block my screams? There is something more than quiet reason going on there. In my opinion.

This person is able to equate all beliefe in religion with the beliefe that all African Americans should be enslaved by whites. Will me and this person ever be able to have a rational discussion or reach any common ground on this subject? I would guess not. We are starting from world views that are so opposed I think trying to discuss this would be hopeless.

This is not to say I am saying I am too good to talk to you or something. This just doesn't seem like the best subject.

[valis]

With all due respect, but to sum it up: you chose christianity because you're lazy?

I like what Christianity has to say. I understand the basics of most of the other major religions and don't see any compelling reason to pick one of them and there are the drawbacks mentioned above. I also feel that for starters three of the major religions, Islam, Christianity and Judiasm are at least in part different interpratations of the same thing. Further if I had to guess I would say that at some point there may be some universal truth behind everthing that is larger than any single religon in use today.

A crappy analogy: I root for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers but not Manchester United; even though they are both owned by the same person and even though soccer may have some wonderful attributes that I am too biased to notice.

[valis]

valis,
or are you truly content to just have it be something that IS and doesn't need to be rational?
I would agree with this sentance with a but. I cannot grasp the idea of the universe either. Something that has always been or something that once was not but now is. And then that leaves the question of how something can 'always ' exist or if it did not what could possibly existed before it or set it in motion. Similar of course to the old questions 'who created God' or 'can God create a burrito so spicy he himself cannot eat it?'. I understand the concepts of cosmology well enough for a layman, I think. But there are issues where I do no feel invoking God lowers the level of information or understanding.

I only ask that, because I remember going through a period myself, where I attempted to explain God's hand in the world by simply saying "science is uncovering the mechanism by which HE works". So evolution, physics etc. all fit into my christian worldview quite nicely, since those were the "mysterious ways" that God got things done.

I have no answer. If I had answers I would be on TV with Benny Hinn. Sometimes I agree witht the way you put it. Other times I think that the entire thing was a clockwork system that also contains elements of chance and free will. If I had to guess I woul wager that something I cannot comprehend set the universe in motion within certain perametars and then at key times interceeded in its develpment.

But I'm just guessing.

[macgyver]

valis,

We might be getting closer to the kernel of my difficulty in understanding your (seemingly) tenuous philosophical position.

We'd have to go into a whole host of reasons why human beings invent Gods and religions, but this isn't the place for that.

In summary, I think it stems from our survival instinct, and our strongest most basic emotion: fear.

Fear of the unknown, and death would be paramount. Religion "helps" by providing answers to some of these scary questions, and that's maybe where the "feel better" aspect of religion comes from.

In your case it appears you like religion, christianity in particular, in part because it provides a reason for things to be how they are, and comfort in knowing that there's some kind of order. Also, it provides for a "beginning and end". In short, it neatly ties up the loose ends, and provides at least some kind of answer to some unknowns. It also provides some hope that after death, there's continuity. I realize that I'm not going to be completely accurate in the details of your belief, but I'm just offering these as reasons one might maintain their faith.

In my case, I've realized that there's no need to have answers to everything. That concepts such as infinity, and paradoxical questions like "what was there before the beginning?" are uncomfortable at times, but nothing to be afraid of, or even "solved". I've found atheism to be comforting in it's freedom from boundaries, and in allowing the statement "I don't know" to hang there if and until the the knowledge is forthcoming. I take comfort in knowing that I'm not being "watched over" and that when I die, I'm dead. However, should evidence arise to the contrary, I'm also happy knowing that my worldview can change quickly and easily without disappointment.

In short, the same comforts that many people say religion provides are perhaps the same comforts I find in atheism - but for the opposite reasons?

[farmermike]

I also feel that for starters three of the major religions, Islam, Christianity and Judiasm are at least in part different interpratations of the same thing.Could it be that all religions are different interpretations of the same human emotional condition? Further if I had to guess I would say that at some point there may be some universal truth behind everthing that is larger than any single religon in use today.Maybe you're buddhist.

[/QUOTE]

[valis]

valis,
've found atheism to be comforting in it's freedom from boundaries, and in allowing the statement "I don't know" to hang there if and until the the knowledge is forthcoming.

I say that all the time as well. I just add that since I don't know I will go ahead and belive what I want until I find some reason not to.


I take comfort in knowing that I'm not being "watched over" and that when I die, I'm dead. However, should evidence arise to the contrary, I'm also happy knowing that my worldview can change quickly and easily without

Well I suppose if life after death does turn out to be real you will have no choice but to change your worldview :)

[macgyver]

Well I suppose if life after death does turn out to be real you will have no choice but to change your worldview :)

Well that'd certainly be true....unless I'm reincarnated as a tree or something.:)

[Rustle]

Well I suppose if life after death does turn out to be real you will have no choice but to change your worldview :)


...and if you find yourself in the chinese hell of being cut to pieces, you, too, will have to change your worldview.

Did I just scare you into becoming a buddhist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Man I was so hoping to discuss pascal's wager, when I first saw this thread :(

[Meffy]

Pardon a slight digression... A nearby surplus (junk) store has a big stock of a Catholic catechism teaching game. I think they're $10 each. Anybody want one? =^_^=

I regret not having bought all the Superhero Cthulhu and Shoggoth plush toys this store had back when I first saw 'em... someone else bought them all before I could return with money.

[valis]

...and if you find yourself in the chinese hell of being cut to pieces, you, too, will have to change your worldview.

Did I just scare you into becoming a buddhist?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Man I was so hoping to discuss pascal's wager, when I first saw this thread :(

No but then again the idea of hell is something I think about very rarely if at all; Chinese or otherwise.

Is that true though? I must admit my ignorance I did not realise there is a Buddhist hell. I will have to read up on that out of curiosity.

[macgyver]

I must admit my ignorance I did not realise there is a Buddhist hell. I will have to read up on that out of curiosity.

Dinner with Steven Seagal

[Rustle]

No but then again the idea of hell is something I think about very rarely if at all; Chinese or otherwise.

Is that true though? I must admit my ignorance I did not realise there is a Buddhist hell. I will have to read up on that out of curiosity.

Why search when you can wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism)

Buddhism is easily as filled with crap as christianity. When confronted with this, most western buddhists will say, "yeah but not my Buddhism!"

Hrmm what is that like... I guess I'd have to say, that's like Randi saying "there is a cost associated with believing in religion", and then you coming here and saying "yeah, but not my religion".

We need to start talking about "Nominal Buddhists" and "Nominal Christians". As long as your religion has zero impact on anything you say or do, then you are right: Randi's statements do not apply to you.

[Rustle]

I'd also like to try to coin the term "Pascal's Double Loser", to refer to those that go to the trouble of believing, and yet do not sufficiently secure a passage to heaven in the event that god exists. An example would be someone that believes in god, but does not believe in jesus or does not accept jesus christ as their personal savior. That person is going to hell. http://robola.wordpress.com/2006/03/16/jerry-fallwell-jews-muslims-cant-go-to-heaven/ also, see John 3:16

Satan is clearly a P. Double Loser, in that he would clearly believe that god exists, and yet still has to go to hell for some reason. Pascal didn't include that category for some reason: inconvenienced by believing, AND still going to hell. Man, that sucks.

[Jackalgirl]

I regret not having bought all the Superhero Cthulhu and Shoggoth plush toys this store had back when I first saw 'em... someone else bought them all before I could return with money.

And pardon this further digression, but Meffy, the company that makes those plushies is called Toy Vault and you can find retailers on their website (http://www.toyvault.com/). They also have a Rigel plushie (from FarScape) (http://www.toyvault.com/farscapeplush/index.html). Enjoy!

-- Kat

[StoatBringer]

The very short, highly abridged version is that I came to realise that there is absolutley no way, for me at least, to know whether God exists or not.


So you chose to believe that something exists, though you can never know if it exists or not? Why stop at God? Why not choose to believe in fairies, leprechauns and mermaids? I'm not trying to be a smartass, that's a serious question.


In my opinion Atheism is just as much a religion as Scientology or Christianity or any other faith.

You're entitled to your opinion, but in this case your opinion is simply wrong. Not believing in something can in no way be considered a religion.

To use your own reasoning, I assume you don't believe in unicorns? So, it follows that you are a member of the No-Unicorn religion, which is just as much a religion as Christianity or Scientology. In fact, all the things you don't believe in should be considered religions.

Again, not trying to be a smartass, just pointing out the huge flaws in your reasoning.

[macgyver]

Since I became involved in this thread, I started the Church of Bacontology. Everybody is free to join, but I'll tell you right now....it's expensive.

[valis]

Said some stuff as did another poster....

I think the answers to these quetsions, and much much more, can be found in the first five pages of this thread.

[Rustle]

Actually, not much of anything can be found in the first 5 pages of this thread. Especially not answers.


Perhaps Pascal didn't go into it because it isn't true. How can their be a fee or required behavoir to belive in a philosophical idea?

I belive in God, I used to be an Atheist (for the majority of my life) and I don't recall paying a fee for changing my mind. In fact all I did was change my mind. No ritual or anything. I might have murmured Hallelujah once and while in my life but only sarcastically. Certainlly not at every opportunity.

If I didn't know what a level headed skeptic Mr. Randi was I would think that he was harbouring prejudices based on stereotypes.

Mind-numbing. You say that believers do not pay a fee, and then put your own infantile fantasies as proof. (I would have put "belief system, but you really don't believe this crap, you just like to reminisce and toss it around in your head) Whenever someone attacks your "beliefs", you retreat into inscrutability: "hey man, whatever, thats just what I believe 'cuz I feel like it so thats what I believe". Craptastic.

Pascal's Wager is set up with the idea that belief has a fee. Even Pascal thought you would be at least inconvenienced! Honestly, I dont' think you would have met Pascal's threshold for a "belief".

Further, have heard of James Randi? No really... do you know who he is? Have you read any of his books? Seen an appearance maybe? Clearly you haven't, or have no memory of it for whatever reason. Let me recommend his fine book "the faith healers". Belief does't command behavior? Possibly you just don't know what we're referring to. We're talking about people that actually think something to be true. If, for example, you believe that you will not recover from a disease unless you send all of your money to Benny Hinn, then you have 2 options: send all of your money, or suffer the knowledge that you could end your own suffering but choose not to.

I don't know what combination of drugs and senility have given you the ability to roll an idea around in your head endlessly without taking a bite, but it clearly wasn't the same combination of drugs and senility that caused Phillip K Dick to write the Valis. PKD actually believed the crap that he was spouting. He truly believed that he had visions. Dick alternated between the belief that he was experiencing supernatural events, and fear that he was losing his mind. He would have been disgusted by your intellectual wishy-washiness.

But I digress. What I really wanted to say is, the existance of this thread has bothered me all week. It really bothers me that you can spout this kind of crap and still call yourself a skeptic, without having masses of people screaming "BS!". Your beliefs are idiotic. They are also unformed, immature, and unfit to be used as the basis for any criticism or argument. Do yourself a favor and never admit to holding to such codswallop again.

[farmermike]

[QUOTE=Rustle;1719282]
I don't know what combination of drugs and senility have given you the ability to roll an idea around in your head endlessly without taking a bite/QUOTE]
Could be a smattering of cognative dissonance.

[valis]

Said a whole bunch o' stuff.

A. It is possible for someone to hold a beliefe because it pleases them and still be a skeptic.

B. I disagree with everything else you said as well.

C. Your rude.

D. Everyone is a tough guy on the Internet.

[Rustle]

A. It is possible for someone to hold a beliefe because it pleases them and still be a skeptic.

You used your "beliefe" as evidence in an argument. Martin Gardner may believe in god because it makes him feel good, but it doesn't use that belief as evidence of anything.

B. I disagree with everything else you said as well.

I see you've expended your usual level of effort in reaching this disagreement.

C. Your rude. [sic]

Yes. There is a time and a place for it. You are spouting nonsense and using it as a criticism. You are also inappropriately hiding behind an erroneous popular sentiment of religious tolerance. It's crap. Stop it.

D. Everyone is a tough guy on the Internet.

I did not threaten to punch you in the face. I accused you being intellectually lazy, of abusing the english language with your use of words like "skeptic", "logic", and "critical thinking". I expressed dismay that more people haven't called you out on your nonsense. I stand by all of these statements. If this is your idea of being a "tough guy", then we have different definitions on that phrase as well.

[valis]

You used your "beliefe" as evidence in an argument. Martin Gardner may believe in god because it makes him feel good, but it doesn't use that belief as evidence of anything.
No I didn't. I claimed I have beliefs. I did not claim to have evidence of anything. Unless you mean in how my beliefs effect my own life?


I see you've expended your usual level of effort in reaching this disagreement.

Because everything that you mentioned was discussed earlier in the thread. If you don't want to read it fine. I frequantly see threads I find interesting but they are long and I don't have the time to wade through them to follow the entire discussion. I move on to something else; I don't expect others to rehash the entire discussion for my benifit.

Yes. There is a time and a place for it. You are spouting nonsense and using it as a criticism. You are also inappropriately hiding behind an erroneous popular sentiment of religious tolerance. It's crap. Stop it.

Well I see that you agree with me that you are rude. See we agree on something. How religious tolerance is erroneous is lost on me. I recognize that I can always be wrong and that others may have very good reasons for reaching conclusions that do not agree with mine. I temper my language with this in mind.


I did not threaten to punch you in the face. I accused you being intellectually lazy, of abusing the english language with your use of words like "skeptic", "logic", and "critical thinking". I expressed dismay that more people haven't called you out on your nonsense. I stand by all of these statements. If this is your idea of being a "tough guy", then we have different definitions on that phrase as well.
I didn't say that you did. I do however doubt that you talk this way to people in face to face real life. If you do then I stand corrected and C applies to you but not D. My apologise if that is the case.

I am as much a skeptic as someone who likes to belive that dinasours still roam the earth but does not let that belife interfere with other aspects of their skepticism.

[Rustle]

I do however doubt that you talk this way to people in face to face real life.

You would be very, very wrong.

I am as much a skeptic as someone who likes to belive that dinasours still roam the earth...

I agree with this statement.

[valis]

You would be very, very wrong.

Then why does it bother you that I won't answer your post? You must be accostumd to people refusing to speak to you. If someone were talking to me in a face to face conversation, the second they questioned what drugs I used or if I was senile I would walk away on the grounds that they are unable to follow the rules of civil conversation.


I agree with this statement.
I was incorrect. I actually should have said mammoths. You are saying this is not the voice of a skeptic?

...I harbor a seceret notion, admittedly without a grain of good evidence, that somewhere in the Mato Grosso of Brazil roams the remnants of a herd of mammoths....

[macgyver]

...I harbor a seceret notion, admittedly without a grain of good evidence, that somewhere in the Mato Grosso of Brazil roams the remnants of a herd of mammoths....

Wouldn't they be really really hot? I don't imagine the Mato Grosso is very "ice agey".

[Meffy]

And pardon this further digression, but Meffy, the company that makes those plushies is called Toy Vault and you can find retailers on their website (http://www.toyvault.com/). They also have a Rigel plushie (from FarScape) (http://www.toyvault.com/farscapeplush/index.html). Enjoy!
Thanks, but I was only interested when they cost $1 or $2 each and they had be dug out from among bins full of scuba-diving Tasmanian Devils and multi-color snakes and Doras the Explorers. :-} My motto is "Never pay retail." Or whatever that is in Latin.

[macgyver]

Thanks, but I was only interested when they cost $1 or $2 each and they had be dug out from among bins full of scuba-diving Tasmanian Devils and multi-color snakes and Doras the Explorers. :-} My motto is "Never pay retail." Or whatever that is in Latin.

Nunquam persolvo retail ?

...online translator...

[Rustle]

I was incorrect. I actually should have said mammoths. You are saying this is not the voice of a skeptic?

YES.

...I harbor a seceret notion, admittedly without a grain of good evidence, that somewhere in the Mato Grosso of Brazil roams the remnants of a herd of mammoths....

There is a difference between saying something like that, and actually believing it. I may very well say that I believe that mammoths still exist... purely as a conversational device. In no way do I actually believe such a thing. If you really believe this bit about the mammoths, then no, you are certainly not skeptical about this issue, and by any meaningful definition not a "skeptic" in general. You seem to define a skeptic as "someone that doubts at least one thing, at some point in their life". That has got to be the weakest definition that I've ever considered possible.

Then why does it bother you that I won't answer your post? You must be accostumd to people refusing to speak to you. If someone were talking to me in a face to face conversation, the second they questioned what drugs I used or if I was senile I would walk away on the grounds that they are unable to follow the rules of civil conversation.

More mind-numbing nonsense.

You: "I bet you don't talk like that in real life, tough guy!"
Me: "Yes, I do."
You: "Then why are you upset that I won't answer you?"

That's just nonsense on its face. Furthermore, what post were you supposed to answer? Are you talking about the statement I made, that you put zero effort into your last reply? ...not exactly a question looking for an answer. Then again you probably define "question" and "answer" in some hitherto unknown and completely meaningless way. I suppose that yes, in a bizaro world of your own imagining, I might be completely furious that you did not answer some fictitious question that I never posted. Let me assure you that on the prime material plane, however, I simply think that you're an idiot. No need for a response.

You put your beliefs up as evidence in an argument about Pascal's Wager. You then retreated from any examination of those beliefs on the basis that they were personal, (and therefore didn't need to make sense). While ingenious as a forum debating tool, I find this to be disengenuous. I also feel that it depends on a mistaken notion of conversational religious tolerance. Do we really have to give lip service to your kind of ideas? My answer, purely as a matter of my opinion, is no.

If someone wants to believe that Elvis is alive, Mammoths walk the earth, and "questions" are invisible lime flavored butterflys, then they certainly should be allowed to do so. If they bring these beliefs up in conversation, however, they should be laughed at. If they try to use them as evidence of anything, they should be shot down.

Your remedy, if you don't want people to criticize your beliefs, is to not bring them up in public, certainly not on an internet forum, and most certainly not as evidence of a criticism.

[Rustle]

If you include "Mammoth Believers" as skeptics, then you would also have to include bigfoot investigators, UFOlogists, ghost spotters, faith healers....

...the word, in your hand, means nothing. I find that intolerable.

[Meffy]

Nunquam persolvo retail ?

...online translator...
Close enough for government work. *bow*

[valis]

If you include "Mammoth Believers" as skeptics, then you would also have to include bigfoot investigators, UFOlogists, ghost spotters, faith healers....

...the word, in your hand, means nothing. I find that intolerable.

I think you are reacting to my posts without actually reading them.

The mammoth quote is by one James the Amazing Randi, it can be found in the book Flim Flam.

[valis]

YES.
More mind-numbing nonsense.

You: "I bet you don't talk like that in real life, tough guy!"
Me: "Yes, I do."
You: "Then why are you upset that I won't answer you?"

That's just nonsense on its face.

No it isn't. In both real life and the Internet I choose to ignore rude people. I find they are usually not interested in discussion but in yelling or talking past people. The 'net is full of people that will engage you in this style of conversation, I am not one of them.

In fact I find it intolarable!

[Rasmus]

A. It is possible for someone to hold a beliefe because it pleases them and still be a skeptic.

How many of these belives do you think can anyone hold whlst still being a sceptic?

A specific number, or a certain fraction of the total of all of the things they hold to be true?

Does it matter how much evidence exists to the contrary? Or in favour?

[Rustle]

I think you are reacting to my posts without actually reading them.

The mammoth quote is by one James the Amazing Randi, it can be found in the book Flim Flam.

I had actually considered this, btw. The important question is, does he actually believe this to be true, or is it something that he used as a conversational device?

If he believes it to be true, then yes, he is not being skeptical about this belief. There are no pristine prophets in skepticism: he is not right because of who he is.

I lost my copy of Flim-Flam long ago, can anyone actually give this quote? Valis appears to define a quote as "an idea vaguely alluded to". What I mean is, can someone actually give the exact sentence where Randi says this, preferably with the sentence before it and the sentence after it?

If someone can actually ask James Randi whether or not he truly believes that there are mammoths alive today, that would be ideal!

[Rustle]

No it isn't. In both real life and the Internet I choose to ignore rude people. I find they are usually not interested in discussion but in yelling or talking past people. The 'net is full of people that will engage you in this style of conversation, I am not one of them.

In fact I find it intolarable!

You completely missed the point of what you quoted. Completely. I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of act you're putting on.

[valis]

You completely missed the point of what you quoted. Completely. I'm starting to wonder if this is some sort of act you're putting on.

I refuse to take someone seriously who by way of conversation:

Asks if I am senile (which I was totally going to answer but I got sidetracked looking for my car keys and then some damn kids wouldn't get off my lawn and by then it was nap time).

Questions if I use drugs.

Uses the term 'codswallup'.

Sorry if I am not treating your important opinions with the gravity they deserve. I would suggest the Ignore feature if it upsets you that much.

[horse_pheathers]

I took Pascal's Wager, figuring what the heck? Can't hurt to believe in God....imagine my surprise to die and find myself facing Thor, and boy was he miffed!

Seriously -- Pascal's Wager is flawed on so many levels, from the false dichotomy of atheism versus belief in the Christian God to the utter inanity of assuming we can _choose_ what to believe. I mean, I can be _convinced_ to believe something and I can choose to behave as if something is true when I believe it to be false or unproven, but actually choose what I believe? No, I believe what I believe because experience has led me to believe it.

Another thing -- who would be in more trouble with a just and loving deity? The bloke who led a decent and moral life without regard to reward in the hereafter because they don't believe a deity exists? Or the weasel who forces himself to believe for no other reason than "there might be a god and an afterlife, and if I believe, I'll get a spiffy reward"?

I'll stick with my "I don't know but it seems pretty darned unlikely a deity exists" stance and lead a moral life, thanks. Any deity worth worshipping will appreciate that more than sycophantic lip service any day. ;)

-- Horse_Pheathers

[Rustle]

I refuse to take someone seriously who by way of conversation:

Uses the term 'codswallup'.

I used the term because I'd been listening to the archived radio shows, where Randi uses the word and talks about how much he likes it. I guess you have no time for Randi.

Sorry if I am not treating your important opinions with the gravity they deserve. I would suggest the Ignore feature if it upsets you that much.

Great. That explains why you've put zero effort into your claims since the time I started posting on this thread. Now, what is the reason that you put zero effort into your claims prior to my posting in this thread?

[bruto]

I took Pascal's Wager, figuring what the heck? Can't hurt to believe in God....imagine my surprise to die and find myself facing Thor, and boy was he miffed!

Seriously -- Pascal's Wager is flawed on so many levels, from the false dichotomy of atheism versus belief in the Christian God to the utter inanity of assuming we can _choose_ what to believe. I mean, I can be _convinced_ to believe something and I can choose to behave as if something is true when I believe it to be false or unproven, but actually choose what I believe? No, I believe what I believe because experience has led me to believe it.

Another thing -- who would be in more trouble with a just and loving deity? The bloke who led a decent and moral life without regard to reward in the hereafter because they don't believe a deity exists? Or the weasel who forces himself to believe for no other reason than "there might be a god and an afterlife, and if I believe, I'll get a spiffy reward"?

I'll stick with my "I don't know but it seems pretty darned unlikely a deity exists" stance and lead a moral life, thanks. Any deity worth worshipping will appreciate that more than sycophantic lip service any day. ;)

-- Horse_Pheathers

While I'm quite inclined to agree with you on principle, I'm not entirely sure that All Christians, especially perhaps those of the established church in Pascal's time, would agree that the moral atheist should be better rewarded than the cynical communicant. It's one of those funny things about Christianity and jealous old Jehovah, and the concept of "grace not works." I still think that Pascal's wager is (excuse me, Valis, but I kind of like the term, and it's more polite than that B...s..t one) pretty much codswallop whether you choose faith or not, but the bargain may have been reckoned a little differently in Pascal's world.

[valis]

but the bargain may have been reckoned a little differently in Pascal's world.

That is something; as I mentioned earlier. that I really hadn't thought about. The view in Pascal's day would have been much more black and white.

My post wasn't actually meant to be about the wager itself though; it was about the idea of all Christians being some sort of praising and tithing machines. I don't want to keep beating a dead horse because I have mentioned this in other threads; but I think in recent years there has been an increase in the nastiness towards religion on this board and in some other places. It could of course be my perception; or perhaps years of being exposed to it is causing it to become a sore point.

As an educational foundation I would assume that JREF is trying to reach out to and educate people. Since a large number of Americans have Christian beliefs I don't see what purpose being snide or name calling is going to serve. In my opinion it just pushes away people that might listen to the JREF's point of view otherwise.

If the point is that one can't be a 'true' skeptic and harbor any religious belief at all then you are just going to end up preaching to a choir of atheists. Belittiling people and stereotyping are counter productive in my opinion.

[valis]

I guess you have no time for Randi.

I guess you have no time for Jesus.

I can't help but notice how similar in tone those two sentences are. Have you ever thought of going through your posts and substituting Jesus for Randi. They still sound about the same don't they?

Perhaps the reason you don't like my posts is because you are a fundementalist and I am not.


Great. That explains why you've put zero effort into your claims since the time I started posting on this thread. Now, what is the reason that you put zero effort into your claims prior to my posting in this thread?

I can't see any hope of us having a meaningful conversation. Read your posts. What would be the point of us discussing anything?

After reading your posts I cannot imagine anything that I could say that would be of any interest to you or would sway your opinion in any way.

If you do not feel my posts contain anything of value then I implore you to stop reading them. In fact since they seem to upset you I would urge you again to consider using the forums Ignore feature (I am assuming one exists, I've never looked for it here).

I don't think we should talk any longer anyhow. I am going to pray that God reaches out and speaks to you; if you are busy talking to me he might get a busy signal. I would feel terrible if you went to Hell as a resutlt of reading my posts.

[macgyver]

If the point is that one can't be a 'true' skeptic and harbor any religious belief at all then you are just going to end up preaching to a choir of atheists. Belittiling people and stereotyping are counter productive in my opinion.

I have to agree with the last point, however I also agree that you aren't truly a skeptic if you hang onto religious belief.

I think that civility and respect is still important in any social discourse.

However, I can also understand the resentment that many skeptics have that we should handle people who believe in nonsense with special consideration, simply because the nonsense is "important" to them.

Like most religious debates you'll ultimately end up in a catch 22 or some paradoxical situation where you can't move forward. 100% of the time this is because the "believer" simply shuts down the debate when their belief is fundamentally challenged.

So even if skeptics play "nice", the believer will label them as disrespectful, or rude as soon as any serious questions of the validity of their belief comes into play.

I think this thread has illustrated that point quite well. "Part-time Skeptics" like yourself simply state "I believe this because it makes me feel good, and I'm comfortable with that". So end of debate. That's certainly not a skeptical approach.

[Rustle]

If he believes it to be true, then yes, he is not being skeptical about this belief. There are no pristine prophets in skepticism: he is not right because of who he is.



This is what I wrote in regards to Randi. The codswallop exchange was in response to your appeal to authority via "Randi believes mammoths live".

Valis, you are clearly not reading my posts, and clearly are haphazardly spewing crap crafted to be offensively provocative.

[Rustle]

I don't think we should talk any longer anyhow. I am going to pray that God reaches out and speaks to you; if you are busy talking to me he might get a busy signal. I would feel terrible if you went to Hell as a resutlt of reading my posts.

I thought you never think about hell? I guess you're a flat out liar alongside being a disingenuous troll. And of course, you could stop posting, but that isn't what you want. You want to continue this conversation, not because you want to have an actual discussion, but because you are a self-absorbed forum troll. You don't think we should talk? Why don't you stop posting in this thread then? I never asked you to respond...

[Rustle]

I have to agree with the last point, however I also agree that you aren't truly a skeptic if you hang onto religious belief.


There is a difference between honestly harboring a poorly supported beliefs, which we all do, and reveling in absurdity, which I despise.

[macgyver]

There is a difference between honestly harboring a poorly supported beliefs, which we all do, and reveling in absurdity, which I despise.

I don't know if there's much of a difference really. I think all superstitious belief is silly. I don't necessarily give any religion extra points just because they have documented their superstition and proudly wear it as virtue.

However, if we are to persuade those who are deluded into questioning their superstitions...then your method simply won't work.

Perhaps you despise people who "revel in absurdity", but then how do you differ from somebody who despises the Jews, or Blacks, or any other definable sub-culture or race?

I don't necessarily disagree with your assessment, but I question your maturity and motives. In fact, the picture you are beginning to portray is bordering on the absurd.

This is in no way meant to be misconstrued as siding with valis, I'm attempting to be impartial.

[Rasmus]

Perhaps you despise people who "revel in absurdity", but then how do you differ from somebody who despises the Jews, or Blacks, or any other definable sub-culture or race?

Can I despise Nazis?

And would it make a difference if I despised Jews instead of Jews?

[macgyver]

Can I despise Nazis?

And would it make a difference if I despised Jews instead of Jews?

There were probably some very nice Nazis....

I don't get the second line...

However, I was only trying to make a point that using language like "I despise this kind of person" is a bit strong, and won't do much to further a discussion. You can despise anyone you like, but if you want to enter into a debate with them about why they do things you despise, then expect some pushback unless you're somewhat civil. Is it false to do so? Perhaps, but then it's more likely that you both may come away from the exchange having learned something, rather than even more solidified in your current position.

I just can't help but see valis and rustle as having similarities in their steadfastness. Even though I generally agree with Rustle, his borderline flame war approach isn't particularly useful to anyone.

I also understand that although Valis feels justified in expecting others to move towards him in their philosophy and "meet in the middle ground", that it's essentially counter to being a skeptic to do so. That doesn't make Rustle a "fundamentalist", it simply makes him a skeptic who requires evidence, and non is being offered. A rude skeptic, perhaps, but much more skeptical than valis.

[Rasmus]

There were probably some very nice Nazis....

I would agree that there could have been "rather nice" Nazis, i.e. some were a lot less horrible than others. But in my not very humble opinion, one simply cannot be both, very nice and a Nazi.

I am not asking anyone to like anybody else. I won't even ask anyone to like Jews. But being a Nazi entails a lot more than just not liking Jew, or even dispising them.

I don't get the second line...

Well, obviously, it is may way of pointing out that I didn't get enough sleep and that I am therefore too tired to restructure a sentence after first writing it and then still remembering that it should contain each "Jew" and "Nazi" once.

However, I was only trying to make a point that using language like "I despise this kind of person" is a bit strong, and won't do much to further a discussion.

True.

But with some people (and I haven't read this thread much, so I am by no means referring to any of the participants here), being polite, diplomatic and sensible doesn't help, either. And sometimes it would be silly to assume that they are just having a bad day. Then being honest and maybe burning a few bridges might be called for.

You can despise anyone you like, but if you want to enter into a debate with them about why they do things you despise, then expect some pushback unless you're somewhat civil.

You get pushback from some people no matter how polite you are.

And sometimes, it all just gets a little too much. What are you supposed to do with a person who on one hand tells you about their loving god, and on the other hand threatens you with eternal hellfire and think all's well that way?

Is it false to do so? Perhaps, but then it's more likely that you both may come away from the exchange having learned something, rather than even more solidified in your current position.

Some people are immune to reason, and I am rather certain that there are people that truly don't have anything to teach me.

I just can't help but see valis and rustle as having similarities in their steadfastness. Even though I generally agree with Rustle, his borderline flame war approach isn't particularly useful to anyone.

Maybe not.

But could he do better?

At this point, could anyone, or is the thread lost as it is?

I also understand that although Valis feels justified in expecting others to move towards him in their philosophy and "meet in the middle ground", that it's essentially counter to being a skeptic to do so.

Yes.

That doesn't make Rustle a "fundamentalist", it simply makes him a skeptic who requires evidence, and non is being offered. A rude skeptic, perhaps, but much more skeptical than valis.

I applaud your attempt to get this thread back to where it belongs!

And I agree, you cannot hold certain believes - under certain circumstances - and still claim you're a sceptic as if nothing had ever happened.

(Just as you can't be a Nazi and still claim you're a very nice person, as if it just didn't make a difference...)

[macgyver]

(Just as you can't be a Nazi and still claim you're a very nice person, as if it just didn't make a difference...)

Oskar Schindler: nice Nazi?

Heinrich Himmler: not nice Nazi

My only point here is that the Nazi party that many people joined, was not what they thought it was, nor would they have joined if they knew what it would turn out to be....

Otherwise, you can't be a Nazi and love Jewish People anymore than you can be a skeptic and love God.

However, I think I can be a skeptic, and have friends who are religious, even though I know that they're deluded. If I couldn't, then I wouldn't have many friends:)

[macgyver]

Can I despise Nazis?

And would it make a difference if I despised Nazis instead of Jews?

Edited for free!

Just to address this directly, the answer is no - if you were debating a Nazi in an attempt to help them see the error of their belief.

Just like any irrational belief system, we should have protections in place to limit the ability for that belief to cause harm. That means a secular system of law and order. It also means free speach, and freedom of religion. I would also add freedom FROM religion just to further the point. So the Nazi would also be protected, unless they did something to break the law (or threatened to). Just as the Christian affords the same protection. The problem is that Christian belief can find it's way into our secular system undetected, because even though it's nonsense, it's familiar and considered "harmless".

I think the only way to curb the irrational, is with rational, and reasonable debate.

I agree with your point, however, that this is often harder to find on the "other side of the fence"....

[Rustle]

There is a difference between honestly harboring a poorly supported beliefs, which we all do, and reveling in absurdity, which I despise.

I hate to be nit-picky, but what I said I despise is "reveling in absurdity". I'll stand by that statement. At some point the action paints the person, and the distinction dissipates. However, it is, at root, the action which is abhorent.

As for being rude, I'll take that criticism. I should have posted my dissent right away instead of stewing about it for a week.

Can you despise a Nazi? I think so. You can despise a racist, can't you? Nazism is, amongst other things, racist. Can you despise a jew in the same way? I don't think so. "Jew" is an ethnicity, and like "black", tells you absolutely nothing about the persons character, their beliefs, or their likely actions.

I think we should be free to hate ideologies, however! What Nazism suggests is abhorent; what judaism suggests is (imo!) silly. The caste system of India sucks and apartheid blew. These are man-made social constructs and I don't think we should be afraid to hurl our minds against them like a pick and see how well they stand up.

[valis]

I thought you never think about hell? I guess you're a flat out liar alongside being a disingenuous troll. And of course, you could stop posting, but that isn't what you want. You want to continue this conversation, not because you want to have an actual discussion, but because you are a self-absorbed forum troll. You don't think we should talk? Why don't you stop posting in this thread then? I never asked you to respond...


I do sooo want to stop, but I can't help myself. Needleing the rude and the self inflated is something I just can't control. That's why I keep suggesting you not reply to my posts; it's like waving herion in front of an addict. And then you go and call be a 'flat out liar', how can I not pull your chain a little more? I am onlly human after all.

A friendly suggestion though; I think you should have your sarcasm meter checked, it seems to be a bit out of adjustment.

But I will put an end to this once and for all. I will pray every day until Jesus takes hold of your heart and forces you to become a Christian. No point resisting it is too late now. Any day, when you least expect it; BOOM you will be smote (smited?) with the undeniable power of the Lord. And when that day comes you be sorry you ever called me names.

Oh and don't bother saying 'I'm still an atheist, ha ha.' that just means you haven't waited long enough.

[valis]

I also understand that although Valis feels justified in expecting others to move towards him in their philosophy and "meet in the middle ground",

I am not asking that at all. All I am asking is to consider that the thought process of Christians may be more diverse and nuanced than you think it is. There seems to be a subset of atheism that is downright hostile towards religion and all believers there in. The idea that all Christians (or whatever religion is in question) are believers because someone told them to belive or because they are not sophisticated enough to question anything is just wrong.

The only reason I harp about this is because I was an atheist most of my life and I understand the reasoning. I have made all the arguments I have read here at one time or another. So I thought I would share a differing viewpoint in case anyone was interested. I am not attepting to change anyone's mind.

[empeake]

If I believe in God because it is convenient for me to do so, does this make me a pragmatheist? :D

prag'ma·the·ist n.
1: A person who takes a practical approach to believing or not believing in God, and is concerned primarily with saving face, fitting in, avoiding confrontation, winning the lottery, avoiding the flames of eternal hell and/or JREF forum members, not being considered a Creationist loony, etc.
2: A member of the Church/Non-Church of Pragmatheism® (Motto: Our belief/non-belief/disbelief depends on who's doing the funding). Patent pending. All rights reserved. Rated PG-13. No MSG. No returns without receipt.

[macgyver]

Well, I'm a bacontologist, so I guess I can't be throwing stones in the glass house of the Lord.

Even though bacontology has nothing to do with Jesus....obviously....eating pork is not allowed according to the Bible.

[valis]

This is what I wrote in regards to Randi. The codswallop exchange was in response to your appeal to authority via "Randi believes mammoths live".


That is simply untrue. Go back and look at the order of the posts.

[Rustle]

That is simply untrue. Go back and look at the order of the posts.

I challenged your belief in mammoths as unskeptical.

You said "really!??!?!"

I said yes

You said "well omg you think Randi isnt' a skeptic cuz he believes in mammoths"

this was a clear appeal to authority

I said, well if thats true, he sure isn't being skeptical about mammoths, and I disagree with him.

You say that you don't have time for people that use the word "codswallop"

I flip the scrip on you by saying "well omg you don't have time for Randi cuz he uses that word"

Valis, you're an idiot, you're always wrong, and you lie.

You don't want to continue this conversation, remember? So how about you not lie about that one thing, and stop addressing posts to me in this thread.

[valis]

I challenged your belief in mammoths as unskeptical.

You said "really!??!?!"

I said yes

You said "well omg you think Randi isnt' a skeptic cuz he believes in mammoths"

this was a clear appeal to authority

I said, well if thats true, he sure isn't being skeptical about mammoths, and I disagree with him.

You say that you don't have time for people that use the word "codswallop"

I flip the scrip on you by saying "well omg you don't have time for Randi cuz he uses that word"

You said (and I quote)
The codswallop exchange was in response to your appeal to authority via "Randi believes mammoths live".

So I go back and read for the third time and no matter how you slice it the 'codswallop' remark comes quite a few posts before that. Perhaps you are using the Arabic language pack and therefore reading from the end of the thread to the beginning?

Valis, you're an idiot, you're always wrong, and you lie.

Again demonstrably untrue. I said this morning as I left work 'better not plan on golf :golf: today, it is going to rain'. And it rained. I was right about that, therefore I am not always wrong. Oh wait it may not have rained where you are, so I guess it rained in my reality but possibly not yours. There I have proved both a:that I am not always wrong and b: that seperate realities exist.

But then again you can't trust the above statement because I am a lying idiot. :con2:

You don't want to continue this conversation, remember? So how about you not lie about that one thing, and stop addressing posts to me in this thread.
But didn't you read where I said ? :
I do sooo want to stop, but I can't help myself. Needleing the rude and the self inflated is something I just can't control. That's why I keep suggesting you not reply to my posts; it's like waving herion in front of an addict. And then you go and call be a 'flat out liar', how can I not pull your chain a little more? I am onlly human after all.

I know when you become a Christian, which is now inevitable, you will regret the things you have said. Perhaps it would be best if we prayed together. Would you like my number? Or even better how about a nice holiday in Central Florida? We could go to Bible Land together and then hold hands and pray. After that we can go out on the town for a late night of tithing and hallelujahing.

The Lord works in mysterious ways, obviously he has lead you to this thread so that I can pray for you to be hit with the suprise whammy of salvation.

BTW: I put in the smilies to cheer you up; you seem upset about someting.