To the Christians here... [Archive]

ned flandas

19th June 2006, 01:00 PM

As an atheist, I can't answer for Christians (even though I was one once), but from a reverse perspective, I can answer similar questions as to why I posted (call it trolling if you must) on some Christian boards. (Edits in red.)

One purpose in going to those boards was to demonstrate the beliefs and behavior of an actual atheist. Most of them have never had a polite conversation with one and seen how much they might have in common. Another purpose was to learn what they thought so that I might avoid making strawmen of Christians.

Sometimes it was good, although it was quite repetitive. But for the rare times when I found a truly bright and original thinker, it was worth it.

A very great deal, mostly about people.

Hi Tricky

I have to say that I don't come on here very often as some people seem far too agressive about bashing Christians.

The agression doesnt bother me, but as we all have limited time here on this earth (whatever you beleive in) I'd rather be debating with people where we can learn from each other.

I wish there were more people here like yourself (and there probably is but i've missed them) that make this place an enjoyable and educational place too.

tkingdoll

19th June 2006, 01:39 PM

Hi Tricky

I have to say that I don't come on here very often as some people seem far too agressive about bashing Christians.

The agression doesnt bother me, but as we all have limited time here on this earth (whatever you beleive in) I'd rather be debating with people where we can learn from each other.

I wish there were more people here like yourself (and there probably is but i've missed them) that make this place an enjoyable and educational place too.

Weird. So you're saying you don't come here because you don't like people who bash other people's opinions, and you make your point by bashing other people's opinions? You might wanna work on that hypocrisy a little.

You seem to be saying that:

1) This is not an 'enjoyable' or 'educational' place

- Well, why are you here then?

2) That you don't believe you can learn anything from the people here, or they from you.

- Well, why are you here then?

I have another few questions.

Can you provide links to posts or threads in this forum that you think constitute "bashing" of Christians?

And

Why are you specifically offended by Christian* bashing and not, say Homeopath bashing, Psychic bashing, Modern Art bashing or Hammegk bashing?

Many thanks.

*I resisted the urge to put "Bishop bashing" instead

Upchurch

19th June 2006, 01:53 PM

Another purpose was to learn what they thought so that I might avoid making strawmen of Christians.I agree and will take the thought one step further. I sometimes wander over to Rapture Ready, in part to observer and learn, but also to see what kind of arguments are well received and what are not. (As in, "to put forth an argument", I don't go there just to argue with them.)

infornography

19th June 2006, 02:10 PM

I have spent no small amount of time on religious forums and chat groups. Usually I feel like the interloper wandering into territory controlled by those who see themselves as my opposition.

Usually I am not the only one but I am often the most moderate of the non-theist group.

I consider myself an agnostic however, rather than an atheist. The differences are largely semantic but the statement of ignorance of a divine being sits easier with me than the statement of disbelief or doubt in it.

I would say I go there mainly to learn. In most forums the religion section is the one with the most interesting debates and discussions and can range from the highly scientific to the purely theoretical. Mindlessly tedious banter and posturing seem to take a back seat to thought provoking discourse and that appeals greatly to me.

Furthermore I am always interested in learning a new perspective on the subject.

I suspect that reasons Christians have for coming here are very similar.

ned flandas

20th June 2006, 12:58 AM

Why are you specifically offended by Christian* bashing and not, say Homeopath bashing, Psychic bashing, Modern Art bashing or Hammegk bashing?

I'm not offended by any kind of bashing, its just that there seems to be a lot of mindless insults which is a bit of a waste of time.

If someone wants to bash my faith in order to make me rethink what I beleive then thats absolutely fine. I think its healthy to do that and many Christians should do or otherwise they are brainwashed and that is when the problems occur.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 04:37 AM

Hi Tricky

I have to say that I don't come on here very often as some people seem far too agressive about bashing Christians.

The agression doesnt bother me, but as we all have limited time here on this earth (whatever you beleive in) I'd rather be debating with people where we can learn from each other.

I wish there were more people here like yourself (and there probably is but i've missed them) that make this place an enjoyable and educational place too.
I know what you mean, Ned. I met incredible hostility on some of the Christian boards because I pulled no punches and said exactly what I felt. I do understand how many feel here because we atheists are persecuted too. That shouldn't excuse bad manners though. However, I find you make a lot of headway on any hostile board using one simple phrase:

"I could be wrong."

Here's one question I had to answer a lot, and I did the best job I could. "What would it take to convince you that you were wrong."

May I pose that question to you?

ned flandas

20th June 2006, 05:25 AM

What woud it take to convince me that I am wrong about my Christian faith you mean?

Tricky

20th June 2006, 05:31 AM

What woud it take to convince me that I am wrong about my Christian faith you mean?
Correct. I'm assuming that you don't need monumentous reasons to realize when you are in error about mundane things. At least, you don't seem to be that way.

ned flandas

20th June 2006, 05:35 AM

Off the top of my head, I suppose I would have to be convinced that the God I pray to does not exist.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 05:39 AM

Off the top of my head, I suppose I would have to be convinced that the God I pray to does not exist.
Right. Can you think of anything that would convince you of that?

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 05:40 AM

I'm not offended by any kind of bashing, its just that there seems to be a lot of mindless insults which is a bit of a waste of time.

If someone wants to bash my faith in order to make me rethink what I beleive then thats absolutely fine. I think its healthy to do that and many Christians should do or otherwise they are brainwashed and that is when the problems occur.

Please provide links to these 'mindless insults' so I can see what you're talking about.

ned flandas

20th June 2006, 05:43 AM

Right. Can you think of anything that would convince you of that?

not really

can you?

Tricky

20th June 2006, 06:29 AM

not really.
This, you see, is the "fundamental" problem that most nonbelievers have with believers. If you cannot conceive of any way you might be wrong about God, then you are as much as saying "I cannot be wrong", because if you admit you could be wrong, then you must be able to envision some scenario where you could change your mind. I can think of several that would convince me I am wrong about atheism, but they haven't happened yet.

Can you?
Well, I used to be a Christian. For me, the beginning was the continued observation that there seems to be no pattern of goodness in the world and no difference in the "goodness" received by Christians versus anybody else. Also, prayers seemed to make no difference in anything.

As time went by, the logic of a god who would punish you just for believing the wrong thing seemed to be in direct contradiction to the concept of a loving God. It stopped making sense. It was a slow process though. I didn't become an unbeliever overnight.

I changed my mind, but I can envision scenarios that would change it back.

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 06:43 AM

I'm here because I'm interested in how agnostics/atheists think...because I'm skeptical of skepticism...and so I can more completely identify and comprehend common problems that y'alls have with religious belief, and formulate how I would respond, often time by doing exactly that of course.

This is all incredibly beneficial to me, in other words. Whether this is helpful to the forum community at large is totally irrelevant. I only care about myself, and all of you can go to hell.

bwah hah

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 06:46 AM

Tricky

20th June 2006, 06:48 AM

I'm here because I'm interested in how agnostics/atheists think...because I'm skeptical of skepticism...so I can more completely identify and comprehend common problems that y'alls have with religious belief.

-Elliot
LOL. Double negative. Being skeptical of skepticism is saying, "I won't accept without evidence that not accepting things without evidence is a correct mindset."

However, my position is that everybody is skeptical of some things and not of others. By calling myself a skeptic, I declare that I am actively trying to be skeptical of more things.

atari24

20th June 2006, 06:51 AM

Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power.

Not for me.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 06:54 AM

Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power. Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational. No doubt I couldn't get you to accept that.

-Elliot
It has great explanatory power for the question of "why", but it doesn't do so hot on the question of "how". And as any parent with kids will tell you, having someone ask "why" to each answer given must eventually get to the point to where you can only answer, "because I say so", or in the theist case, "because God says so". I find that explanation unsatisfying.

arthwollipot

20th June 2006, 06:56 AM

Personally, since ned flandas is asking, I worked out two things.

First, there is no process which happens in the universe that requires the hand of a God to proceed. The universe works on its own.

Second, all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong". I feel that it's far more likely for all of them to be wrong than for one out of the multitude to be exactly right.

Edit: Sorry if it wasn't an open question. Tell me to shut up and I will :)

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 06:58 AM

Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power. Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational."Great explanatory power"? Yes : because you can explain anything you choose by supposing the intervention of an invisible being of unlimited power with entirely obscure motivations. God, space aliens, magic pixies, TEH CONSPIRACY ... yes, great "explanatory power".

And no predictive power --- which is the very hallmark of irrational belief.

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 06:59 AM

This, you see, is the "fundamental" problem that most nonbelievers have with believers. If you cannot conceive of any way you might be wrong about God, then you are as much as saying "I cannot be wrong", because if you admit you could be wrong, then you must be able to envision some scenario where you could change your mind.

I can conceive of a very particular way that I might be wrong about God, but I can't appreciate that idea because tit would only be fully grasped after my shelf-life is expired and oblivion awaits.

The "I cannot be wrong" thing is irrelevant to me. I guess it's relevant to you. If I'm wrong, who cares? I certainly don't, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I do think there are ways that I could seriously question by entire faith in God. If abiogenesis just started to happen all of the time, like it was the most natural thing in the world, I'd be very shaken by that. My theism has a lot to do with origins.

My Christianity is, in many respects, distinct from my theism. I can certainly conceive of ways in which I could be wrong about Christianity, because I rejected Christianity many years ago, and could very well do it again.

I'm too attached to creativity, meaning, and notions of objective morality perhaps. If I were less enthralled by such things, be more matter of fact about them, that could also shake my theism.

I can accept that yours is a fundamental problem, but it is entirely subjectively personal, and I must say that I probably don't appreciate the problem as much as you think I ought to. In addition, even if the most fervent believer couldn't think of a way that could prove them wrong, he/she could still believe that there is a way that could prove them wrong that they can not conceive, but could exist.

-Elliot

ned flandas

20th June 2006, 06:59 AM

Well, I used to be a Christian. For me, the beginning was the continued observation that there seems to be no pattern of goodness in the world and no difference in the "goodness" received by Christians versus anybody else.

As the Bible doesnt seem to promise that there is a pattern of goodness in the world, this wouldn't affect my faith.

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 07:06 AM

LOL. Double negative. Being skeptical of skepticism is saying, "I won't accept without evidence that not accepting things without evidence is a correct mindset."

Thank you for identifying the intended humor. ;)

I think anyone can be skeptical. I think that I am skeptical. Skepticism, as constructed by those who proclaim to be a "skeptic" as I would proclaim to be a Catholic, is, let's say...and institutionalized and insular form of skepticism, driven by personal (pathological? arf arf) needs. I say that I'm skeptical of skepticism because of the preponderance of dogma I see proclaimed in this forum.

Skepticism, I think, has more (or should have more) to do with understanding that absolute knowledge is unattainable, than to do with worrying about what to accept and what amount of evidence enables acceptance. I don't think it should be used as a way to enable one to do what, in my opinion, is what is truly sought after. A way to enable dogmatic assertions which classify a select few as rational, enlightened, and intelligent, and the masses as lacking in such regards. In this way I am suggesting that skepticism is a useful, yet transparent, means to an end.

If I saw more detached skepticism I'd retract by judgment. Perhaps the detached skeptics just keep to themselves.

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 07:08 AM

Not for me.

Explanatory power is contingent, and not inherent. Same thing goes for rationality.

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 07:11 AM

It has great explanatory power for the question of "why", but it doesn't do so hot on the question of "how". And as any parent with kids will tell you, having someone ask "why" to each answer given must eventually get to the point to where you can only answer, "because I say so", or in the theist case, "because God says so". I find that explanation unsatisfying.

Not if you accept contingency and limitation. In the case of parent/child, the child will, or can, become a parent. I can understand creativity and the sphere in which I exist, and I can accept that God's creativity can not be explained anymore than a tree can explain how we humans do things.

This is not problematic to me, and I have yet to have anyone convince me why this ought to be problematic to me.

If it is problematic to others, I can accept that. We all have to live with our own personal motivations and needs.

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 07:15 AM

First, there is no process which happens in the universe that requires the hand of a God to proceed. The universe works on its own.

It's not a question of proceeding. Yes, the universe works on its own. That doesn't explain the origin of the universe, or the origin of how the universe works on its own. Now, if you think that the universe doesn't have an origin, or doesn't need one, that's different. But you're talking about proceeding, and I agree that what has happened can be understood to continue to happen, and you don't *need* any belief to accept that. To that extent I agree.

Second, all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong". I feel that it's far more likely for all of them to be wrong than for one out of the multitude to be exactly right.

I think that most religions think they are the closest to the truth, while the others are mostly right, or only just a little bit right. It's not as black and white as you suggest, in most cases.

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 07:19 AM

"Great explanatory power"? Yes : because you can explain anything you choose by supposing the intervention of an invisible being of unlimited power with entirely obscure motivations. God, space aliens, magic pixies, TEH CONSPIRACY ... yes, great "explanatory power".

Good. We agree then.

And no predictive power --- which is the very hallmark of irrational belief.

If you say so. This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least. But you've decided that there is one. This is why I have a hard time taking y'all seriously. You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.

-Elliot

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 07:23 AM

I don't think it should be used as a way to enable one to do what, in my opinion, is what is truly sought after. A way to enable dogmatic assertions which classify a select few as rational, enlightened, and intelligent, and the masses as lacking in such regards. In this way I am suggesting that skepticism is a useful, yet transparent, means to an end.

Elliot, what is your proposed alternative to skepticism, and how exactly would you reconcile this alternative with science as we know it?

Anacoluthon64

20th June 2006, 07:25 AM

Like it or not, theism has great explanatory power.Not if you have the least bit of intellectual courage and integrity, it doesn't. It presents a Band-Aid to those who would pretend unblemished and complete knowledge. The logical, epistemological and empirical difficulties that encumber it in my view far outweigh whatever patch job it can do wherever our knowledge is presently inadequate. I'd rather face the truth and say, "I don't know. Yet. Perhaps I never will."

Desiring that, and utilizing that, is quite rational.Yes, which utilitarian desire is why science continues to adapt to new knowledge and thereby make forward strides, unlike the stasis and sterility inherent in uncritical belief. Moreover, knowledge for its own sake can be an end in itself.

No doubt I couldn't get you to accept that.Which part?

'Luthon64

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 07:28 AM

Elliot, what is your proposed alternative to skepticism, and how exactly would you reconcile this alternative with science as we know it?

What's this? Has skepticism already been given the mantle as worthy of either/or status? If not skepticism, then what?

I'm not going to fall for that black/white trap.

I'm not telling you people to not be skeptical as you see fit. I'm only be skeptical of your personal skepticisms. Surely that's not a bad thing, surely it's good to have your faith questioned. You'd prefer your thought process to be unassailable and that all shall genuflect?

I have no theoretical problem with science as we know it, except scientists and science-types are being confused with science. Science is a method. What scientists say is something different. And yes, I'm happy to be skeptical of what scientists, and science-types, say.

I'm content, personally, to integrate a variety of schools of thought and understanding. Now it's your turn to inflate that in order to make a point.

-Elliot

Tricky

20th June 2006, 07:30 AM

As the Bible doesnt seem to promise that there is a pattern of goodness in the world, this wouldn't affect my faith.
Many prayers do though. I think the very first prayer I learned had the words "God is good" in it. If God is good, and if God is the most powerful being, then we ought to see a pattern of goodness, wouldn't you say?

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 07:34 AM

If you say so. This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least. But you've decided that there is one. This is why I have a hard time taking y'all seriously. You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.

There isn't one, unless of course you are trying to survive and make a better life, in which case the most rational course of action is to adopt explanations with the most predictive power.

Or are you contending that it is possible for a being to survive without making any predictions at all? Or that it isn't easier for a being to survive if their predictions are more accurate?

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 07:36 AM

Perhaps the detached skeptics just keep to themselves.
I don't think I'd want to be detached. Let me tell you, no normal, emotional human is capable of being ideally detached. An unfortunate fact. Psychopaths are a good example of detachment.

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 07:41 AM

What's this? Has skepticism already been given the mantle as worthy of either/or status? If not skepticism, then what?

I'm not going to fall for that black/white trap.

Because you don't know what you are talking about -- it isn't a trap at all.

How does science work? We hypothesize, do experiments and/or collect data, examine how well the data matches the predictions made by our hypothesis, and decide whether or not that hypothesis will be any good in making future predictions (in other words, whether or not it "works," or is "correct").

In other words, science is skepticism. We don't assume anything is correct until we have the evidence that it is. In many cases even purely abstract philosophical evidence is enough, but it is still evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must be convincing. This is how science functions.

I am asking you how you would change the scientific method so that skepticism is no longer required. Should we accept all hypotheses before there is any evidence to support or refute them? Tell me, I am very interested in what you propose we do...

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 07:51 AM

If you say so. This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least.
Look up "model". A scientific model of the universe such as Newtonian physics has to have predictive power or it has no use. We didn't make it up, it's part of the scientific method, and for a good reason. You don't recognize that?

You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you.
-ElliotIgnoring the insulting intent here, this is simply not true. Predictive power is not something we "made up", that's silly. And skeptics criticize Randi and things the JREF do all the time. I don't understand what you mean by calling it "contrived". While being a skeptic is a part of my identity, you'd be presumptious to say that I need validation from this forum. I have plenty of self-validation that has nothing to do with my skepticism, and you don't know any of us well enough to insult us the way you are. It seems you are the one who's making things up to assert superiority.

ned flandas

20th June 2006, 08:00 AM

Many prayers do though. I think the very first prayer I learned had the words "God is good" in it. If God is good, and if God is the most powerful being, then we ought to see a pattern of goodness, wouldn't you say?

Hi Tricky

I think you are saying that prayer is like a request form.

The way I see it is that prayer is communication with God. Prayer can be complete silence in the presence of God too.

From my experience, I can start by praying one thing and then have a revelation of something different by the end of it. So it seems to me like a two way process.

That being said, there is an immediate result of prayer.

I hear exactly what you are saying though and there have been a few ocasions recently where people close to me have died. I prayed they would be completely healed, but they still died.

Why? I have no idea ..

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 08:07 AM

This is what I mean by dogmatic. I see no inherent association between rationality/irrationality and predictive power, not in any dictionary I've referred to at least. If you will look under the word "lion" in your dictionary, you will find no mention of the fact that they eat zebras, nor is it "inherent" in the concept of a lion. Would it be "dogmatic" of me, therefore, to assert that they do indeed eat zebras?

But you've decided that there is one. No, elliot, I have observed that there is such an association.

This is why I have a hard time taking y'all seriously. You make things up to assert superiority. It's bluster, but within the confines of the forum, it's completely self-evident. You can't even be skeptical of this contrived association, because it so validating for you. Ironically, this is something you've made up. As amateur psychologists always come across as complete twats, I shall not speculate on your motives for so doing.

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 08:08 AM

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 08:12 AM

There isn't one, unless of course you are trying to survive and make a better life, in which case the most rational course of action is to adopt explanations with the most predictive power.

Don't confuse survival with objective truth. Animals have survived just fine without explanations and predicitions.

Or are you contending that it is possible for a being to survive without making any predictions at all? Or that it isn't easier for a being to survive if their predictions are more accurate?

I don't know, do animals make predictions?

Regarding origins questions, I don't see how this speculation applies.

Tell me, who lives longer lives in this country, rational people like yourself, or irrational people like me?

-Elliot

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 08:16 AM

How does science work? We hypothesize, do experiments and/or collect data, examine how well the data matches the predictions made by our hypothesis, and decide whether or not that hypothesis will be any good in making future predictions (in other words, whether or not it "works," or is "correct").

In other words, science is skepticism. We don't assume anything is correct until we have the evidence that it is. In many cases even purely abstract philosophical evidence is enough, but it is still evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must be convincing. This is how science functions.

Convincing, then, is contingent on the judgment of individuals. What may be convincing can be declared to be assumed by another who does not find it convincing.

I am asking you how you would change the scientific method so that skepticism is no longer required.

I don't want to change the scientific method. And I'm fine with skepticism.

Should we accept all hypotheses before there is any evidence to support or refute them? Tell me, I am very interested in what you propose we do...

No.

I propose something very simple. Stop invoking rationality and intelligence as if such concepts were contingent on your chosen methodology.

-Elliot

psy kick

20th June 2006, 08:20 AM

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 08:21 AM

Look up "model". A scientific model of the universe such as Newtonian physics has to have predictive power or it has no use.

That depends what you mean by use.

Tell me what predicitions the macro-evolutionary model of Neo-Darwnism has made.

We didn't make it up, it's part of the scientific method, and for a good reason. You don't recognize that?

I have no problem with the scientific method. It is useful. Does objective reality depend on whether or not the scientific method can be used? No.

While being a skeptic is a part of my identity, you'd be presumptious to say that I need validation from this forum.

Fine, I retract this application in your case.

I have plenty of self-validation that has nothing to do with my skepticism, and you don't know any of us well enough to insult us the way you are.

Certainly none of your postings have led me to this conclusion. And if you're correct, your assertion is certainly not equally applied, or accepted, for that matter. I've seen religious believers insulted continually for years in this forum. That's what leads me to my conclusion.

It seems you are the one who's making things up to assert superiority.

Shrug. If you think that I think I'm better, smarter, or more rational than anybody else here, you can hold that til oblivion or be corrected in the next one.

Oops. Edited to add...I do think I'm smarter than two other people who post here at least occasionally, but I don't consider much of that fact. Meaning it isn't saying all that much.

-Elliot

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 08:22 AM

I am here because I am sad there are so many hucksters who defraud so many gullible people.
You make it seem as if a christian must believe every woo woo. Not so. We are smart! Actually!
People are multifaceted, you realize.
The more mature among us realize Christians are every bit as smart as any other group, you just happen to have different thinking habits.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 08:22 AM

Hi Tricky

I think you are saying that prayer is like a request form..
No, not at all. I know full well that not all prayers are beseeching.

The way I see it is that prayer is communication with God. Prayer can be complete silence in the presence of God too.
I did that too. What I came to realize was that prayer was nothing more than just "thinking" with the addition that you were imagining that someone could hear your thoughts.

From my experience, I can start by praying one thing and then have a revelation of something different by the end of it. So it seems to me like a two way process..
Except that I can do this without God just as easily. The way you are describing God is as nothing more that a conversation piece to stimulate your thought. Sure, I could imagine God is talking back. I can imagine almost anything. I can make it seem real too. I began to lose my religion when I started realize that.

That being said, there is an immediate result of prayer.
That is something I have never seen. Sure, it makes some people feel better, but so do lots of things. It stopped making me feel better because I began to realize it made no sense.

I hear exactly what you are saying though and there have been a few ocasions recently where people close to me have died. I prayed they would be completely healed, but they still died.

Why? I have no idea.
And that's the thing. What is the difference between an entity that does things that you have no idea about and can never understand, versus no entity? How does God behave in any way that we can differentiate from just plain old random activity? I can't find one. I can't find a case where God has made any difference whatsoever, and believe me, I have looked.

I wish there were a God who was concerned with us and cared about us, but based on lifelong observations, I no longer think there is. Still, I remember when I used to imagine it, and it felt like it was true. But feelings can change, as any divorced person will tell you.;)

Tricky

20th June 2006, 08:27 AM

The more mature among us realize Christians are every bit as smart as any other group, you just happen to have different thinking habits.
Yep. That guy Ken Jennings (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=293023&page=1)who won 74 consecutive Jeopardy games was a devout Morman. He is my hero (except for the religion part.)

I less than three logic

20th June 2006, 08:28 AM

I hear exactly what you are saying though and there have been a few ocasions recently where people close to me have died. I prayed they would be completely healed, but they still died.

Why? I have no idea ..
Does there need to be a “why”? “Why” tends to suggest some intent, and it is for this intent that you cannot seem to find an answer; “how” on the other hand I’m certain could be answered. When you remove the idea of intent “how” and “why” start to have much more similar meaning.

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 08:31 AM

Don't confuse survival with objective truth. Animals have survived just fine without explanations and predicitions.

I don't know, do animals make predictions?

They don't have explanations, they don't need them.

Predictions? Do you think animals simply walk around in random patterns until they find food and water? NO THEY DON'T. They have some idea (insofar as an animal can think) of where food might be, where water might be, and how they might be able to get it. Even instinctual behavior is predictive.

Tell me, who lives longer lives in this country, rational people like yourself, or irrational people like me?

We both have similar life spans. If you really want to know why, you should read "Atlas Shrugged."

Now, tell me -- what is responsible for the increased life span that we enjoy now as opposed to the people living in 1400? Here is a hint: IT IS NOT RELIGION.

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 08:34 AM

Yep. That guy Ken Jennings (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=293023&page=1)who won 74 consecutive Jeopardy games was a devout Morman. He is my hero (except for the religion part.)

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 08:36 AM

I'm still waiting for links to these alleged insults to Christians. This debate is a bit shallow without some evidence to back up the claims being made.

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 08:39 AM

Tell me what predicitions the macro-evolutionary model of Neo-Darwnism has made. It makes predictions about paeleontology, morphology, genetics, embryology, computer science ... where should I start? Your question is equivalent to asking "what is the evidence for evolution?"

To give one example, consider the recent discovery of Tiktaalik. The people who discovered it didn't discover it by accident. They set out to find a specific intermediate form between two other stages in the fish-amphibian transition, they knew which fossil stratum it should be in, they went and looked for it there, and that's where they found it.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 08:40 AM

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.
Actually, there is more than that. There is a lot of pattern recognition. Many of the questions are actually riddles you have to solve on the fly.

But don't be so dismissive of rote memorization. Though it does not always mean intelligence, I think you will find a very high degree of correlation. Think of the smartest people you know and you will often find that they have an incredible command of facts and figures.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 08:40 AM

That depends what you mean by use.By use, I mean apply to practical problems or other research.
Tell me what predicitions the macro-evolutionary model of Neo-Darwnism has made.It predicts that all organisms will continue to evolve. Thus in 50 million years, this planet's flora and fauna will not look exactly the way they came off the ark. It predicts that we will eventually become weaklings with incredible intellectual power and sophisticated weaponry with which to attack neighbouring planets. No, wait, that was H.G. Wells' interpretation.
The important point is, there are things that could happen that would be out of line with what the model says would happen. With a tautology for a model (Whatever happens, it's God's will), no matter what Transpires there would be no reason to discard that model.

Does objective reality depend on whether or not the scientific method can be used? No.It's a good thing I didn't argue that then. Skeptics have a problem with believing first, and working out consequences second. That's all.
Fine, I retract this application in your case.Thank heaven, I feel so vindicated. But which of us do you know so well as to insult their self-esteem?[/quote]
Certainly none of your postings have led me to this conclusion. And if you're correct, your assertion is certainly not equally applied, or accepted, for that matter. I've seen religious believers insulted continually for years in this forum. That's what leads me to my conclusion.Those who insult believers don't speak for all of us, so don't generalize that way. I haven't inferred anything about your motivations based on other forum Christians.
Shrug. If you think that I think I'm better, smarter, or more rational than anybody else here, you can hold that til oblivion or be corrected in the next one.I don't follow.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 08:43 AM

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.
You see? I don't endorse this.

elliotfc

20th June 2006, 08:46 AM

Not if you have the least bit of intellectual courage and integrity, it doesn't.

Here come the moral pronouncements...

It presents a Band-Aid to those who would pretend unblemished and complete knowledge.

Adequate knowledge.

All explanations are band-aids, covering up our failure to completely grasp and truly know objective truth.

The logical, epistemological and empirical difficulties that encumber it in my view far outweigh whatever patch job it can do wherever our knowledge is presently inadequate. I'd rather face the truth and say, "I don't know. Yet. Perhaps I never will."

I agree that personal preference has a lot to do with these questions.

Yes, which utilitarian desire is why science continues to adapt to new knowledge and thereby make forward strides, unlike the stasis and sterility inherent in uncritical belief.

And if those who possess objective truth, whoever they may be, stay static and sterile and keep their uncritical belief, they are validated by conforming to objective reality. But nevermind that, it's more important to continually change and move...in some direction. It wouldn't be forward though, would it?

You are not content with extant religious theories. Fine. You offer other theories that change over time. Fine. You think this is better than the alternative. Fine. The moral pronouncements are superfluous, unless you think all of this stuff is really really really crucial. In which case I'd ask why.

Moreover, knowledge for its own sake can be an end in itself.

It certainly has to be for many people. What else is there?

-Elliot

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 08:51 AM

You see? I don't endorse this.

What about my statement do you not endorse? Was it the insult to jeopardy by claiming it is nothing more than rote memorization? Or was it using the phrase "religious tool?"

I happen to think that virtually all religious people are tools, using the standard definition of the word "tool." In fact I happen to think that everyone is a tool, even myself. Some much much much more than others, though.

I less than three logic

20th June 2006, 08:54 AM

Actually, there is more than that. There is a lot of pattern recognition. Many of the questions are actually riddles you have to solve on the fly.

But don't be so dismissive of rote memorization. Though it does not always mean intelligence, I think you will find a very high degree of correlation. Think of the smartest people you know and you will often find that they have an incredible command of facts and figures.
If we’re concerned with just pure memorization, I’d vote for Kim Peek as my favorite. (They just had an interesting show about him on the Discovery Science channel, I think it was called The Real Rainman, should be showing every few days for a month or two. :)) Although, due to his autism and poor social abilities, I have my doubts that he would do well on Jeopardy, because of its format of asking the question based on the answer.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:06 AM

What about my statement do you not endorse? Was it the insult to jeopardy by claiming it is nothing more than rote memorization? Or was it using the phrase "religious tool?"

I happen to think that virtually all religious people are tools, using the standard definition of the word "tool." In fact I happen to think that everyone is a tool, even myself. Some much much much more than others, though.
Religious tool? It's insulting, it's divisive, it's unnecessary and only a small example of more hateful believer-bashing that does go on here.
If you think everyone is a tool it's even less necessary.

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 09:07 AM

Religious tool? It's insulting, it's divisive, it's unnecessary and only a small example of more hateful believer-bashing that does go on here.
If you think everyone is a tool it's even less necessary.

Please provide links to the "hateful believer-bashing that does go on here".

Thank you.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:10 AM

Please provide links to the "hateful believer-bashing that does go on here".

Thank you.
http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=7302

Tricky

20th June 2006, 09:13 AM

If we’re concerned with just pure memorization, I’d vote for Kim Peek as my favorite. (They just had an interesting show about him on the Discovery Science channel, I think it was called The Real Rainman, should be showing every few days for a month or two. :)) Although, due to his autism and poor social abilities, I have my doubts that he would do well on Jeopardy, because of its format of asking the question based on the answer.
This is probably a topic for another thread, but the question of "rote memorization" versus "memorization with recognition" is a very iffy one. Is learning a new language just rote memorization? How about spelling?

I had to Google Kim Peek, and I see that he was the autistic savant that the movie "Rain Man" was loosely based on. But even if he had no problem with the format, I would suspect that he would get everything in some categories and nothing in others. Also, remembering lists of things is not the same as remembering the interactions between the lists. For example, you might know every president and every Superbowl, but not be able to answer the question, "Who was president when Green Bay won it's first Superbowl?" Jeopardy champions have to make this kind of leap between topics all the time, plus the clues are laden with additional clues in the form of puns. To paraphrase "O Brother Where Art Thou", a Jeopardy winner should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought.

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 09:14 AM

http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=7302

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?

Anacoluthon64

20th June 2006, 09:19 AM

Here come the moral pronouncements...What? Where? Here comes the usual kneejerk, I'd say.

All explanations are band-aids, covering up our failure to completely grasp and truly know objective truth.Some, however, not only accord more closely with experience than others do, but also provide fruitful and accurate glimpses of the future, e.g. celestial mechanics vs. any number of superstitions concerning stars and planets. Moreover, I said nothing about objective truth.

And if those who possess objective truth, whoever they may be, stay static and sterile and keep their uncritical belief, they are validated by conforming to objective reality. But nevermind that, it's more important to continually change and move...in some direction. It wouldn't be forward though, would it?Wholly inscrutable psychobabble.

You are not content with extant religious theories. Fine. You offer other theories that change over time. Fine. You think this is better than the alternative. Fine. The moral pronouncements are superfluous, unless you think all of this stuff is really really really crucial. In which case I'd ask why.Again, what moral verdicts? Where? If, as you seem to be implying, these questions are not that important, why do you feel compelled to contest every utterance that suggests you may be mistaken?

'Luthon64

Tricky

20th June 2006, 09:21 AM

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?
I think he's referring to the sig line.

But there is some believer bashing going on here. Check out any thread with significant contributions by Kurious Kathy if you want to see some. You can argue that she deserves it because she insults non-believers, but I honestly don't think she does so intentionally. But this "you insulted me first" game will get us nowhere. We all insult each other, whether intentionally or not. It's hard to force yourself to ignore insults, but that's the only way to avoid getting sucked into the mud.

Personally, I love good insults. I'd rather give them to people I like, but I can appreciate a creative put-down even when I am the butt. (Go ahead. Say it.;) )

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 09:25 AM

I think he's referring to the sig line.

But there is some believer bashing going on here. Check out any thread with significant contributions by Kurious Kathy if you want to see some. You can argue that she deserves it because she insults non-believers, but I honestly don't think she does so intentionally. But this "you insulted me first" game will get us nowhere. We all insult each other, whether intentionally or not. It's hard to force yourself to ignore insults, but that's the only way to avoid getting sucked into the mud.

Personally, I love good insults. I'd rather give them to people I like, but I can appreciate a creative put-down even when I am the butt. (Go ahead. Say it.;) )

I'm not denying it happens, but I haven't seen any evidence for it, and I'd like some links. Nothing that could be described as 'hateful', certainly.

I have seen Kurious-Kathy being bashed, but that's, as you say, in response to her attitude in the first place, and not evidence for hateful insulting of Christians.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:27 AM

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?
Have you read any of the threads he started when first arriving here? He is one I know for a fact who has posted many anti-christian threads I found inflammatory.

...Meanwhile, I'm having a harder time than I thought finding outright bashing. Which is hey, a good thing, but trying to find hateful threads isn't all that fun. It is possible I remember more anger than there is, but rocketdodger's flip remark is a typical insult.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:34 AM

Re: Muslim Rioters over cartoons
The trouble with vermin is that while they die quickly, they also breed quickly.
ETA: In fact, that whole thread.

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 09:35 AM

Have you read any of the threads he started when first arriving here? He is one I know for a fact who has posted many anti-christian threads I found inflammatory.

...Meanwhile, I'm having a harder time than I thought finding outright bashing. Which is hey, a good thing, but trying to find hateful threads isn't all that fun. It is possible I remember more anger than there is, but rocketdodger's flip remark is a typical insult.

Pauliesonne's a strange one - he's written off as a troll by many people here, who don't really accept his posts or opinions as being representative of good skepticism. However, I think he's someone who posts what he thinks is the accepted style of the forum, and often gets it's wrong. In other words, I think he is mean about Christianity because he thinks it's clever to be.

Regarding his sig, a quote from The Simpsons and a quote from Shermer doesn't really qualify as 'hateful' in my eyes.

Which remark of rocketdogers are you referring to?

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 09:36 AM

Re: Muslim Rioters over cartoons

Yes, that is certainly hateful, but is about Muslims and not Christians and so not the subject of the claim in this thread. Like I say, I don't deny that it may be true, but I think the perception may outweigh the actual facts.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:51 AM

In other words, I think he is mean about Christianity because he thinks it's clever to be.This may be so, and also true for other apparently teenage atheists that post insults on this board. It's still hateful.
Regarding his sig, a quote from The Simpsons and a quote from Shermer doesn't really qualify as 'hateful' in my eyes.Yeah, I didn't even read his signature, I'd thought you'd know what I meant when I linked to his name.

Which remark of rocketdogers are you referring to?Ken Jennings is a Mormon and therefore a religious tool.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:53 AM

Yes, that is certainly hateful, but is about Muslims and not Christians and so not the subject of the claim in this thread. Like I say, I don't deny that it may be true, but I think the perception may outweigh the actual facts.
Huh? I said hateful believer-bashing.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 09:58 AM

Evidence of an underlying attitude:
So basically, fundamentalists are stupid.
Pretty much, yeah.
It would seem so.

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 10:00 AM

Huh? I said hateful believer-bashing.

Sorry, I was confusing Ned Flandas Christian-specific claims of bashing with yours. My original requests for proof were to him (twice, I think), so I assumed that your reply was for the same claim. My bad.

Yes, in that case, the quote about Muslims is certainly a good example of being hateful. I would like more than one example (and from more than one poster if possible) though, one comment is not representative of this forum as a whole.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 10:12 AM

Sorry, I was confusing Ned Flandas Christian-specific claims of bashing with yours. My original requests for proof were to him (twice, I think), so I assumed that your reply was for the same claim. My bad.

Yes, in that case, the quote about Muslims is certainly a good example of being hateful. I would like more than one example (and from more than one poster if possible) though, one comment is not representative of this forum as a whole.
Like I said, that whole thread:
Is it the rioters who are being killed? If that is the case, then these riots are a good thing. Given enough time, the problem will take care of itself.
I agree. "Culling the herd" is another term for it.
I'm a touchy-feely apologist:
Wow, I was just talking about this. Vermin? They're human beings. They're YOU, if you grew up in a different household. It's not nice to think about, but at the very least, choose your labels carefully.Technically, perhaps.

But murdering innocents over a freakin cartoon no less disqualifies one from the human race IMO. Pls dispose of appropriately and have a nice day.

Touchy-feely apologists can feel free to join in any time as they are clearly part of the problem (see: Europe).

I haven't been in the forum a lot lately so it is hard for me to track down comments without having to go through all kinds of possible context, that's why threads up to now have been one's I've participated in...

ETA: I am certainly not trying to say those who are hateful are representative of the forum. Sorry if you think that's what I mean. But like tricky, I cannot deny there are those among our ranks who will openly attack Christians for the fact of their belief.

ReFLeX

20th June 2006, 10:43 AM

Here is a good example of an argumentative insult which is more in line with what I meant by believer-bashing:

IMO religion is the biggest threat there is to humanity. It continually impedes the progress of science and peaceful coexistence among people. It is used as a basis to persecute groups of people. It draws in the money and time of the gullible, diverting vast resources from other things. It is far worse than drug addiction. I'm not here to be religious; I'm here to discuss the problem of religion.

To deflect the argument that churches do good things, I will acknowledge such, but I do good things as well. I'm not affiliated with other atheists or agnostics, but I contribute mightily to my community. I don't do this to curry favor with the Great Sky Fairy, but rather to help those who can't help themselves, and to make it a better place for my children to live.
He actually feels the need to deflect the point that churches do good things so he can maintain that they are bad, religion is bad bad. His signature contains two quoted overgeneralizations as well. Were I a Christian, I would not respond well to that. It would be like introducing yourself to others as "Someone Better Than You".

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 10:49 AM

It would be like introducing yourself to others as "Someone Better Than You". You say that like it's a bad thing.

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 11:10 AM

Here is a good example of an argumentative insult which is more in line with what I meant by believer-bashing:

If you find facts to be insulting, then I agree, this forum is NOT the place for you. Maybe the reason religious people are so "insulted" here is just that -- we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.

infornography

20th June 2006, 01:56 PM

tkingdoll, you want your religion bashing, keep watching this guy. He seems to have it down pat.
If you find facts to be insulting, then I agree, this forum is NOT the place for you. Maybe the reason religious people are so "insulted" here is just that -- we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.

There are, I am sure, countless examples of religion bashing and nonreligious bashing in this and many other forums like it. The more we get hung up on the idiots who act this way, the more vindicated they feel in doing it.

If everyone were to learn to respond with a level head and just ignore most insults and only chastise lightly for the unneeded insult when you can't ignore it, then those who constantly insult, would eventually quit it or go away since they would no longer feel like they have an audience.

In this thread we have examples of the religion haters, the more peaceful agnostics and atheists, the religious fight starter, and the rational Christian.

There is no need for overgeneralization because you have examples of all types here. If you cannot see that then you have my pity.

ferd burfle

20th June 2006, 02:01 PM

...because tit would only be fully grasped...

Dr. Freud, paging Dr. S. Freud :D

Tricky

20th June 2006, 02:03 PM

If you find facts to be insulting, then I agree, this forum is NOT the place for you.
Apart from tautologies, there are no facts, there is only evidence.

We had a religious poster recently who ended every post with, "It's a fact!" Let's not emulate her.

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:04 PM

.....Many of the Christians who are here accept scepticism for those areas which make testable claims, but have faith in God because they know they are not making a testable claim......

Thank you.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 02:05 PM

It would be like introducing yourself to others as "Someone Better Than You".
You say that like it's a bad thing.
LOL, like your favorite student, Draco Malfoy?

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 02:10 PM

tkingdoll, you want your religion bashing, keep watching this guy. He seems to have it down pat.

If you need to write off my comments as "bashing" in order to keep your faith, go for it. Ignorance is really the only way to "keep one's faith" as far as religion goes, you know.

There are, I am sure, countless examples of religion bashing and nonreligious bashing in this and many other forums like it. The more we get hung up on the idiots who act this way, the more vindicated they feel in doing it.

Unless they are not doing it to feel vindicated in the first place. Perhaps they really hold the strong viewpoints that they do, and for good reason?

If everyone were to learn to respond with a level head and just ignore most insults and only chastise lightly for the unneeded insult when you can't ignore it, then those who constantly insult, would eventually quit it or go away since they would no longer feel like they have an audience.

Wrong. The most popular threads on this forum are by far the ones with lots of heat.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 02:11 PM

There are very few people who are sceptical about everything; in fact I would contend that no one is equally sceptical about every subject. ("Darling, I love you" "Evidence?" :p )
Many of the Christians who are here accept scepticism for those areas which make testable claims, but have faith in God because they know they are not making a testable claim.
Which is why I like the saying "On the used car lot, everybody is a skeptic."

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by ned flandas :
I'm not offended by any kind of bashing, its just that there seems to be a lot of mindless insults which is a bit of a waste of time....
Please provide links to these 'mindless insults' so I can see what you're talking about.

May I provide this one (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1574620&postcount=2) as an example?

There are lots more where that came from..................

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:14 PM

....If you cannot conceive of any way you might be wrong about God, then you are as much as saying "I cannot be wrong", because if you admit you could be wrong, then you must be able to envision some scenario where you could change your mind.....

You fail to understand the difference between knowledge and faith.

As a Christian, I'm very likely wrong regarding my understanding of God, and may even be wrong about the existance of God, but my faith will not be shaken.

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:18 PM

....Second, all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong".....

Funny, that also describes many of the skeptics on this board.

In fact, that tends to describe political partisans.

Hey, that also describes idealists!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........................

Dcdrac

20th June 2006, 02:19 PM

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:22 PM

The more mature among us realize Christians are every bit as smart as any other group, you just happen to have different thinking habits.

I don't agree.

We just have different acceptance standards for certain phenomenon.

Dcdrac

20th June 2006, 02:24 PM

i have often wandered why US chiristian fundamentalists largely ignore the chrisitian bit of the bible and zero in on the Old testament the non christian bit.

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 02:25 PM

May I provide this one (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1574620&postcount=2) as an example?

There are lots more where that came from..................

Well, that's certainly an insult to the pope. However, he doesn't read these boards much so I doubt he's that hurt.

As I said before, Pauliesonne is not representative of the posters on this board, and he is by and large disliked. Many posters here believe him to be a troll and would like him to leave.

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:25 PM

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?

You are either a denialist or ignorant of Paulisonne's antics.

A large percentage of his posts are "hateful believer-bashing".

Tricky

20th June 2006, 02:27 PM

You fail to understand the difference between knowledge and faith.

As a Christian, I'm very likely wrong regarding my understanding of God, and may even be wrong about the existance of God, but my faith will not be shaken.
Actually, I'm don't misunderstand at all. There are many Christians like yourself who freely admit that they are going on faith alone. Yet, they claim to "know" God exists. Well, maybe this is just semantics and when they say "know" they actually mean "believe", but many will take great offense if you tell them, "You don't really know God," even if that is technically correct.

But there are many others who make claims about the physical world based on their faith. They make testable hypotheses, such as "prayer can heal you". Even historical claims, like the possibility of the great flood story being accurate, can be shown to have evidence for or against them.

Still, I find it telling that you admit that you could be shown that God did not exist, yet you would still have faith in Him. It is almost like Twain said, "Faith is belivin' something you know ain't true." However, I find it refreshing that a Christian admits that it is possible that God does not exist. What would it take to convince you?

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by ReFLeX :
It would be like introducing yourself to others as "Someone Better Than You".
You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's not a bad thing for everybody.

Arrogant, pompous, self-important people actually need to do that in order to lend importance to themselves.

Dcdrac

20th June 2006, 02:30 PM

maybe being around to withness the sun absorb the earth in 200 million years time? from a safe distance of course

Huntster

20th June 2006, 02:32 PM

.....However, I find it refreshing that a Christian admits that it is possible that God does not exist. What would it take to convince you?

Death, then darkness.................

Tricky

20th June 2006, 02:32 PM

i have often wandered why US chiristian fundamentalists largely ignore the christian bit of the bible and zero in on the Old testament the non christian bit.
I honestly don't think they ignore the New Testament. They believe the whole thing is true. However, because the OT is so riddled with hate, gore and contradictions, they wind up spending more of their time defending that part. You must admit, it's a full time job just to defend Genesis.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 02:34 PM

Death, then darkness.................
LOL. Even in itself, that is a belief in the afterlife. This is like saying "I can only be convinced once it is impossible to convince me of anything."

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What would it take to convince you while you are still living that God didn't exist?

drkitten

20th June 2006, 02:37 PM

Funny, that also describes many of the skeptics on this board.

Yes, but as you pointed out, there's a key difference there, specifically the difference you described upthread as "faith."

Skeptics have come to their belief that they have the right point of view (and that theists are wrong) based on logic, reason, and evidence. Most of them have little difficulty presenting reasons for disbelief in God(s), can present counterfactual scenarios that would cause them to revise their belief, and in general, do not rely on "faith."

A simple example: one of the articles of faith in the Christian Church is the Sermon on the Mount (from the Book of Matthew). I quote briefly in part : "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Now, that's pretty explicit -- "everyone that asketh receiveth." Furthermore, those are the words of Christ himself, not a later interpretation by some nutcase Paul-come-lately.

Well, I've asked. And I've not received. In fact, a whole lot of people have asked, and they haven't received either. We could even (if we liked) do a controlled experiment, for example, where we asked God to heal one group of people in a hospital, and didn't ask God to heal another group of people, and see whether we "received" the gift of divine healing. Whups -- we've already done that experiment, and the answer is "they don't."

We could look at the infant mortality rate for clergymen (who can be presumed to "ask" for the health and welfare of their children) versus the general public, and see if clergy "recieve" the gift of having their children not die as often. Or rather, we've done that experiment, too, again with negative results.

So evidence tells me that the statement "everyone that asketh receiveth" is simply untrue, by observation. Reason tells me that if Christ really said that, he was either letting his mouth write checks that his body couldn't cash, or he was simply lying in his teeth. EIther way, logic suggests that anyone who believes in the literal truth of that statement is simply "wrong."

Of course, I could easily be convinced to change my belief. Simply show me that, yes, everyone who asks does receive -- that somehow the experiments were incorrectly done or that the statistics were calculated wrong, and that the truth state of affairs is that everyone without exception who asks for divine healing gets it. That's something that would convince me that my understanding of the Sermon on the Mount is wrong, and that I might be wrong about this whole Christianity schtick in the first place.

Now, tell me,... why should I value your opinion when you have not only no way to back it up, not only no reason, evidence, or logic supporting it, but also that you proudly proclaim that no matter how out of touch with reality it is, you will still have "faith" in its truth?

tkingdoll

20th June 2006, 02:59 PM

You are either a denialist or ignorant of Paulisonne's antics.

A large percentage of his posts are "hateful believer-bashing".
You are either blind or deliberately ignoring my posts where I state that Paulie is not representative of most posts or posters on this forum, and that many members here regard him as a troll, and not a skeptic at all.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 03:30 PM

You are either blind or deliberately ignoring my posts where I state that Paulie is not representative of most posts or posters on this forum, and that many members here regard him as a troll, and not a skeptic at all.
Nevertheless, there are Christian-bashers here. I feel it is pointless and divisive to name names, but it doesn't take a very hard look to find numerous examples. Perhaps they're justified. Perhaps they're trolls, perhaps you need context, but it is here.

But it doesn't matter. There are all kinds of "bashers" here. There are liberal bashers, Republican bashers, anti-semite bashers, materialism bashers, you name it. This is what you get on a discussion forum. Anybody who expects differently is either living in a dream world or has only frequented forums where people with conflicting views are quickly banned. Frankly, I'm glad you can bash here, because it means that we are not being (severely) censored. (I recall that I had to walk on eggs constantly when I was posting on the Christian forums because they'd ban you for not capitilizing God.)

So to those who say there are few or no bashers, get real. To those who resent being bashed, get over it. You want to talk? We'll talk. We'll talk straight and hard. It ain't for sissies.
***
ETA: Thank you Thai for demonstrating my point.

thaiboxerken

20th June 2006, 03:31 PM

Christians should do or otherwise they are brainwashed and that is when the problems occur.

Christians are already brainwashed, thus the problems do occur.

thaiboxerken

20th June 2006, 03:47 PM

I don't agree.

We just have different acceptance standards for certain phenomenon.

Yes, you have changing standards for what you'll consider believable and what is not. Simply put, you don't apply the same skepticism to your god that you would to the belief that bigfoot exists. Oh wait, in your case, you would. Scratch that.

Nova Land

20th June 2006, 04:13 PM

Weird. So you're saying you don't come here because you don't like people who bash other people's opinions, and you make your point by bashing other people's opinions? You might wanna work on that hypocrisy a little.
I think we have a different opinion of what the word bashing means. I have not read any of ned flandas' posts other than those in this thread (although I will remedy that later tonight if time permits) but the post which you quote seems to me a polite expression of his views. Expressing a view which is critical of people's behavior is not the same as bashing them.

ReFLex has provided some good examples of genuine bashing. Calling what flandas wrote bashing cheapens the term.
Why are you specifically offended by Christian* bashing and not, say Homeopath bashing, Psychic bashing, Modern Art bashing or Hammegk bashing?I can't speak for anyone else, but I am equally offended by all of these. I believe it is possible to criticize homeopaths (or psychics, modern art, and hammegk) without going out of one's way to insult them, and that skeptics should strive to do so. As a religious person, I am happy to speak out against the bashing of atheists if it happens in conversations with friends. As a person generally on the left-hand side of the political spectrum, I am happy to speak out against the bashing of people on the right. I have no problem criticizing George Bush's policies, but I see no need to call him a lunatic or an idiot.

Not only are insults generally rude -- I believe using them in serious arguments is irrational and anti-skeptical. It hinders, rather than helps, the cause of skepticism to engage in bashing of those with whom one disagrees -- and I believe that regardless of whether the basher or bashee is someone I agree or disagree with.

When people win an argument by bashing their opponents, they set back the cause of skepticism by demonstrating that insults trump reason. I'd rather win or lose an argument based on the quality of my evidence and my reasoning, not on the quality of my rhetoric. I'll do my best to state my points as clearly as I can, but I wouldn't want to win just because I could come up with more colorful language and wittier put-downs than the person I was disagreeing with.

Huntster

20th June 2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Death, then darkness.................

LOL. Even in itself, that is a belief in the afterlife. This is like saying "I can only be convinced once it is impossible to convince me of anything."

Not really. It's the only way to prove or disprove the situation.

Okay, I'll rephrase it. What would it take to convince you while you are still living that God didn't exist?

With words? Pictures?

What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?

Nova Land

20th June 2006, 04:18 PM

... all religions are equally convinced that they have the "right" answer, and that all the other religions are "wrong".
That's not true. It's not part of my religion, for instance. Do you have any factual evidence to back up your assertion about what all religions believe, or is this simply something you believe out of prejudice?

John Godfrey Saxe's poem "The Blind Men and The Elephant" (http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/socialStd/grade7/india/Blind_elephant.html), expresses well the idea that the various religions are different imperfect attempts at understanding and expressing the same underlying truth. It's not something every religious person believes, but it is something many of us do. So when I am hitch-hiking and get a ride from someone whose religious beliefs are very different from my own, I don't think Oh, that person's religion is wrong -- I think Ah! That's a different way of looking at it than I have, and a different way of expressing it, but I can see that we are talking about essentially the same thing.

I'm familiar with the poem from my own religious upbringing, but it's one that many people of many different faiths have enjoyed and found inspiring. For instance, in looking the peom up (in order to link to it, and to verify the author's name) for this post, I noted that it is also part of Buddhist (http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Buddhist.html) and Islamic (http://www.kheper.net/topics/blind_men_and_elephant/Sufi.html) traditions.

Here's the money quote from the poem:
...And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion ~ Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right ~ And all were in the wrong!
That sums up my own religious belief nicely. I have no illusion that I am right in all of my beliefs, nor do I believe anyone else is or ever will be. I try to be open to new insight and new understanding, and have often found these in surprising places. Which is why I try not to dispute loud and long, but instead to listen respectfully and to learn from what others perceive -- especially when those perceptions are different from my own.

Nova Land

20th June 2006, 04:25 PM

... But there is some believer bashing going on here. Check out any thread with significant contributions by Kurious Kathy if you want to see some. You can argue that she deserves it because she insults non-believers, but I honestly don't think she does so intentionally. But this "you insulted me first" game will get us nowhere. We all insult each other, whether intentionally or not. It's hard to force yourself to ignore insults, but that's the only way to avoid getting sucked into the mud.

Personally, I love good insults. I'd rather give them to people I like, but I can appreciate a creative put-down even when I am the butt.
I was tempted to nominate this for a language award, but then I realized that it is the content of what you said, rather than the language with which you said it, which I admire so much. But if there were a DGP ** award, in addition to the TLA award, I would nominate this in a heartbeat.

Very well said -- and thank you for saying it.

** DGP = Damn Good Post

thaiboxerken

20th June 2006, 04:31 PM

With words? Pictures?

What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?

You're being purposefully obtuse and evasive. That's ok, I already know that you can't be convinced that your god doesn't exist.

Nova Land

20th June 2006, 04:32 PM

... we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.
Really? I'm religious, and I don't recall believing that facts, logic, and reason are poison. My religious upbringing was to respect facts, logic, and reason, and that is what I strive (however imperfectly) to do. I am a skeptic because of my religious beliefs, not in spite of them. Please explain to me the factual basis on which you make this statement about my beliefs which runs so directly contrary to my own experience of my beliefs.

Kittynh and Rolfe are two posters I greatly admire. I've met Kitty and know she is religious. I've never met Rolfe, but my understanding is that she is religious as well. I don't recall either of them ever indicating that facts or logic or reason are poisonous to them. Quite the contrary! So could you point me to the posts of theirs to support your assertion that as religious people they find facts and logic and reason poisonous.

If you are dealing in facts, then you should be able to do so. My suspicion is that it is prejudice which you are dealing in, instead. You have made a prejudgement about what religious people must be like, rather than looking at what we actually are like.

thaiboxerken

20th June 2006, 04:40 PM

What's your religion, Nova? What facts are your religion based on?

kittynh

20th June 2006, 04:44 PM

Oh thanks Nova Land. Look, you want a lesson in a really good religious person, meet Nova Land. You will never think of a "religious" person the same way again. I have been re reading Martin Gardners book "Fads and Fallacies" He's rather open in it about his religous views, at least as far as saying, "No this is NOT what religion is about" when talking about the woo. To be honest, it is a big insult to the thinking Xian!

I won a language award with my post about being a Xian/believer here on the forum. I'm not sure how to access it, but I think it stated with honesty how I am a believer, yet also able to post on this board.

And I think Randi is way cool.

Tricky

20th June 2006, 04:56 PM

Not really. It's the only way to prove or disprove the situation.
Except you can't prove anything to someone who no longer exists. But then, I don't mean what would it take to prove it to you, because I don't think there's anything other than math that has proofs. I meant, what would it take to convince you. Convincing is something you can only do with a living person.

With words? Pictures?

What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?
Again, I'm not talking possible or impossible, I'm talking about what it would take for you personally to admit you were wrong. I can think of several things that would convince me that I had been wrong, even if it wasn't proof.

I less than three logic

20th June 2006, 05:03 PM

Death, then darkness.................
This is the kind of idea that prompts the fear of death, and the desire of (or need to believe in) an afterlife. Darkness, nothingness, loneliness; is that really what you think non-existence would be like? I didn’t exist before I was born, and I can’t say those 15 billion years were unpleasant. What would make you think another non-existent state would be any different?

scimystic

20th June 2006, 07:37 PM

Martin Gardner, a founder member of CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org/) and, through his writings, in many ways a standard bearer of modern scepticism, is a theist.

His defence for his belief in god? "Because it comforts me."

Such a defence completely skirts the epistemological issues surrounding god's existence, and instead applies a utilitarian motivation. Such is, I think, the most rational approach.

'Luthon64

I would contest that the approach is rational, or that it avoids the epistemological issues. I would argue that it is, at best, 'a'rational. A little thought will suffice to show that we can come up with a much larger number of irrational things, than rational things, to believe. Many of these might be comforting to us. For example, I would be comforted right now to believe that tomorrow morning I will find an abandoned suitcase full of $100 bills. I do not believe that I will find such a suitcase, even though it would be comforting to me, and even though it is possible (in exactly the same sense that the existence of Mr. Gardner's God is possible) because I have other and stronger reasons for believing that my belief in my predestination to find the suitcase would be to my detriment. On the basis of these stronger reasons I believe that although I might be blissfully comfortable for a few hours, while maxing out my credit cards in an orgy of consumption, I would be on balance more uncomfortable in the morning when my expectation of finding the suitcase failed to be realized. In the light of this I think that the best justification that can be offered for any entirely subjectively based belief (and I suspect, the justification that Mr. Gardner would offer for his if he could now join our discussion) is that it is value neutral from the point of view of reason. That, while being subjectively comforting, it can be seen to offer no overcompensating objective downside. This is where the question of Mr. Gardner's theism would really get interesting. I think that I can demonstrate a pretty strong objective downside (analagous to my financial situation on the day after my comfortable night of imaginary wealth) to any theism strong enough to be worthy of the term. But I would admit that I loose this ability as the theism shades off into deism.

BR to you and Rocket,

Keith

Tricky

20th June 2006, 08:45 PM

This is the kind of idea that prompts the fear of death, and the desire of (or need to believe in) an afterlife.
Fear is the greatest tool that religion has. We have all seen death and the finality of it. It is terrifying to think that some day we might not be at all. In my opinion, it is the same unwillingness to accept the nothingness of death that makes the believer, be he Christian, dualist, idealist or other, require something "before the beginning" point of the universe, and require some concept of soul, spirit or karma after the end of life. It is either beyond comprehension or too horrible to accept that it could be otherwise.
from The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (http://classics.mit.edu/Khayyam/rubaiyat.html)

A Moment's Halt--a momentary taste
Of Being from the Well amid the Waste--
And Lo!--the phantom Caravan has reach'd
The Nothing it set out from--Oh, make haste!

infornography

20th June 2006, 09:18 PM

If you need to write off my comments as "bashing" in order to keep your faith, go for it. Ignorance is really the only way to "keep one's faith" as far as religion goes, you know.

Hmm, I find it interesting that you assume I am defending my own faith when I have stated, in what I thought were clear terms, my position earlier in this very thread. I find your assumption to be somewhat telling.

Unless they are not doing it to feel vindicated in the first place. Perhaps they really hold the strong viewpoints that they do, and for good reason?

I am sorry, but I fail to see a good reason for any form of bigotry be it racial or religious, etc.

Wrong. The most popular threads on this forum are by far the ones with lots of heat.

To this I will quote a brilliant post from earlier in this very thread.

When people win an argument by bashing their opponents, they set back the cause of skepticism by demonstrating that insults trump reason. I'd rather win or lose an argument based on the quality of my evidence and my reasoning, not on the quality of my rhetoric. I'll do my best to state my points as clearly as I can, but I wouldn't want to win just because I could come up with more colorful language and wittier put-downs than the person I was disagreeing with.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'd rather see cool well reasoned debates than hot headed and short sighted arguments.

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 10:05 PM

Hmm, I find it interesting that you assume I am defending my own faith when I have stated, in what I thought were clear terms, my position earlier in this very thread. I find your assumption to be somewhat telling.

My assumption is that you think everyone's views should be considered and respected with equal weight. When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I am sorry, but I fail to see a good reason for any form of bigotry be it racial or religious, etc.

I don't. I vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'd rather see cool well reasoned debates than hot headed and short sighted arguments.

What about hot headed well reasoned arguments?

infornography

20th June 2006, 10:45 PM

My assumption is that you think everyone's views should be considered and respected with equal weight. When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I am sorry that you percieve such a problem.

I am sorry, but I fail to see a good reason for any form of bigotry be it racial or religious, etc.
I don't. I vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life.

If you honestly believe that all of the faithful are purposefully interfering in your life then I would say it is you who is being purposefully irrational.

What about hot headed well reasoned arguments?

Those are fine. Unfortunately in this thread you have not succeeded in the second part of that however.

Kopji

20th June 2006, 10:53 PM

"Because it comforts me"

I enjoy Gardner's books very much, but I cannot respect this justification for belief in God. He is simply wrong. This idea of following what comforts you is anathema to those with mental illness. I don't see how anyone can share his view without sacrificing or abandoning people to a freaky world that asserts there might really be voices in their heads, or the visions might be real.

It better that a few people should suffer in order for faith to prosper? When my child asks me if the voices he hears are God or not, I stand against Gardner, and all who hold the view of comfort as being a guide to truth.

I am here, often imperfectly, to afflict the comforted.
The truth is sometimes a bitter friend but it is the only way.

All things are not possible, some are just crazy: Biology not working as intended, or maybe working in some obscure way that has benefited survival.

Have an extremist day. :)

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 10:58 PM

I am sorry that you percieve such a problem.

So am I, it kind of sucks.

If you honestly believe that all of the faithful are purposefully interfering in your life then I would say it is you who is being purposefully irrational.

Except that virtually by definition all major religions involve interfering with those who lack "faith." Or that the laws where I live exhibit a bit more than 0% religious influence.

Those are fine. Unfortunately in this thread you have not succeeded in the second part of that however.

No, I have. Unfortunately, however, my reasonable questions have gone un-answered by elliotfc and I have nothing better to do for the time being other than flame at the other side.

Dr Adequate

20th June 2006, 11:19 PM

It's not a bad thing for everybody.

Arrogant, pompous, self-important people actually need to do that in order to lend importance to themselves. So, let's see ... that's humorless, angry, snide, stupid, dishonest, hypocritical, and totally lacking in self-awareness ... I'm impressed that you managed to display almost 30% of your grosser personality defects in such a short post.

infornography

20th June 2006, 11:20 PM

Except that virtually by definition all major religions involve interfering with those who lack "faith." Or that the laws where I live exhibit a bit more than 0% religious influence.

Just because some practitioners of a religion have imposed their viewpoint or will upon you does not mean that this should be or even logically could be extrapolated to mean all of those who are religious intend to do so.

Honestly, most religious people I have met have a very much live and let live attitude toward those of disagreeing faiths.

Also there is nothing in the definition of religion that means or even implies a need to interfere with others of differing beliefs. Some religions do seem to have such concepts in their holy books but by no means would I say all, or even most major religions qualify in that regard. And even the ones that do can be easily interpreted to mean that those who are ready and interested should be brought into the fold, not those who are spiteful or apathetic.

rocketdodger

20th June 2006, 11:48 PM

Just because some practitioners of a religion have imposed their viewpoint or will upon you does not mean that this should be or even logically could be extrapolated to mean all of those who are religious intend to do so.

I didn't say impose their viewpoints, I said interfere. This can be as little as trying to give me a flyer on the street or voting for a law based in religion.

Obviously, the level of my bigotry towards some hari-krishnas on campus is very different from that towards islamic extremists.

Kopji

21st June 2006, 12:52 AM

Just because some practitioners of a religion have imposed their viewpoint or will upon you does not mean that this should be or even logically could be extrapolated to mean all of those who are religious intend to do so.

The point here is that it is religion that motivates the behavior of the few. If the source of the behavior is not dealt with, isn't dealing with the outward symptoms futile?

Honestly, most religious people I have met have a very much live and let live attitude toward those of disagreeing faiths.

Being raised in a tiny little sect of mormonism that almost nobody's ever heard of, I can still agree with you: People are basically nice even when they think you are an apostate, heretic, demon, or worse. It is religion, and not atheists or outsiders that build walls between themselves. Breaking down the walls and being nice to each other will probably destroy religion, the leaders rightly fear tolerance.

Also there is nothing in the definition of religion that means or even implies a need to interfere with others of differing beliefs. Some religions do seem to have such concepts in their holy books but by no means would I say all, or even most major religions qualify in that regard. And even the ones that do can be easily interpreted to mean that those who are ready and interested should be brought into the fold, not those who are spiteful or apathetic.
I think you may have missed his point, which was not the attitude toward those of differing faiths or belief, but that of the faithful toward unbelievers or atheists. A recent US survey affirmed that atheists were honored with designation of least trustworthy or most immoral (I forget which). Oh, I suppose atheists could have voted for themselves as being most immoral but that seems unlikely.

Christianity has lots of nice people in it and is great to have them on the forum. Supportive communities in pursuit of similar goals - if there is a reason for 'religion' it might be that.

Anacoluthon64

21st June 2006, 01:18 AM

I would contest that the approach is rational, or that it avoids the epistemological issues. I would argue that it is, at best, 'a'rational. A little thought will suffice to show that we can come up with a much larger number of irrational things, than rational things, to believe. Many of these might be comforting to us.

I enjoy Gardner's books very much, but I cannot respect this justification for belief in God. He is simply wrong.Personally, I don't regard Gardner's justification as sufficient either, but it is certainly a necessary one, given the wide array of logical, empirical and epistemological objections to the existence of god. However, I think that one must acknowledge Gardner's more-than-adequate expertise in scientific, logical and philosophical matters, so it would be fairly safe to assume that his justification actually comprises a great many more tentacles, and that we are faced only with the essence of it (c.f. Descartes' cogito, ergo sum). Also, Gardner makes no attempt to assert the actuality of god's existence itself (and thereby he avoids ending up in all sorts of hot water); he merely provides a utilitarian reason for why he himself holds such a belief.

The question of taking comfort from believing that you might imminently receive a suitcase full of cash is not a good analogy. The existence of such suitcases and cash is hardly in question, and, though unlikely, it is not impossible that your belief might find actual validation. In contrast, god's existence is not established.

The point is that if, for example, you choose to believe that lime-green, vanilla-flavoured unicorns with pink hooves exist, then the most acceptable defence for your belief, absent any empirical or logical evidence for it, is that it affords you some practical and/or personal advantage. With this in mind, it would be presumptuous to deny that Gardner derives the comfort he claims to. Also, it is necessary to distinguish between a belief itself and the consequences it may provoke. There is nothing in principle wrong with holdingthe aforementioned belief in unicorns; however, if that belief includes the idea that household pets are preventing the unicorns from achieving their purpose and this prompts you to embark on a large-scale cat and dog extermination campaign, then that becomes a rather different matter.

'Luthon64

infornography

21st June 2006, 02:44 AM

I didn't say impose their viewpoints, I said interfere. This can be as little as trying to give me a flyer on the street or voting for a law based in religion.

Obviously, the level of my bigotry towards some hari-krishnas on campus is very different from that towards islamic extremists.

While there are quite a few Christians who do vote for such laws and hand out flyers, I know of quite a few myself who vote against any law or leader that is obviously trying to push a religious or moralist agenda. One in particular has made it his personal crusade so to speak.

The point here is that it is religion that motivates the behavior of the few. If the source of the behavior is not dealt with, isn't dealing with the outward symptoms futile?

This is akin to saying that 'if we cannot cure humanity from consisting of humans, then isn't trying to prevent murder futile?'

Some sources cannot really be eliminated even if they should be. If it is not feasable to eliminate the source then should we ignore the symptom? It is best to moderate the symptoms knowing full well that completely eliminating them will be practically impossible but at least you can stabilize the condition so to speak.

Breaking down the walls and being nice to each other will probably destroy religion, the leaders rightly fear tolerance.

I doubt it. I have known quite a few wikkans for whom the closest thing they have to a religious leader is the book that introduced them to the faith and it advocates tolerance and acceptance. Faith is a much deeper thing than just the concept of 'us versus them' and it will take more than tolerance and acceptance to seriously diminish those who keep faith.

I think you may have missed his point, which was not the attitude toward those of differing faiths or belief, but that of the faithful toward unbelievers or atheists. A recent US survey affirmed that atheists were honored with designation of least trustworthy or most immoral (I forget which). Oh, I suppose atheists could have voted for themselves as being most immoral but that seems unlikely.

I am familiar with the poll you quote but I am more addressing the general anti-religious statements from rocketdodger. Generalized statements of any kind irritate me. Generalized statements stemming from bigotry or hatred, especially from one who claims to be rational and a skeptic, really annoy me.

As for the ignorance of the majority... well a well known psychological phenomenon is that most people will believe what they are told if they do not have any immediately conflicting information available. Many of them are told that atheists believe in no god because they have no morals and few of them realize that they have met an "evil" atheist. I do not hate them for this ignorance nor does it really bother me.

Christianity has lots of nice people in it and is great to have them on the forum. Supportive communities in pursuit of similar goals - if there is a reason for 'religion' it might be that.

Actually I advocate religion for the people that need it for a variety of reasons. One good example is people like my brother. He was falling in with a very bad group of kids when he was in high school/jr high. He almost joined a gang and almost got himself killed a couple of times. Then he discovered religion. Now he is married happily with a great son and I respect him more now than I ever did before he was Christian.

This is just one example of when religion really helped a person improve their lives. There are many others. Just because you or I do not need a comforting delusion or faith based belief does not mean that others do not need it in their lives. Many people feel the need for faith and there is insufficient evidence for me to proclaim that it is merely a security blanket or actual sprituality so I withhold my judgement of them. Even if I were sure that it was nothing more than a crutch or security blanket, I would still respect them as people and respect their beliefs as long as they respected my position as well.

elliotfc

21st June 2006, 07:51 AM

Oh yeah, in regards to predictions, religion also makes predictions.

-Elliot

elliotfc

21st June 2006, 07:55 AM

If you will look under the word "lion" in your dictionary, you will find no mention of the fact that they eat zebras, nor is it "inherent" in the concept of a lion. Would it be "dogmatic" of me, therefore, to assert that they do indeed eat zebras?

No, that is a factual point. Lions exist. Zebras exist.

Rationality does not exist as a lion exists, or a zebras exists.

No, elliot, I have observed that there is such an association.

No, there is such a thing as predictive power. I agree. You associate that with rationality. You don't have to do that. You decide it's a good association. We can discuss that. Is in inherent? No. Rational thinkers of the past who are *declared to be rationalists* have not made such an assertion. You have.

Ironically, this is something you've made up. As amateur psychologists always come across as complete twats, I shall not speculate on your motives for so doing.

You better not. Something tells me you'd be absolutely wrong if you tried.

So don't. Thanks.

-Elliot

rocketdodger

21st June 2006, 08:06 AM

I am familiar with the poll you quote but I am more addressing the general anti-religious statements from rocketdodger. Generalized statements of any kind irritate me. Generalized statements stemming from bigotry or hatred, especially from one who claims to be rational and a skeptic, really annoy me.

But my statements are not generalized at all. Perhaps you think that when I say "interfere" I mean that in a negative way -- I don't at all. In fact, most religious people want to interfere with others in a positive way, and this is what I was refering to when I said it was almost in the definition of major religions.

My problem with this is that I don't want interference at all. I am at a place in life right now where I only trust selfish people who can benefit greatly from letting me be. I don't trust anyone that wants to steal from me or harm me, and I don't trust anyone who wants to give to me or help me.

Furthermore, aside from my own twisted views, it is clear that the main problem with interfering with others out of benevolence is that your idea of benevolence is perhaps different from theirs.

infornography

21st June 2006, 12:31 PM

But my statements are not generalized at all.

Ok, you want generalized... here we go.

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

-- we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.

Ignorance is really the only way to "keep one's faith" as far as religion goes, you know.

When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Except that virtually by definition all major religions involve interfering with those who lack "faith."

If you dispute all of these statements as being generalized then perhaps you should go look up the word. They definitely seem to me to indicate that you are applying these beliefs of yours to religious people in general in an if not entirely inclusive way, then an almost completely inclusive bent.

Furthermore, aside from my own twisted views, it is clear that the main problem with interfering with others out of benevolence is that your idea of benevolence is perhaps different from theirs.

Some say there is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism. I think perhaps you have crossed that line a long time ago and can no longer see it in your rear view mirror.

rocketdodger

21st June 2006, 01:09 PM

Ok, you want generalized... here we go.

Ok you are correct, sorry for the miscommunication. Yes, I do generalize. I thought you were implying that this is somehow a bad thing, or even incorrect, thats why I tried to defend myself.

Some say there is a fine line between skepticism and cynicism. I think perhaps you have crossed that line a long time ago and can no longer see it in your rear view mirror.

Probably, but my cynicism is pretty much reserved for human behavior and nothing else.

Huntster

21st June 2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
...What can illustrate the possibility or impossibility of a spiritual dimension in a physical world?
Again, I'm not talking possible or impossible, I'm talking about what it would take for you personally to admit you were wrong.

How can something that isn't provable be proven to the point that "I" am "wrong" for maintaining faith in the testimony of others?

For you, is it all about "proving" the Huntster wrong for believing something?

Is that important to you?

Why?

Huntster

21st June 2006, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Death, then darkness................. This is the kind of idea that prompts the fear of death, and the desire of (or need to believe in) an afterlife. Darkness, nothingness, loneliness; is that really what you think non-existence would be like?

I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

I didn’t exist before I was born, and I can’t say those 15 billion years were unpleasant. What would make you think another non-existent state would be any different?

What makes you believe that you didn't exist before you were born?

What makes you believe that there is such a thing as a "non-existent" state?

Huntster

21st June 2006, 02:44 PM

....We have all seen death and the finality of it......

And some have seen the other side (http://www.nderf.org/).

Huntster

21st June 2006, 02:48 PM

My assumption is that you think everyone's views should be considered and respected with equal weight. When it comes to religion, if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

And what is "the solution" for those damned people with the gall to believe in a religion?

I vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life.

And those people are "religious"?

All of them?

Huntster

21st June 2006, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
It's not a bad thing for everybody.

Arrogant, pompous, self-important people actually need to do that in order to lend importance to themselves.
So, let's see ... that's humorless, angry, snide, stupid, dishonest, hypocritical, and totally lacking in self-awareness ... I'm impressed that you managed to display almost 30% of your grosser personality defects in such a short post.

I'm not as impressed with yours.

You can do better than that, can't you Doctor?

thaiboxerken

21st June 2006, 03:53 PM

Oh yeah, in regards to predictions, religion also makes predictions.

-Elliot

Yes, they make lots of predictions. What are the success rates of religious predictions?

Huntster

21st June 2006, 04:06 PM

...What are the success rates of religious predictions?

Overall, I'm not sure.

But like always, Kenny, you always seem to make the point for your debate opponents:

You will be hated by all because of my name, but whoever endures to the end will be saved.
Matthew 10:22

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.
Matthew 5:11-12

ReFLeX

21st June 2006, 04:19 PM

If you find facts to be insulting, then I agree, this forum is NOT the place for you. Maybe the reason religious people are so "insulted" here is just that -- we deal in facts, logic, and reason, and all of these are veritable poison to the religious.
I don't find facts to be insulting, I find your arrogance detrimental to atheists as a group. People with your superior attitude are the reason believers often feel so maligned by atheists and feel negatively towards them as a group. You may not care what they think of you, but the aggressive approach will benefit neither side.
Wrong. The most popular threads on this forum are by far the ones with lots of heat.If by "most popular" you mean receive the most replies, you might want to note how easily CFLarsen and one opponent can fill several pages within days.

thaiboxerken

21st June 2006, 04:22 PM

Overall, I'm not sure.

But like always, Kenny, you always seem to make the point for your debate opponents:

Very doubtful.

Matthew 10:22

Matthew 5:11-12

Neither of these predictions have been shown to have happened or will happen.

Thanks for playing, but you lose.

thaiboxerken

21st June 2006, 04:24 PM

People with your superior attitude are the reason believers often feel so maligned by atheists and feel negatively towards them as a group.

I don't agree, one of most religion's values is exclusivity, and that's why the religious tend to feel negatively towards anyone outside of their religions.

Tricky

21st June 2006, 04:55 PM

How can something that isn't provable be proven to the point that "I" am "wrong" for maintaining faith in the testimony of others?
I gave you some examples of how it happened for me. It was the continued lack of evidence that God did any of the things it was claimed He did. Obviously that doesn't "prove" there is no God, just that my previous beliefs were looking so unlikely to be true that I stopped believing in them.

For you, is it all about "proving" the Huntster wrong for believing something?
No, it is about understanding why people believe what they believe. Do you just have a "feeling" that it must be right, or is it something that you can decide based on the preponderance of evidence? If it is the former and you are incapable of being convinced by any evidence, then either a) you can only be convinced by emotional appeals, or b)you can't be convinced at all, making you a mindless drone. (Note: The same is true for an atheist who says that no evidence could convince him there is a God.) If your beliefs are based on evidence, then my question is, "What evidence would tip the scales the other way for you?"

Is that important to you?

Why?
As I say, I am interested in why people believe what they believe. It helps me understand them better. Yes, I find that understanding people better is important.

Do you find it difficult to answer a question of why you believe what you believe? I would think you would want to know yourself.

Kopji

21st June 2006, 05:31 PM

Anacoluthon64
Also, Gardner makes no attempt to assert the actuality of god's existence itself (and thereby he avoids ending up in all sorts of hot water); he merely provides a utilitarian reason for why he himself holds such a belief.

On page 222 of 'The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener' Gardner closes his chapter on "FAITH: Why I am not an Atheist" by quoting from Unamuno:
Wishing that God may exist, and acting and feeling as if He did exist. And desiring God's existence and acting comfortably with this desire, is the means by which we create God--that is, whereby God creates himself in us, manifests Himself to us, opens and reveals himself to us. For God goes out to meet him who seeks Him with love and by love, and hides Himself from him who searches for Him with the cold and loveless reason...
-snip-

I know that I sound harsh and extremist on this.
Unless believers can accept something like: "faith in God may not be the best thing for everyone" or "maybe atheism is a better way than belief for some people" - someone is sacrificed. Because the harsh reality is that faith in an immanent god is not the best thing for some people. To believe in the sort of God that we create within our selves, where does that leave us to answer those who kill because their god directs them to? In love of course, the word in which some of the worst atrocities are accomplished.

Gardner's view seems to be that if we only let go of reason for a while, we might find god. I am saying that reason is like a rock in a great storm of chaos and irrationality. Doesn't he understand that if some people let go they will simply be destroyed or worse, be the source of great destruction?

So I stand my ground, and I think that I do understand. I only ask that Christians accept that the way of belief and faith is not always the best way. That would seem easy, but religion is like having one product to sell so therefore everyone must need it...

infornography
Just because you or I do not need a comforting delusion or faith based belief does not mean that others do not need it in their lives. Many people feel the need for faith and there is insufficient evidence for me to proclaim that it is merely a security blanket or actual sprituality so I withhold my judgement of them. Even if I were sure that it was nothing more than a crutch or security blanket, I would still respect them as people and respect their beliefs as long as they respected my position as well.

This is well said. I am not sure that respecting our position of unbelief is compatible with many religions. Maybe as a means to a greater end of finding faith?
It seems to go a little like this: If each person contains within them the ability to know the truth of God, then to reject God is to willingly lie in the face of truth, or reject truth. Such an act is evil, evil must be overcome and ultimately destroyed. Etc etc.

Religion is ultimately an authoritarian epistemology. It may be of a greater good for humanity, but what of the small minority that it is not? They are defined as angels or demons, saints or heretics.

ReFLeX

21st June 2006, 05:31 PM

I don't agree, one of most religion's values is exclusivity, and that's why the religious tend to feel negatively towards anyone outside of their religions.
Yes, the devoutly religious. But the massive majority of the religious aren't as influenced by their specific religion's values as much as psychological factors such as Outgroup homogeneity bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outgroup_homogeneity_bias).

thaiboxerken

21st June 2006, 05:36 PM

Yes, the devoutly religious.

Exactly, the more religious people are, the more bigotted they are.

Huntster

21st June 2006, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
For you, is it all about "proving" the Huntster wrong for believing something?

No, it is about understanding why people believe what they believe. Do you just have a "feeling" that it must be right, or is it something that you can decide based on the preponderance of evidence?...

I have enough evidence for me. Obviously, it might not be enough for others.

To each his/her own.

...If your beliefs are based on evidence, then my question is, "What evidence would tip the scales the other way for you?"

Death, then darkness...............

....Do you find it difficult to answer a question of why you believe what you believe? I would think you would want to know yourself....

Not at all.

But I find it absolutely impossible for others to accept the answers I give.

Tricky

21st June 2006, 06:07 PM

I have enough evidence for me. Obviously, it might not be enough for others.
But I find it absolutely impossible for others to accept the answers I give.
I still haven't seen what evidence would convince you, except for this;
Death, then darkness................which means you can only be convinced if there is an afterlife in which to recognize "darkness", which is to say no evidence can convince you while you are alive. I figured as much.

thaiboxerken

21st June 2006, 06:42 PM

I have enough evidence for me.

This is a mantra that believers in all kinds of nonsense repeat over and over and over again.

ReFLeX

21st June 2006, 10:10 PM

Exactly, the more religious people are, the more bigotted they are.
I doubt that's a strong correlation. I suspect other factors are much more strongly related to bigotry as a trait.

arthwollipot

21st June 2006, 10:13 PM

Oh yeah, in regards to predictions, religion also makes predictions.

-Elliot

No, religion doesn't make predictions, religion makes prophecies. There's a difference.

rocketdodger

21st June 2006, 10:14 PM

I don't find facts to be insulting, I find your arrogance detrimental to atheists as a group. People with your superior attitude are the reason believers often feel so maligned by atheists and feel negatively towards them as a group. You may not care what they think of you, but the aggressive approach will benefit neither side.

It is only detrimental to those that would rather spend their time apologizing and trying to reconcile religion and reason. I, on the other hand, think that is a lost cause.

And I don't have a superior attitude. I have said that time and time again. My attitude is simply that I want nothing to do with religion -- It cannot offer me anything.

rocketdodger

21st June 2006, 10:18 PM

And what is "the solution" for those damned people with the gall to believe in a religion?

My solution is to segregate irrational people that believe in nonsensical dogma with rational people that believe in the power of logical thought. Obviously, if this had been done from the start, the world would be a very different place.

And those people are "religious"?

All of them?

Most religious people fall into that group, obviously.

ReFLeX

21st June 2006, 10:21 PM

It is only detrimental to those that would rather spend their time apologizing and trying to reconcile religion and reason. I, on the other hand, think that is a lost cause.

And I don't have a superior attitude. I have said that time and time again. My attitude is simply that I want nothing to do with religion -- It cannot offer me anything.
Religion and reason are incompatible according to you and you refuse to consider otherwise. That doesn't seem arrogant? Your attitude is not simply avoiding association, you have attacked them repeatedly. I am not making apologies anywhere, I just find anger at entire groups because of their general beliefs distasteful.

ETA: Segregation!? You make yourself look bad.

arthwollipot

21st June 2006, 10:23 PM

I wanted to make some comment about this statement as well, but I couldn't think of the words. Thanks ReFLeX.

tojohndillonesq

21st June 2006, 10:42 PM

We should all know by now that intelligent... nay BRILLIANT men of science are active, orthodox Christians. They believe God created the Universe and that Jesus was and is "God With Us" (Emmanuelle), the Word that was With God and Was God. (No, I'm not even going to ATTEMPT to explain what I think that means, so faget aboud it!)

And I don't just mean scientists 100 years ago or more. I'm talking about Nobel prize winners, heads of chemistry, genetics, astrophysics, and other "hard science" departments.

And this is true of virtually every subject you can name: science, religion, politics, economics, etc., etc. Brilliant men and women, honestly and sincerely seeking after the truth, arrive at different conclusions. Christians and Atheists, Republicans and Democrats, Evolutionists and Creationists... you name it. There is someone out there who is smarter than you, better educated than you, and as honest as you, who disagrees with you. No matter WHAT the subject!

"Never Underestimate the Opposition"

Idaho? No, You Da Ho

tojohndillonesq

21st June 2006, 10:48 PM

Should have said: ...some intelligent... nay BRILLIANT men of science etc.

tojohndillonesq

21st June 2006, 10:51 PM

It is mighty hard to change someone's opinion by making fun of him.

ReFLeX

21st June 2006, 10:52 PM

Should have said: ...some intelligent... nay BRILLIANT men of science etc.
In future use the edit button, as long as you note that you've done so.

rocketdodger

21st June 2006, 10:56 PM

Religion and reason are incompatible according to you and you refuse to consider otherwise.

I wouldn't be here if I refused to consider the possibility that it may be otherwise. So far, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that suggests it is otherwise.

Your attitude is not simply avoiding association, you have attacked them repeatedly.

No, I attack their ideas, because while I simply want to avoid their persons, I find their ideas to be somewhat threatening.

I just find anger at entire groups because of their general beliefs distasteful.

If there are religious people that do not fit my generalizations, then I have no beef with them, plain and simple. I am not some ignorant nazi who attacks people just because they are "religious," I attack "religion" and if people want to defend it then they get attacked as well.

arthwollipot

21st June 2006, 11:13 PM

If there are religious people that do not fit my generalizations, then I have no beef with them, plain and simple. I am not some ignorant nazi who attacks people just because they are "religious," I attack "religion" and if people want to defend it then they get attacked as well.

(*wince*)

ReFLeX

22nd June 2006, 12:00 AM

I wouldn't be here if I refused to consider the possibility that it may be otherwise. So far, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that suggests it is otherwise.Similarly, lifelong believers see no evidence against their beliefs either.
No, I attack their ideas, because while I simply want to avoid their persons, I find their ideas to be somewhat threatening.Really, because to me I find namecalling as an attack on their person.

If there are religious people that do not fit my generalizations, then I have no beef with them, plain and simple. I am not some ignorant nazi who attacks people just because they are "religious," I attack "religion" and if people want to defend it then they get attacked as well.
Because there are so many religious people that do not fit your generalizations, maybe you should not make those generalizations. Attacking religion (which doesn't exist without the people to perpetuate it), is unproductive, especially if you go about it in an overtly insulting and intolerant way. It isn't the fault of Christians that they've never really considered they could be wrong, if nobody's ever taught them to be skeptical. I'm a very contentious person by nature, and yet growing up Presbyterian I didn't take my doubts about God seriously until I took Reasoning and Critical Thinking in university. And my parents are hardly bible-thumpers. All I'm suggesting to you is that instead of antagonizing, empathizing is a much more effective approach to communicating or even deconverting those who see differently than you. If you don't find rationale in that sentence then you can have it your way: religion is always bad, the more Christian the more stupid, and all those other absolute certainties. I can't stop you.

infornography

22nd June 2006, 12:42 AM

Exactly, the more religious people are, the more bigotted they are.

Honestly, I have found the opposite to generally be true. Perhaps the louder a religious person they are, the more bigotted they are would have a decent correlation, but I find that the more religious they are, the more they understand the religion, the more tolerant they are of others.

It all depends on how you measure religiousness. Through understanding of their faith, or noise they make about it.

My solution is to segregate irrational people that believe in nonsensical dogma with rational people that believe in the power of logical thought. Obviously, if this had been done from the start, the world would be a very different place.

Hmm... If this had happened early in history I imagine the rational people of the world would have long ago been overrun or slaughtered. There were some ugly times in religion, but this is more to be blamed on human idiocy than the religions themselves.

I wouldn't be here if I refused to consider the possibility that it may be otherwise. So far, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that suggests it is otherwise.

Its amazing how little evidence you can find when you intentonally look away from it or insult it. There are many who find ways to reconcile the two in their minds and there are many groups of people who can peacefully and even happily congregate in mixed company so to speak.

No, I attack their ideas, because while I simply want to avoid their persons, I find their ideas to be somewhat threatening.

.... Threatening you say. How could their "inferior" faith based beliefs possibly threaten such a pillar of scientific thought such as yourself? (I suspect this was just poor word choice but the opportunity for sarcasm was too much for me to resist... feel free to completely disregard this paragraph)

If there are religious people that do not fit my generalizations, then I have no beef with them, plain and simple. I am not some ignorant nazi who attacks people just because they are "religious," I attack "religion" and if people want to defend it then they get attacked as well.

And it just so happens that most religious people can be assumed to want to defend their religion... gofig. It seems to me you are perfectly willing and ready to insult anyone who turns out to be religious as is evidenced by the comment about the Jeopardy contestant earlier.

I think you would find that you could avoid religious people and their "evil" faith much more easily if you avoided forums that pertained to the subject of religion.

Nova Land

22nd June 2006, 02:04 AM

... What facts are your religion based on?
Hoo, boy! This looks like a wonderful opportunity for semantic misunderstandings. It also presents me with a difficult choice of either ignoring your question, momentarily derailing this thread, or spinning this off into a thread about my religious beliefs. I don't like any of those, but I'm going to go with the second option. Before I can answer your question, though, I will need you to clarify the question.

While your question is interesting it does not follow directly from what I wrote earlier in this thread. What I asserted is that I have no special aversion to the use of facts, or logic, or reason. That holds in regard to claims of the normal (political claims for example), claims of the paranormal, and religious claims as well.

I believe that religious claims should be judged by the same standards as any other claims. I am offended by people who profit off religious scams as much as I am offended by people who profit off psychic scams. Miraculous claims -- whether religious or non-religious -- should be scrutinized and tested to see if a miracle has actually occurred.

The miracles I believe in may be difficult for you to test, but I believe they are real. I am amazed at the miracle of life, and at the ability of living things to love each other, to care for one another, to help each other in our times of need. I am amazed at the existence of physical things such as kittens, and I am amazed at the existence of metaphysical things such as cooperation. We could very easily live in a universe where the underlying mathematics made cooperation futile or impossible. But we don't. I find the existence of cooperation as fascinating and as amazing as the existence of stars and of planets and of elements which change from solid to liquid to gas.

I see science and religion as complementary disciplines. Science is an organized way of understanding the physical world; religion is an organized way of understanding the metaphysical world. The classic formulation is that science enables us to understand how to build an atom bomb, and religion enables us to understand why it may be wrong to use one.

Much of religion, over the centuries, has been nonsense -- but then, so has much of science. With each passing generation, we have learned more about how the physical universe operates. If you read medical journals from as little as a century ago, you will be amazed at how much people believed which just was not so. Slowly but surely, science has made progress in understanding the physical world better. In the last few centuries the rate at which our understanding has changed and grown has been remarkable.

Likewise, slowly but surely we are making progress in understanding the metaphysical world. In recent centuries we have come to realize that slavery is wrong. We have come to realize that massacring our enemies is wrong. We have come to realize that feudal and caste systems -- where some people are deemed more worthy, and others less worthy, depending on what family they were born into -- are wrong. We have come to realize that women are not simply property, and that sexual exploitation of children is wrong. We are still wrestling with many questions, but I expect that in the not-too-distant future it will be understood and recognized that love between people of the same sex is as real and as beautiful as love between people of opposite sexes.

I believe that just as there are physical truths to the universe, there are metaphysical truths as well. Gravity is not simply a social construct. It is real, regardless of what we might wish it to be or what we might decide it to be. It is something we are able to experience, and which through experiencing in our lives we are able to observe and come to understand better. That's an example of science. Likewise, love is not simply a social construct. It is real, regardless of what we might wish it to be and what we might decide it to be. It is something we are able to experience, and which through experiencing in our lives we are able to observe and come to understand better. That's an example of religion.

You ask me what facts my religion is based on, and I'm not sure how to answer. To me, religion is a way of looking at reality and coming to a better understanding of it, just as science is a way of looking at reality and coming to a better understanding of it. We use science and religion to arrive at facts, but I'm as unclear what facts science is based on as I am what facts religion is based on. .

If science were based on certain facts, then those facts would be scientific dogma -- which to me is an oxymoron. Science (at least as I understand it) is based on principles rather than on facts. A key scientific principle, for example, is that we learn what is true through empirical observation. I wouldn't normally refer to a principle as a fact, but that's my best guess as to what you might be referring to. (My other guess is that you might be asking me to give examples of facts I derive from my religious beliefs.)

Are you asking me to outline the principles underlying my religion? Are you asking me for examples of facts which I derive from my religion? Or are you asking for something else entirely? I'm not trying to evade your question; I just don't understand what the question you are asking actually is.

If you will explain to me what facts you believe science is based on, that should make it clearer what you mean by facts my religion is based on. Once you clarify in that way what it is you are asking, I will be glad to try to answer your question with regard to my religious beliefs.

Nova Land

22nd June 2006, 02:11 AM

... the more religious people are, the more bigotted they are.
Infornography and ReFLeX have already done a good job of answering this, but I'd like to echo what they have said.

Your statement describes a reality different from the one I live in. I have known people who were only mildly religious but who were quite bigoted, and I have known people who were devoutly religious but who were very non-bigoted. And if what you suggest were indeed true, it would seem that atheists should be virtually incapable of bigotry -- but we can see, simply by reading this forum, that such is certainly not the case!

I believe most people know in their hearts that prejudice and bigotry -- whether it is disliking people for their skin color, or their nationality, or their sexual orientation, or their religious beliefs -- is wrong. But some people allow things they have been taught or told to override their inner decency. That's what I define as dogmatism, and I suspect it is dogmatism, rather than religion per se, which correlates with bigotry.

It is ironic when religious people -- particularly christians -- allow dogma to override decency, because one of Jesus' strongest messages was that dogmatic adherence to the law is wrong. One should attempt to follow the spirit rather than the letter of the law, Jesus taught, and the spirit of god's law as Jesus taught it is love and respect rather than hate and intolerance.

But then, as now, there are many who find it easier to point to and blindly follow a rule they have adopted, even when the rule leads them to do things which they should know are wrong. Slavery and segregation were good examples of this mindset at work, as is much of the current opposition to same-sex marriage and much of the anger and resentment held toward immigrants.

Religion is not inherently dogmatic, and lack of religion is not inherently dogma-free. Atheists are as capable of being bigots as religious people are. Your own declaration that the more religious a person is, the more bigoted they are, would seem to be a good example of this. You offer no factual justification for this belief -- and yet you hold it and act on it.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:04 AM

They don't have explanations, they don't need them.

Agreed.

Predictions? Do you think animals simply walk around in random patterns until they find food and water? NO THEY DON'T. They have some idea (insofar as an animal can think) of where food might be, where water might be, and how they might be able to get it. Even instinctual behavior is predictive.

Animals don't make predictions. Plant activity is also predictable, that doesn't mean plants make predictions.

We both have similar life spans. If you really want to know why, you should read "Atlas Shrugged."

No, I already know why, and I didn't like the book.

Now, tell me -- what is responsible for the increased life span that we enjoy now as opposed to the people living in 1400? Here is a hint: IT IS NOT RELIGION.

On its own, no institution or methodology is responsible for anything. Science does not assert that it is good for people to live longer lives.

-Elliot

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:06 AM

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

Yeah, but you have to answer in the form of a question. I thought religious people didn't question anything?

-Elliot

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:07 AM

I'm still waiting for links to these alleged insults to Christians. This debate is a bit shallow without some evidence to back up the claims being made.

How about the post *right on top of the one you provided*. Or right on top of mine for that matter.

-Elliot

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 07:09 AM

Similarly, lifelong believers see no evidence against their beliefs either.

That is because they are delusional and lack the ability to think critically about themselves.

Really, because to me I find namecalling as an attack on their person.

Please tell me where I have ever resorted to namecalling. Here is a hint: you will not find any instances. Here is another hint: calling someone names when they are not part of this forum is not "attacking" them.

Because there are so many religious people that do not fit your generalizations, maybe you should not make those generalizations.

Perhaps we are not communicating fully. When I say "religious" I mean "adherents to the doctrine of one of the popular organized religions." I do not mean anyone else, although I suppose the actual definition of "religious" could be interpreted to mean just about anyone with a cause.

So, by definition (at least, my definition), if one adheres to a doctrine, then generalizing that they will adhere to that doctrine is a pretty safe bet.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:12 AM

It makes predictions about paeleontology, morphology, genetics, embryology, computer science ... where should I start?

Somewhere. Anywhere.

Give me a prediction that the macroevolutionary theory makes. You know, how they question Nostradamus stuff. After it happens, you say that it was predicted. So make a prediction then. Place it in a particular point in time. When that time comes, we'll see about the prediction.

Your question is equivalent to asking "what is the evidence for evolution?"

No it isn't.

To give one example, consider the recent discovery of Tiktaalik. The people who discovered it didn't discover it by accident. They set out to find a specific intermediate form between two other stages in the fish-amphibian transition, they knew which fossil stratum it should be in, they went and looked for it there, and that's where they found it.

Oh, well this is not what I was thinking about. I was thinking about events happening in the future, as opposed to things that already exist. Meaning, those fossils have been there for a long, long time. Those fossils didn't just come into being five years after the day they started to look for them. They were already there.

-Elliot

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:19 AM

The important point is, there are things that could happen that would be out of line with what the model says would happen.

This could extend to religion of course. If there is no life after death, there goes what the model says.

With a tautology for a model (Whatever happens, it's God's will), no matter what Transpires there would be no reason to discard that model.

Then why do people *in fact* discard the model?

But which of us do you know so well as to insult their self-esteem?

Of course I only know what I read in the posts. If I'm wrong...well...if I make a self-esteem assertion that is INCORRECT, then the person's self-esteem is such that it won't be shaken by my assertion.

Those who insult believers don't speak for all of us, so don't generalize that way. I haven't inferred anything about your motivations based on other forum Christians.

Fair enough.

-Elliot

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 07:25 AM

Its amazing how little evidence you can find when you intentonally look away from it or insult it. There are many who find ways to reconcile the two in their minds and there are many groups of people who can peacefully and even happily congregate in mixed company so to speak.

Its also amazing how little evidence you can find when you are 100% honest and look everywhere as hard as you can, which is pretty much what I do.

And I would say that the only way to reconcile dogmatic babblygook with evidence based reason is a doublethink. Some things only require as little as a good reason why one should believe in them, I would consider that evidence enough -- but with religious dogma, you will rarely even get that.

How could their "inferior" faith based beliefs possibly threaten such a pillar of scientific thought such as yourself?

Because the pillar of my personal belief system is that I am not sure of anything, and I will trade up ideas for better ones if they present themselves. In contrast, all the beliefs of organized religion seem to insist on being correct, which means if I adopted them it would be very hard to get my head out. I find such a black hole of thought very threatening.

You might suggest I just remain a critical thinker, but how can you believe something if you are constantly questioning it? You can't, unless the belief is precisely that you should question everything. To "believe" in the dogma of any organized religion, one has to completely dump that mindset, and once done I think it is hard to get it back.

And it just so happens that most religious people can be assumed to want to defend their religion... gofig. It seems to me you are perfectly willing and ready to insult anyone who turns out to be religious as is evidenced by the comment about the Jeopardy contestant earlier.

I am ready to attack, not insult, anyone who turns out to adhere to religious doctrine that threatens my way of life. I limit my "insults" to flippant comments made behind their back, and that is only to spark emotion so my posts get replied to (snicker). I will never resort to name-calling or any other kind of purposeful insults when dealing with someone directly.

I think you would find that you could avoid religious people and their "evil" faith much more easily if you avoided forums that pertained to the subject of religion.

I already stated that there is a miscommunication here. I am against the "popular organized religions," not religion in general. In other words, I have no problem with shamans or limited theists or whoever else. As such, I like this forum because 1) I absolutely love philosophy and 2) I enjoy learning different perspectives regarding metaphysical questions.

What I DON'T enjoy is 10000 christians regurgitating their dogmatic biblical "facts." I have heard it before, I already got that perspective, lets move on to something new please.

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 07:30 AM

Anacoluthon64

22nd June 2006, 07:33 AM

You might suggest I just remain a critical thinker, but how can you believe something if you are constantly questioning it? You can't, unless the belief is precisely that you should question everything.Including, I would explicitly add, that last belief itself.

'Luthon64

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 07:43 AM

Animals don't make predictions. Plant activity is also predictable, that doesn't mean plants make predictions.

Oops I assumed a wrong definition. Regardless... are you claiming that humans could survive if we dumped all of our thought and relied solely on animal instincts?

No, I already know why, and I didn't like the book.

Then please tell me why, in your own words.

On its own, no institution or methodology is responsible for anything. Science does not assert that it is good for people to live longer lives.

I agree. On the other hand, though, organized religion does assert that people trying to take their fate into their own hands is morally wrong.

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 07:46 AM

Including, I would explicitly add, that last belief itself.

Doesn't that create a paradox? Kind of like that debate between upchurch and hammegk about whether or not we can be 100% sure of anything.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:48 AM

if there is a god then i for one do not think it willturn away ayone as its so called projection into our wworld jesus is meant o have cleared all sin, so we all go to heavan or am i missing something here.......

Acceptance/recognition of that fact. If you don't agree that certain sins that Jesus "took away" were sins to begin with, then they haven't been taken away, because you hold onto them for yourself.

-Elliot

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:56 AM

Then please tell me why, in your own words.

The characters, or more like characterizations. Real flimsy. She would talk about how beautiful the good people were and how ugly the bad people were for page after page after page. The ending with John Galt?s ramblings were naueseating. The dialgoue made me cringe. All the names were cartoonish. It was just ridiculous as a lover of well-written fiction.

As for the philosophy, I don't like didacticism in fiction.

-Elliot

drkitten

22nd June 2006, 07:57 AM

Give me a prediction that the macroevolutionary theory makes. You know, how they question Nostradamus stuff. After it happens, you say that it was predicted. So make a prediction then. Place it in a particular point in time. When that time comes, we'll see about the prediction.

A prediction that macroevolutionary theory makes. Here's a few, just quickly, off the top of my head. Most of the supporting argumentation can be found in Dawkins' excellent book The Ancestor's Tale.

All mammals will have genetic analogues to the human alpha and beta hemoglobin clusters (since the apparent duplication event that led to those occurred about half a billion years, in a jawless fish that was ancestral to all mammals).
All reptiles and birds likewise
... but not all insects
The chordate ancestors of sea squirts looked like tadpoles throughout their entire lifespan.
No chordate fossils will be found earlier than about 600 millon years.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:57 AM

i have often wandered why US chiristian fundamentalists largely ignore the chrisitian bit of the bible and zero in on the Old testament the non christian bit.

I wonder the same about randi forum fundamentalists.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 07:59 AM

What would it take to convince you while you are still living that God didn't exist?

The same thing it would take you to accept that God *did* exist. If he came down and told you. Meaning, if God came down and told you that he existed, then you'd accept he exists. Same for me. If God came down and told me that he didn't exist, then I'd accept that he didn't exist.

-Elliot

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 08:02 AM

Christians are already brainwashed, thus the problems do occur.

Better to be brainwashed than to have a filthy mine like yours!

!!!

Take that!

Bif bam pow! My jeet kune do is too powerful!

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 08:03 AM

Yes, you have changing standards for what you'll consider believable and what is not. Simply put, you don't apply the same skepticism to your god that you would to the belief that bigfoot exists. Oh wait, in your case, you would. Scratch that.

When my bigfoot strikes you in the nose you too will believe in bigfoot!

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 08:05 AM

The characters,
...snip...

No, I meant please tell me why irrational people and rational people have approximately the same life spans today.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 08:06 AM

This is the kind of idea that prompts the fear of death, and the desire of (or need to believe in) an afterlife. Darkness, nothingness, loneliness; is that really what you think non-existence would be like? I didn’t exist before I was born, and I can’t say those 15 billion years were unpleasant. What would make you think another non-existent state would be any different?

He didn't say that it was unpleasant. Oblivion is what is is, darkness is a pretty good analogy. Obviously your eyes won't be of much use as receivers and manipulators of light stimuli.

elliotfc

22nd June 2006, 08:08 AM

No, I meant please tell me why irrational people and rational people have approximately the same life spans today.

I think that, in general, people like living longer lives than shorter lives, regardless of contrived/imposed distinctions of rationality/irrationality.

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

22nd June 2006, 08:09 AM

Doesn't that create a paradox? Kind of like that debate between upchurch and hammegk about whether or not we can be 100% sure of anything.I don't think it creates a paradox (I don't know about the hammegk/Upchurch debate, so I can't comment). Rather, it seems to imply an infinite regress of metaquestioning, metametaquestioning, metametameta..., etc. However, this isn't really a difficulty if the particular (meta)levels are diligently kept distinct, and a single metaquestion is sufficient.

All I meant to suggest is that one also needs to examine one's belief that it is necessary to question everything (in the sense that some things are highly probable, whereas others aren't, and that the probabilities may change in the light of new data) by its own rules. In other words, one must also ask in what circumstances such a questioning attitude is not warranted, and if so, for what reasons. In yet other words, it is necessary to examine one's own acceptance and rejection criteria for a particular belief. To not do so would be an example where the dictum is violated.

'Luthon64

Thomas

22nd June 2006, 08:29 AM

It was just ridiculous as a lover of well-written fiction.
Actually, the bible isn't that well-written ;)

..but then again, what can one expect from bronze age mythology?!

I less than three logic

22nd June 2006, 08:36 AM

I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?
Thanks for all the irrelevant bolding. Did I say know anywhere within that entire post? I said think; do you think that is what a non-existent state would be like? Think and believe have very similar meanings in this sense. It would have been just as correct for me to ask; do you believe that is what a non-existent state would be like? It would certainly be easier to understand if you took what others said in the correct context.

What makes you believe that you didn't exist before you were born?

What makes you believe that there is such a thing as a "non-existent" state?
I have no evidence that I existed before I was born, do you? I have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence.

As for “such a thing as a ‘non-existent’ state”, I’m fairly certain that’s the state that everything that doesn’t exist is in, or do you believe “everything” exists; unicorns, pixies, leprechauns, etc. Does everything exist, or is there something, anything, non-existent?

Tricky

22nd June 2006, 08:48 AM

The same thing it would take you to accept that God *did* exist. If he came down and told you. Meaning, if God came down and told you that he existed, then you'd accept he exists. Same for me. If God came down and told me that he didn't exist, then I'd accept that he didn't exist.

-Elliot
LOL. Let it not be said that Christians don't have a sense of humor.

trvlr2

22nd June 2006, 08:51 AM

By Luthon64--"'Doesn't that create a paradox? Kind of like that debate between upchurch and hammegk about whether or not we can be 100% sure of anything.'
I don't think it creates a paradox (I don't know about the hammegk/Upchurch debate, so I can't comment). Rather, it seems to imply an infinite regress of metaquestioning, metametaquestioning, metametameta..., etc. However, this isn't really a difficulty if the particular (meta)levels are diligently kept distinct, and a single metaquestion is sufficient.

All I meant to suggest is that one also needs to examine one's belief that it is necessary to question everything (in the sense that some things are highly probable, whereas others aren't, and that the probabilities may change in the light of new data) by its own rules. In other words, one must also ask in what circumstances such a questioning attitude is not warranted, and if so, for what reasons. In yet other words, it is necessary to examine one's own acceptance and rejection criteria for a particular belief. To not do so would be an example where the dictum is violated."

'Luthon64

Good point, Luthon. I would offer that one could cease questioning a particular belief whenever that belief operates 100% effectively.

A possible aside/derail, I have never ,personally, found a religious person who actually knew all the beliefs propounded by his particular sect, and yet claimed to be a faithful follower of *****.
I HAVE seen cherrypicking of the more agreeable beliefs, tho.

Might be interesting if our Xtians would be specific in stating their beliefs.

I less than three logic

22nd June 2006, 08:52 AM

He didn't say that it was unpleasant. Oblivion is what is is, darkness is a pretty good analogy. Obviously your eyes won't be of much use as receivers and manipulators of light stimuli.
Darkness is a horrible analogy. You experience darkness, you wouldn’t experience oblivion. You can’t experience non-existence. Have you ever been put under anesthesia for a surgery or something similar? A heavy anesthesia, where you don’t remember going out, you remember no dreams, there was nothing, time simply skips from sometime after they injected you to when you woke up. Was there darkness during that time? I don’t believe so, and I don’t remember any; I’d say I simply stopped experiencing.

Like I said, darkness is a bad analogy. The idea of an eternity of darkness is rather unpleasant for people.

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Death, then darkness................
which means you can only be convinced if there is an afterlife in which to recognize "darkness", which is to say no evidence can convince you while you are alive. I figured as much.

Well, what do you expect? That's "incontrovertible evidence", isn't it? Isn't that what skeptics claim to need?

What, you want me to accept the testimony of people who reject religion over those who accept it? I've already done that, and have accepted that of the religious side.

Tricky

22nd June 2006, 09:51 AM

Well, what do you expect? That's "incontrovertible evidence", isn't it?
No, because it wouldn't be evidence to "you" because "you" wouldn't be there to judge the evidence.

For some reason, I am reminded of the joke of the guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man. He pulls out a gun and points it at his own head. His wife starts to giggle and he says, "Don't laugh. You're next."

Isn't that what skeptics claim to need?
Nope. Most skeptics I know, including myself, would be satisfied with a preponderance of evidence. I haven't even seen a smidgen of evidence for God though. But if I did, I'd consider it.

drkitten

22nd June 2006, 10:03 AM

Well, what do you expect? That's "incontrovertible evidence", isn't it? Isn't that what skeptics claim to need?

Not at all. Skeptics simply need evidence.... they're perfectly capable of judging for themselves the reliability, relevance, and weight to place on any particular piece of evidence. It need not be incontrovertible, although that would be nice.

The problem is that a lot of what is presented as "evidence" is at best not especially convincing.

For example:

What, you want me to accept the testimony of people who reject religion over those who accept it? I've already done that, and have accepted that of the religious side.

That's one of the problems with testimony, as scholars of psychology have long known. Different people will say different things and be utterly convinced themelves of the truth of what they're saying, even when there's clear ("incontrovertible") evidence that they are, in fact, wrong. The "Did you see the gorilla" experiment is only one member of a long line of such experiments, but I would point it to you.

The further problem with religious "testimony" is that, in general, it's hearsay. You don't have a chance to actually examine St. Paul's beliefs, or even to confirm that he actually wrote all the things attributed to him. We have enough evidence from other historical writings that people will present all sorts of gibberish in the belief that they're true -- Geoffrey of Monmouth, for example, and his History of the Kings of Britain is a good example. As far as we can tell, he genuinely believed the fairy tales that he wrote.

I've already given some examples of evidence -- granted, not incontrovertible evidence, but pretty strong evidence -- that the Christian faith as commonly and superficially presented is wrong.

From post #109, this thread:

A simple example: one of the articles of faith in the Christian Church is the Sermon on the Mount (from the Book of Matthew). I quote briefly in part : "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Now, that's pretty explicit -- "everyone that asketh receiveth." Furthermore, those are the words of Christ himself, not a later interpretation by some nutcase Paul-come-lately.

Well, I've asked. And I've not received. In fact, a whole lot of people have asked, and they haven't received either. We could even (if we liked) do a controlled experiment, for example, where we asked God to heal one group of people in a hospital, and didn't ask God to heal another group of people, and see whether we "received" the gift of divine healing. Whups -- we've already done that experiment, and the answer is "they don't."

We could look at the infant mortality rate for clergymen (who can be presumed to "ask" for the health and welfare of their children) versus the general public, and see if clergy "recieve" the gift of having their children not die as often. Or rather, we've done that experiment, too, again with negative results.

So evidence tells me that the statement "everyone that asketh receiveth" is simply untrue, by observation. ...

Now, as far as I could tell, you never actually responded to this argument or evidence. I therefore repeat it and ask what you consider to be wrong. You can't simply write it off by saying "well, it's drkitten's testimony, and I don't accept it," because most of the statements that I make can be independently validated (that's part of what makes good evidence; you can check it for yourself).

Did I misquote from Matthew? You've got access to a Bible, look it up. Your Biblical scholarship may be sufficiently better than mine that you can read the original Greek, and point out that I'm actually misinterpreting the passage, and that it really says something more like "some people who ask will receive."

Did I misrepresent the child mortality data? The original experiment (and data) are from Francis Galton in the mid 1800s, and perhaps he made some mistakes in how he treated the data (I don't believe so, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise). One can also simply repeat the experiment using data from other times and places; the US Census is great for that. If you can show that Galton's data is wildly out of expectation with what that study should have shown, then Galton's data isn't very credible.

But you can't simply dismiss it out of hand. Or rather, not if you want to retain a shred of credibiliity yourself.

And conversely, what evidence do you have for Christianity? We've already established that personal testimony means little or nothing. What else do you have?

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And what is "the solution" for those damned people with the gall to believe in a religion?

My solution is to segregate irrational people that believe in nonsensical dogma with rational people that believe in the power of logical thought.....

So, you want to "re-educate" them, or proselytize to them regarding the magnificence and righteousness of "logical thought"?

I vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
And those people are "religious"?

All of them?

Most religious people fall into that group, obviously.[/QUOTE]

Apparently non-religious people fall into that group, as well.

You want to "segregate irrational people that believe in nonsensical dogma with rational people that believe in the power of logical thought" so that those who are doing that nasty believing stuff get "straightened out", yet you "vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life"?

Interesting.....................

Dcdrac

22nd June 2006, 11:10 AM

Why are christian fundamentalists so negative and aggressive? all to ready to beleive in the apocalyptic as well, it must be really gloomy nad depressing

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:13 AM

I'm still waiting for links to these alleged insults to Christians. This debate is a bit shallow without some evidence to back up the claims being made.

Paulisonne's ouutrages were offered, and you simply excused them.

Why should more be searched and offered, just for you to repeat the exercise?

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by ReFLeX :
Because there are so many religious people that do not fit your generalizations, maybe you should not make those generalizations.

Perhaps we are not communicating fully. When I say "religious" I mean "adherents to the doctrine of one of the popular organized religions."...

Such as, for example, the Roman Catholic Church?

Did you know that the word "catholic" is defined as "universal", yet are you aware of all the sects and divisions within the overall religion itself, and still allied to Rome?

"Generalized"?

...I do not mean anyone else, although I suppose the actual definition of "religious" could be interpreted to mean just about anyone with a cause....

Including, for example, those who dislike faith in God, participate in an internet forum discussing the foolishness of faith in God, and who discuss how faith in God could be done away with by re-educating them?

So, by definition (at least, my definition), if one adheres to a doctrine, then generalizing that they will adhere to that doctrine is a pretty safe bet.

Funny; every time I do so on this forum, generalizing about skeptics who dislike "organized religion", I get pounced on like a mouse in a house full of cats...................

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:28 AM

....On the other hand, though, organized religion does assert that people trying to take their fate into their own hands is morally wrong.

Did you have a particular "organized religion" in mind when typing that statement?

Dcdrac

22nd June 2006, 11:30 AM

I will make my postion clear for me religion, like nationalism and patriotism is a sign of a primitive society that still has a long way to go, they are vetiages of our ape troop loyalties left over from our evolutionary developement, we have the abilty to see through it and gerow out of it

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:32 AM

Doesn't that create a paradox? Kind of like that debate between upchurch and hammegk about whether or not we can be 100% sure of anything.

I happen to love that particular debate among or from skeptics.

Skeptical fundamentalism makes Christian fundamentalism look refreshing and hopeful..............

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:36 AM

When my bigfoot strikes you in the nose you too will believe in bigfoot!

Bigfoot would never poke Kenny in the nose.

They're buds (See sig lines below........................)

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:37 AM

No, I meant please tell me why irrational people and rational people have approximately the same life spans today.

Because rationality has nothing to do with physical lifespan.

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

Thanks for all the irrelevant bolding. Did I say know anywhere within that entire post? I said think; do you think that is what a non-existent state would be like?

Okay; let me think............................................. ........

After thinking about it, I'd have to say that I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Better?

...Think and believe have very similar meanings in this sense....

When I think, I ponder, consider, and reason. When I believe, I have reached a decision to accept that reasoning (to various extents), even though it is not proven to me.

It would have been just as correct for me to ask; do you believe that is what a non-existent state would be like?

Had you asked me that question, I would have given you a simple yes or no.

What makes you believe that you didn't exist before you were born?

What makes you believe that there is such a thing as a "non-existent" state?

I have no evidence that I existed before I was born, do you?[/QUOTE]

No verifiable evidence, but there are the biblical references of such, as well as other religious references of such.

I have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence.

As for “such a thing as a ‘non-existent’ state”, I’m fairly certain that’s the state that everything that doesn’t exist is in......

Since you "have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence", you must clearly have some evidence of the existence of this "non-existent state".

What would that evidence consist of.

or do you believe “everything” exists; unicorns, pixies, leprechauns, etc. Does everything exist, or is there something, anything, non-existent?

I don't know.

Do you?

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by elliotfc :
He didn't say that it was unpleasant. Oblivion is what is is, darkness is a pretty good analogy. Obviously your eyes won't be of much use as receivers and manipulators of light stimuli.
Darkness is a horrible analogy. You experience darkness, you wouldn’t experience oblivion.....

Since you wrote this:

I have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence.

You must certainly have some evidence that "you wouldn’t experience oblivion". Can you share it with us?

You can’t experience non-existence. Have you ever been put under anesthesia for a surgery or something similar? A heavy anesthesia, where you don’t remember going out, you remember no dreams, there was nothing, time simply skips from sometime after they injected you to when you woke up. Was there darkness during that time? I don’t believe so, and I don’t remember any; I’d say I simply stopped experiencing.

Well, I can accept "I simply stopped experiencing" during surgery, or even during other experiences (?) in life. However, you were still alive and in physical form.

How do you know what occurs after physical death, and if "oblivion" or "non-experience" applies?

Like I said, darkness is a bad analogy. The idea of an eternity of darkness is rather unpleasant for people.

An eternity of "non-experience" or "oblivion" is more reassuring?

You can choose?

How do you know?

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Well, what do you expect? That's "incontrovertible evidence", isn't it?

No, because it wouldn't be evidence to "you" because "you" wouldn't be there to judge the evidence.

For some reason, I am reminded of the joke of the guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man. He pulls out a gun and points it at his own head. His wife starts to giggle and he says, "Don't laugh. You're next."

How do you know the wife isn't going to get immediately distraught and suicidal with guilt after watching her husband blow his brains out, and then repeat the process on herself?

Do you have any evidence of that, either way?

Ain't skepticism and doubt fun?

drkitten

22nd June 2006, 12:18 PM

How do you know the wife isn't going to get immediately distraught and suicidal with guilt after watching her husband blow his brains out, and then repeat the process on herself?

How do you know that she is? How does her husband, the speaker, know that she is?

Do you have any evidence of that, either way?

Evidence? Lots. That's not how people tend to behave.

Proof? No, of course not. You only get proofs in mathematics. (As the mathematician wrote, "somewhere in Wales there is at least one sheep that is white on at least one side.")

Ain't skepticism and doubt fun?

Yes, when properly done. But that's the difference between skepticism and nihilism. Skepticism involves the examination, not the avoidance, of evidence.

I notice that, despite ample opportunity, you've not addressed any of the evidence I cited upthread (and re-cited) against Christianity. If your position is simply that no amount of empirical evidence can amount to proof....

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Well, what do you expect? That's "incontrovertible evidence", isn't it? Isn't that what skeptics claim to need?

Not at all. Skeptics simply need evidence.... they're perfectly capable of judging for themselves the reliability, relevance, and weight to place on any particular piece of evidence. It need not be incontrovertible, although that would be nice....

My position exactly. I need evidence, and the better the evidence, the greater my confidence.

The problem is that a lot of what is presented as "evidence" is at best not especially convincing.

For example:

What, you want me to accept the testimony of people who reject religion over those who accept it? I've already done that, and have accepted that of the religious side.

That's one of the problems with testimony, as scholars of psychology have long known. Different people will say different things and be utterly convinced themelves of the truth of what they're saying, even when there's clear ("incontrovertible") evidence that they are, in fact, wrong.

Yes, testimony is problematic. I include yours.

I've already given some examples of evidence -- granted, not incontrovertible evidence, but pretty strong evidence -- that the Christian faith as commonly and superficially presented is wrong.

From post #109, this thread:

A simple example: one of the articles of faith in the Christian Church is the Sermon on the Mount (from the Book of Matthew). I quote briefly in part : "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For everyone that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

Now, that's pretty explicit -- "everyone that asketh receiveth." Furthermore, those are the words of Christ himself, not a later interpretation by some nutcase Paul-come-lately.

Well, I've asked. And I've not received. In fact, a whole lot of people have asked, and they haven't received either. We could even (if we liked) do a controlled experiment, for example, where we asked God to heal one group of people in a hospital, and didn't ask God to heal another group of people, and see whether we "received" the gift of divine healing. Whups -- we've already done that experiment, and the answer is "they don't."

We could look at the infant mortality rate for clergymen (who can be presumed to "ask" for the health and welfare of their children) versus the general public, and see if clergy "recieve" the gift of having their children not die as often. Or rather, we've done that experiment, too, again with negative results.

So evidence tells me that the statement "everyone that asketh receiveth" is simply untrue, by observation. ...

Now, as far as I could tell, you never actually responded to this argument or evidence. I therefore repeat it and ask what you consider to be wrong. You can't simply write it off by saying "well, it's drkitten's testimony, and I don't accept it," because most of the statements that I make can be independently validated (that's part of what makes good evidence; you can check it for yourself).

Did I misquote from Matthew? You've got access to a Bible, look it up. Your Biblical scholarship may be sufficiently better than mine that you can read the original Greek, and point out that I'm actually misinterpreting the passage, and that it really says something more like "some people who ask will receive."

Compare the verses you referred to from Matthew Chapter 7 and this gem from 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 (one of my favorites):

...Therefore, that I might not become too conceited, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. Three times I prayed to the Lord, that it might be lifted from me, but he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for thee, for My power is made perfect in your weakness." So now, I will rather boast most gladly of my weaknesses, in order that the power of Christ may dwell with me. Therefore, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and constraints, for the sake of Christ; for when I am weak, it is then I become strong.....

In Matthew, Christ did not say "Ask and you shall receive exactly as you wish, including color, model number, and price". He said "Ask and you shall receive". He made no mention or reverence at all regarding what "you shall receive".

Sorry. That's just the way it works. The moral of that story is, be careful what you ask for (as if you shouldn't have known that already, if you petition government).

Christ also said in Matthew Chapter 7, "Knock, and it will be opened unto you".

If you don't knock at His door, His revelation won't be opened unto you. You may be doomed to misinterpretation forever.

But, of course, if you reject Him altogether, that isn't much of a problem for you, is it?

We've already established that personal testimony means little or nothing.

You've established for your own satisfaction that testimony means little or nothing. That is not the case for me, especially when testimony is all that is offered or possible for a particular question.

What else do you have?

Nothing that you will accept.

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
How do you know the wife isn't going to get immediately distraught and suicidal with guilt after watching her husband blow his brains out, and then repeat the process on herself?

How do you know that she is? How does her husband, the speaker, know that she is?

All depends on who's telling the story, isn't it?

It can be a joke, or it can be a sad, sad story.

Evidence? Lots. That's not how people tend to behave.

You call that statement "evidence"? And you call evidence of God "weak"?

Dcdrac

22nd June 2006, 12:45 PM

Evidence for God....ranges from the extremely weak to the non existant.

drkitten

22nd June 2006, 12:46 PM

You've established for your own satisfaction that testimony means little or nothing. That is not the case for me, especially when testimony is all that is offered or possible for a particular question.

Then you're a fool. Because the unreliability of testimony is well-understood and independently confirmed. As I implied earlier, the psychology literature is rife with examples of people demonstrably testifying falsely and in perfect confidence.

If testimony -- especially unreliable testimony -- is all that is offered or possible for a particular question, then a proper treatment of evidence would be to conclude that the question is unanswerable. This happens all the time in the legal profession; if a particular piece of evidence is not of sufficiently reliable quality, it's thrown own. If as a result of throwing out the unreliable evidence, nothing is left, then the case is simply dismissed.

One of the basic problems is that you, like many Christians, seem unable to "properly" evaluate testimony for reliability. In particular, you seemed to have a problem with my "testimony" in the post to which you responded:

Yes, testimony is problematic. I include yours.

I don't know what you found problematic about my testimony -- to the best of my knowledge, I made no statements that were not independently verifiable from third-party sources. In this sense, I'm not providing testimony as much as I am reportage....

infornography

22nd June 2006, 12:53 PM

The classic formulation is that science enables us to understand how to build an atom bomb, and religion enables us to understand why it may be wrong to use one.
...
Likewise, love is not simply a social onstruct. It is real, regardless of what we might wish it to be and what we might decide it to be. It is something we are able to experience, and which through experiencing in our lives we are able to observe and come to understand better. That's an example of religion.

These are poor examples. Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics and morality. There are strong societal reasons for having a solid sense of ethics and morality. If people were to go around murdering eachother then noone would have a sense of security which leads to high stress levels and a plethora of other problems. This is more of a sociology issue than a religious one.

Similarly religion does not have a monopoly on an understanding of love. In fact I would say this is more psychology's department than religion's.

Largely I agree with what you say, but these statements really strike me as... wrong.

Give me a prediction that the macroevolutionary theory makes. You know, how they question Nostradamus stuff. After it happens, you say that it was predicted. So make a prediction then. Place it in a particular point in time. When that time comes, we'll see about the prediction.
...
Oh, well this is not what I was thinking about. I was thinking about events happening in the future, as opposed to things that already exist. Meaning, those fossils have been there for a long, long time. Those fossils didn't just come into being five years after the day they started to look for them. They were already there.

-Elliot

You sir are looking for a prophecy not a prediction. A prediction in a scientific sense is more along the lines of the examples already provided. Here is one for you. I wish I remember who ran the experiment but some researchers in California raised a whole bunch of fruit flies in a container that was very wide but just barely tall enough for them to walk around. They hypothosized that the wings of these fruit flies would be bred into at least vistigial organs or at most completely gone.

They let them breed and reproduce, but since fruit flies use their wings in their mating rituals, the ones with shorter wings were the more successful at mating.

Eventually they developed such short wings that the mating rituals no longer used them and they were a hinderance so wings were completely bred off of them.

Fruit flies with no wings. Just as the microevolutionary prediction predicted. Now the goal of this excercise was a hope that they could release these flightless fruit flies into the world and cause problems for the existing fruit fly population. I do not know how or if they successfully tracked the effects of this, but that was the goal.

I am ready to attack, not insult, anyone who turns out to adhere to religious doctrine that threatens my way of life. I limit my "insults" to flippant comments made behind their back, and that is only to spark emotion so my posts get replied to (snicker). I will never resort to name-calling or any other kind of purposeful insults when dealing with someone directly.

So it doesn't qualify as an insult if it is flippant and done behind someone's back huh? Negative attention is better than no attention? You think like my cat apparently.

drkitten

22nd June 2006, 12:54 PM

You call that statement "evidence"?

No, I call that a summary statement. (More specifically, it's an expert opinion, as defined in the US by FRE Article VII and in UK Law by CPR Part 35.)

If you actually wanted "evidence" about the realism or lack thereof of a self-acknowledged and rather weak joke, I could provide it. I've got great stacks of psychological studies that have been done over the past century about the causes of suicide and depression. I doubt you would want to read that report, and I know I don't particularly want to write it. But on a question of sufficient importance, I could and would provide evidence.

And you call evidence of God "weak"?

Well, from what you've presented so far, I call it "non-existent." I'll let you know when you achieve the lofty heights of "weak."

I less than three logic

22nd June 2006, 01:43 PM

Okay; let me think............................................. ........

After thinking about it, I'd have to say that I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Better?

When I think, I ponder, consider, and reason. When I believe, I have reached a decision to accept that reasoning (to various extents), even though it is not proven to me.

Had you asked me that question, I would have given you a simple yes or no.
Now you’re just being intentionally thick headed just to argue. Yes, like many words, think and believe have many meanings, and one meaning for both of them happens to be the same.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/believe
intransitive senses
1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3 : to hold an opinion : THINK <I believe so>
So now that we’ve established that they are in fact the same question, perhaps you can give me that yes or no answer.

No verifiable evidence, but there are the biblical references of such, as well as other religious references of such.
No verifiable evidence. You could have stopped there; the rest of that sentence is irrelevant. Biblical references and other religious references are not evidence.

Since you "have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence", you must clearly have some evidence of the existence of this "non-existent state".

What would that evidence consist of.
This one is just simple logic, again I think (believe) you’re just being intentionally obtuse just to argue. If something doesn’t exist, then it is in a non-existent state.

I don't know.

Do you?
There you go again changing the words I used, and this time I used believe and not think. Odd how you changed both think and believe into know, yet insist they don’t have similar meanings, isn’t it? Do you believe, think, have an opinion on whether or not something, anything at all, doesn’t exist?

You must certainly have some evidence that "you wouldn’t experience oblivion". Can you share it with us?
Yes, good catch. That was a poor choice of words on my part, since non-existence isn’t exactly what is implied by the word oblivion. However, I was originally talking about non-existence when elliotfc described what I said as oblivion. I took this to have the same meaning when I wrote the reply. If you didn’t exist, this includes the idea of no soul, nothing of you existed, how could you experience anything?

Well, I can accept "I simply stopped experiencing" during surgery, or even during other experiences (?) in life. However, you were still alive and in physical form.

How do you know what occurs after physical death, and if "oblivion" or "non-experience" applies?
I don’t know, stop using that word. I never implied its uses in any of my statements. It is just the most logical conclusion. I have no evidence of a soul or an afterlife; I do have evidence that when my brain stops functioning I stop experiencing. There is evidence my brain will quit functioning when I die; therefore I have reason to believe I’ll stop experiencing when I die.

An eternity of "non-experience" or "oblivion" is more reassuring?
You mean more reassuring than the idea of existing within nothingness, absolutely. Perhaps you are unable to comprehend the concept of non-existence, and thus, it is indistinguishable from existence within nothingness to you. I attempted to illustrate the concept with the anesthesia analogy, non-existence isn’t forever in darkness, it is just not experiencing anymore.

You can choose?

How do you know?
Choose what, know what?

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 01:50 PM

So, you want to "re-educate" them, or proselytize to them regarding the magnificence and righteousness of "logical thought"?

No, I simply want them to have to live according to their ideas. As I see it, most of the current problems in the world stem from the religious using what science and rational thought have developed, without admitting to themselves that they are using it. How many Christians, having been saved from death via modern medicine, will proclaim "god had nothing to do with that, it was all human ingenuity?"

You want to "segregate irrational people that believe in nonsensical dogma with rational people that believe in the power of logical thought" so that those who are doing that nasty believing stuff get "straightened out", yet you "vehemently proclaim my intolerance of the purposefully irrational people who purposefully interfere with my life"?

Yes, because by segregation I just mean that if someone wants to reap the benefits of science they must admit that they are doing so.

infornography

22nd June 2006, 02:00 PM

Asking for proof from a rational Christian (yes there is such a thing) for the existance of god or even what may constitute proof to them of the nonexistance of god is ultimately a waste of time.

I would wager that the majority of Christians on these forums are of the rational variety and therefore are unlikely to attempt any serious proof of the existance of their diety as such proof does not exist. Similarly proof against the existance of a god does not exist. There is quite frankly insufficient evidence.

Any who say that they were a devout Christian and no logner are, would you have been able to spell out exactly what would have made you disbelieve god before you actually did so? If so you are a rare breed.

What it comes down to is faith vs circumstantial evidence. Which do you trust more? You cannot reasonably compare the two because they are completely different approaches to the question.

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 02:01 PM

Including, for example, those who dislike faith in God, participate in an internet forum discussing the foolishness of faith in God, and who discuss how faith in God could be done away with by re-educating them?

Yes, that is why I admitted that I have only a few types in mind when I say "religion." And just so you know, I doubt anyone on this forum (at least, anyone intelligent) will argue with you that faith in god is foolish. They will, however, argue with you, for example, that believing the god you have faith in is omniscient, omnipresent, male-gendered, omnibenevolent, had a son who died for everyone's sins, gave moses some stone tablets, caused a massive flood, and a whole lot of other such junk, is either foolish or extremely selfish.

Funny; every time I do so on this forum, generalizing about skeptics who dislike "organized religion", I get pounced on like a mouse in a house full of cats...................

But that is because you generalize that everyone here dislikes organized religion. I am simply generalizing that someone who calls themself a member of an organized religion will adhere to its doctrine. In other words, if you are a Christian, you will adhere to Christian doctrine. If one wishes to consider themselves a christian and not adhere to the doctrine, then something is off somewhere -- they either are not a christian or the doctrine of everyone else is wrong.

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 02:03 PM

Because rationality has nothing to do with physical lifespan.

Don't you perhaps mean "rationality has nothing to do with physical lifespan as long as there are rational people willing to take pity on the irrational and help them out?"

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 02:08 PM

So it doesn't qualify as an insult if it is flippant and done behind someone's back huh? Negative attention is better than no attention? You think like my cat apparently.

Actually, according to most definitions of "insult," no. Someone can be "be insulted" by something I say regardless, but the only way I can "insult" them is in a communication with their person.

Nova Land

22nd June 2006, 02:25 PM

These are poor examples. Religion does not have a monopoly on ethics and morality.Nor does astronomy have a monopoly on the study of stars. Nevertheless, astronomy is a useful thing to have.

I have not said that religion has a monopoly on ethics and morality, nor have I said that religious people have a monopoly on these things. What I have said is that religion -- an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality -- is a useful thing to have.

There are strong societal reasons for having a solid sense of ethics and morality. If people were to go around murdering each other then no one would have a sense of security which leads to high stress levels and a plethora of other problems.
Yes. Likewise, there are practical reasons why the existence of gravity is useful. If we didn't have gravity, life in virtually every society which has existed on this planet would be very difficult. Nevertheless I do not believe that gravity is a social construct.

Nor do I believe that my aversion to inflicting unnecessary harm on others is simply a social construct. I believe it is wrong to do so, and I believe that most people know in their hearts (or whatever metaphoric expression you prefer) that it is wrong.

Yes, if we all went around murdering each other or raping each other or robbing from each other, whenever we thought we could get away with it, we would live in a stress-filled society with little real security. But that is not the reason I refrain from such behavior.

Is that the reason you refrain from doing these things? I haven't met you, but I suspect it is not. I have met many people in my life, and I have yet to meet anyone for whom that turned out to be the reason. So what you have presented is an interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to match reality.

ReFLeX

22nd June 2006, 03:16 PM

That is because they are delusional and lack the ability to think critically about themselves.
Evidently you missed my point. Starting off a conversation with the essential message, "You're wrong," will just end in "No, you're wrong." "No, YOU..." and rational discourse will be over before it starts.

Please tell me where I have ever resorted to namecalling. Here is a hint: you will not find any instances.You know what, no. I won't bother going through what constitutes "namecalling" or "insults" because that would be going beyond childish. If you can label a pleasant, well-meaning celebrity a "religious tool" without believing you've called someone a name, then I won't waste my time on that sub-argument.

Perhaps we are not communicating fully. When I say "religious" I mean "adherents to the doctrine of one of the popular organized religions." I do not mean anyone else, although I suppose the actual definition of "religious" could be interpreted to mean just about anyone with a cause.Yes, that is what I mean, also. I don't know if you've noticed, but they comprise as much as 90% of the world's population, and as such, are just as varied in their beliefs and values as the non-religious. Most Christians I know are hardly what you'd call committed to their religion. A lot of them wouldn't readily admit it but they don't have religion as that great a priority. For example, I seriously doubt you would find religion has as much effect as geography does on people's ethics. That is partly because many religions are very old and core values can differ greatly even across the same religion.
So, by definition (at least, my definition), if one adheres to a doctrine, then generalizing that they will adhere to that doctrine is a pretty safe bet.Actually, upon reading this sentence, maybe you will have to clarify what you mean by "adhere". Because most of your comments on the religious seem to apply to fundamentalists rather than the religious as a whole.

ReFLeX

22nd June 2006, 03:34 PM

Is that the reason you refrain from doing these things? I haven't met you, but I suspect it is not. I have met many people in my life, and I have yet to meet anyone for whom that turned out to be the reason. So what you have presented is an interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to match reality.
Actually, few people you will meet will be completely aware of why they act ethically. Cognition only plays one part in the motivation of many social/moral behaviours. That fact is a major problem with logical arguments about ethics, and a large reason many people don't understand the objective of philosophy. As in, "I don't need to study Bentham to know that I shouldn't punch strangers in the face."

ReFLeX

22nd June 2006, 03:37 PM

This could extend to religion of course. If there is no life after death, there goes what the model says.Ah, ok, and how will we go about verifying the afterlife? It remains tautologous.
With a tautology for a model (Whatever happens, it's God's will), no matter what Transpires there would be no reason to discard that model.Then why do people *in fact* discard the model?Aha, just like I said in the above post. Logical arguments actually have terrible persuasive power for issues that are so emotionally involved, like religion and ethics. I suspect many more people have been deconverted by personal tragedy than by other atheists, and I dislike that as much as you do. But humans are not purely logical animals, and that's not something we can fix.
Of course I only know what I read in the posts. If I'm wrong...well...if I make a self-esteem assertion that is INCORRECT, then the person's self-esteem is such that it won't be shaken by my assertion.You don't think it's a problem how unconcerned you are about having your assertions actually be correct?

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You've established for your own satisfaction that testimony means little or nothing. That is not the case for me, especially when testimony is all that is offered or possible for a particular question.

Then you're a fool.....

I suppose that was an eventuality. Now when I respond in kind, I'll be the a**hole, right? I'll be the intolerant one, right? I'll be the "woo", huh?

...Because the unreliability of testimony is well-understood and independently confirmed. As I implied earlier, the psychology literature is rife with examples of people demonstrably testifying falsely and in perfect confidence....

You think I don't know this?

...If testimony -- especially unreliable testimony -- is all that is offered or possible for a particular question, then a proper treatment of evidence would be to conclude that the question is unanswerable....

How is this different than what I repeatedly wrote?:

I don't know. I can only believe, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. That's why I'm forced to believe or disbelieve.

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

The question is unanswerable. You must either believe or disbelieve. I choose to believe, and you appear to disbelieve.

Period.

This happens all the time in the legal profession; if a particular piece of evidence is not of sufficiently reliable quality, it's thrown own. If as a result of throwing out the unreliable evidence, nothing is left, then the case is simply dismissed.

And does that mean that the crime never occurred, counselor?

One of the basic problems is that you, like many Christians, seem unable to "properly" evaluate testimony for reliability. In particular, you seemed to have a problem with my "testimony" in the post to which you responded:

Yes, testimony is problematic. I include yours.

I don't know what you found problematic about my testimony -- to the best of my knowledge, I made no statements that were not independently verifiable from third-party sources.

Classic. The sages of the ages (if they are religious) are all wrong, but I should believe anti-religious skeptics.

...In this sense, I'm not providing testimony as much as I am reportage....

Ummmmmmmmmm............reporting is testimony.

Huntster

22nd June 2006, 04:48 PM

....So now that we’ve established that they are in fact the same question, perhaps you can give me that yes or no answer.....

Unbelievable (as opposed to the believability of God).

From the beginning; I assume this is the original question:

Darkness, nothingness, loneliness; is that really what you think non-existence would be like?

If so, here is my answer:

I don't know. I can only believe or disbelieve, because (since I'm not physically dead yet), I have no way to know otherwise. I don't even know what "non-existence" is or could be.

No verifiable evidence, but there are the biblical references of such, as well as other religious references of such.

No verifiable evidence. You could have stopped there; the rest of that sentence is irrelevant. Biblical references and other religious references are not evidence.

That game again?

No thanks. No merry-go-round rides involving the definition of English words with me anymore. If you can't read and understand the dictionary, that's not my problem, and I really don't give much of a damn if you "get it" or not.

Since you "have this tendency not to put belief into things for which have no evidence", you must clearly have some evidence of the existence of this "non-existent state".

What would that evidence consist of.

This one is just simple logic...

Logic is a simple opinion reached through reasoning. You have no physical evidence?

Originally Posted by Huntster :
You must certainly have some evidence that "you wouldn’t experience oblivion". Can you share it with us?

....If you didn’t exist, this includes the idea of no soul, nothing of you existed, how could you experience anything?[/QUOTE]

I don't know. This is "new ground" for me. I have no idea what you're talking about. That's why I'm asking questions.

Well, I can accept "I simply stopped experiencing" during surgery, or even during other experiences (?) in life. However, you were still alive and in physical form.

How do you know what occurs after physical death, and if "oblivion" or "non-experience" applies?

I don’t know...

Interesting. You've finally admitted that you "don't know".

We're making headway................

...It is just the most logical conclusion. I have no evidence of a soul or an afterlife...

You have the evidence, or at least access to the evidence. You have just chosen to reject it.

I do have evidence that when my brain stops functioning I stop experiencing.

And where is that evidence? There is ample evidence otherwise from others.

There is evidence my brain will quit functioning when I die; therefore I have reason to believe I’ll stop experiencing when I die.

Hey! You believe? I'm getting hopeful here!

I less than three logic

22nd June 2006, 06:10 PM

You act like you’re defending something when I’m not attempting to argue against your beliefs in anyway. I’m only attempting to illustrate an idea.

If you were incorrect in your beliefs, then what would happen after death? You said the only thing that could convince you was “Death, then darkness”. However, that cannot convince you if you no longer exist. If you do not have a soul, if your consciousness ends when you die, how can you be convinced of anything when nothing about you exists to be convinced?

Hope you don’t mind me barrowing your format of taking other’s statements out of the context of the rest of what they said.
I don't even know what "non-existence" is or could be.
I don't know. This is "new ground" for me. I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you are unable to comprehend such an idea, then that can only be attributed to your failed ability and no one else’s. I’m not attempting to say this is the case, or that I know any of this is correct; I’m only drawing out the logical conclusion if that is the case. If you didn’t have a soul, if your consciousness ends when you die and there is no afterlife, do you really think (not know, but have the opinion, believe, or suppose) it would be like experiencing an eternity of darkness with nothing everywhere? As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” Keep that in mind when you make your answer, you don’t have to accept it, but at least entertain the idea.

Oh, and one more thing about your post.
Logic is a simple opinion reached through reasoning. You have no physical evidence?
You can’t have physical evidence about something that doesn’t exist. Now stop dodging my original question. Do you think (not know, but have the opinion, believe, or suppose) that there is absolutely nothing that doesn’t exist?

infornography

22nd June 2006, 07:01 PM

Nor does astronomy have a monopoly on the study of stars. Nevertheless, astronomy is a useful thing to have.

I have not said that religion has a monopoly on ethics and morality, nor have I said that religious people have a monopoly on these things. What I have said is that religion -- an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality -- is a useful thing to have.

Perhaps I missed something but I never thought of religion as an organized system for looking at metaphysical reality. Its more of a dogmatic system for stating a believed metaphysical reality. It doesn't really have anything in place for organizing or considering possibilities.

If you know of such a system please enlighten me... I know that sounds sarcastic but I don't mean it as such. I am genuinely curious now.

I can see how philosophies often grouped with religions sometimes have something that might fit that description. I'm mainly thinking about Taoism at this point. I've never really felt comfortable classifying it as a religion. But even Taoism is less of an organized system and more of a state of mind.

Perhaps you meant more of a framework to fit concepts into. For instance looking at why God would give us love or ethics and look at what he intended for us through their use. As far as true anaysis of those concepts, psychology and sociology would serve us much better I would think.

Yes. Likewise, there are practical reasons why the existence of gravity is useful. If we didn't have gravity, life in virtually every society which has existed on this planet would be very difficult. Nevertheless I do not believe that gravity is a social construct.

Apples and oranges. This comparison is silly. Gravity is a phenomenon that happens outside of human perception. It would happen without lifeforms. Love and ethics are concepts that cannot happen without them being percieved by an intelligence.

Nor do I believe that my aversion to inflicting unnecessary harm on others is simply a social construct. I believe it is wrong to do so, and I believe that most people know in their hearts (or whatever metaphoric expression you prefer) that it is wrong.

Yes, if we all went around murdering each other or raping each other or robbing from each other, whenever we thought we could get away with it, we would live in a stress-filled society with little real security. But that is not the reason I refrain from such behavior.

Is that the reason you refrain from doing these things? I haven't met you, but I suspect it is not. I have met many people in my life, and I have yet to meet anyone for whom that turned out to be the reason. So what you have presented is an interesting theory, but it doesn't seem to match reality.

I have often questioned my motivations for ethical behavior. Every time I do I come to the conclusion that ethics are beneficial for many social reasons. They were instilled in me either by parental/societal forces or by instinct. Which is the primary source, I could not say, but I suspect it to be a combination of the two.

In my questioning of my own behaviors and beliefs I try to analyze everything impartially and I have decided that I need to retain my ethical programming (for lack of a better term) and not attempt to dispell it since if I were to behave in an unethical manner, then I would lose several societal advantages I currently have such as the trust of my employer and coworkers, the trust of my family and friends, etc. trust is a very powerful tool that ethical behavior affords me and I value it more than I do any theoretical gain from forgoing such behaviors.

As to why I originally behaved ethically, as I said I imagine that was a combination of nature and nurture that instilled a sense of "right and wrong".

trvlr2

22nd June 2006, 07:22 PM

Yes, that is why I admitted that I have only a few types in mind when I say "religion." And just so you know, I doubt anyone on this forum (at least, anyone intelligent) will argue with you that faith in god is foolish. They will, however, argue with you, for example, that believing the god you have faith in is omniscient, omnipresent, male-gendered, omnibenevolent, had a son who died for everyone's sins, gave moses some stone tablets, caused a massive flood, and a whole lot of other such junk, is either foolish or extremely selfish.

But that is because you generalize that everyone here dislikes organized religion. I am simply generalizing that someone who calls themself a member of an organized religion will adhere to its doctrine. In other words, if you are a Christian, you will adhere to Christian doctrine. If one wishes to consider themselves a christian and not adhere to the doctrine, then something is off somewhere -- they either are not a christian or the doctrine of everyone else is wrong.

Exactly. So, Huntster, mind explaining which parts biblical you actually believe,and to which xtian tenets you actually adhere ?

infornography

22nd June 2006, 07:31 PM

Exactly. So, Huntster, mind explaining which parts biblical you actually believe,and to which xtian tenets you actually adhere ?
Oh for the love of.... be fair now.

Anyone who has read a well annotated version of the bible should be well aware of exactly how vague a lot of the passages really are. There are probably as many interpretations as there are Christians to interpret it. To say that one man is less of a Christian because he does not believe exactly the same as Jerry Falwel is just insulting to the individual and to Christianity as a whole.

rocketdodger

22nd June 2006, 08:23 PM

You know what, no. I won't bother going through what constitutes "namecalling" or "insults" because that would be going beyond childish. If you can label a pleasant, well-meaning celebrity a "religious tool" without believing you've called someone a name, then I won't waste my time on that sub-argument.

But when I say "religious tool" I mean exactly that -- an instrument used by organized religion the organism to further its ends. This seems very different from something like "yo mamma stinks" or something along those lines.

Because most of your comments on the religious seem to apply to fundamentalists rather than the religious as a whole.

My comments apply exactly to people who believe and follow certain doctrine. If they think they are christian yet do not follow such doctrine, then they should be able to ignore my comments. I would not be insulted by foreigners who generalize about "Americans" if their comments do not apply to myself, even though I am also an American.

ReFLeX

22nd June 2006, 09:01 PM

My comments apply exactly to people who believe and follow certain doctrine. If they think they are christian yet do not follow such doctrine, then they should be able to ignore my comments. I would not be insulted by foreigners who generalize about "Americans" if their comments do not apply to myself, even though I am also an American.
I don't think you can show which doctrines specifically make someone a Christian. There is no Big Book of Christianity, there is only a fragmented scripture that isn't simple enough for you to pretend all Christians believe the same things. I also think you may be stretching with that last sentence... it is only natural to want to defend groups one belongs to. If it's true you have such thick skin, then you should definitely take note that hardly anybody else does, and consider your words accordingly. People who self-identify as Christians but take issue with a lot of the bible are still going to be offended when you explain to them how Christians are tools, no matter what explanation you offer. And, I would argue, for good reason.

infornography

22nd June 2006, 09:15 PM

Actually, as an american I have gotten used to the American bashing. Largely because it was not my choice to be an American so therefore I do not identify myself as such.

Insulting someone's religion is a lot more personal than insulting their nationality since it is a choice, a decision to believe in that faith.

Similarly if someone identifies themselves as belonging to a particular political party, an attack on that party is percieved as an attack on all of its members, but an attack on a specific member is not generally percieved as an attack on the party as a whole with occasional exceptions.

trvlr2

22nd June 2006, 09:37 PM

Oh for the love of.... be fair now.

Anyone who has read a well annotated version of the bible should be well aware of exactly how vague a lot of the passages really are. There are probably as many interpretations as there are Christians to interpret it. To say that one man is less of a Christian because he does not believe exactly the same as Jerry Falwel is just insulting to the individual and to Christianity as a whole.

Well, "Christianity as a whole" must have Some consistent beliefs,no? I was just curious. Perhaps you, infonog. , can tell me of yours, as you couldn't speak for H.
And, I never said that not being like Falwell was anything at all. I didn't say anything about who is more or less a xtian.
So-start by telling me about "Christianity as a whole", and where YOU fit in.

infornography

22nd June 2006, 10:03 PM

Well, "Christianity as a whole" must have Some consistent beliefs,no? I was just curious. Perhaps you, infonog. , can tell me of yours, as you couldn't speak for H.
And, I never said that not being like Falwell was anything at all. I didn't say anything about who is more or less a xtian.
So-start by telling me about "Christianity as a whole", and where YOU fit in.

Over to the left somewhere.

I am not a Christian of any variety, but I am a low level biblical scholar. I have known christians who run the gammut of belief from the literalist to the minimalist, from the KJV authoritarian to the original text elitist, from the extreme bigot to the extremely tolerant. And I realize you did not mention Falwell, but I did in order to make a point.

I have seen convincing arguments for the belief that hell exists as a physical location and Satan is lord of that domain as well as arguments for the idea that hell is simply a detachment from the love of God and there is no such thing as Satan. Even a very good interpretation that indicated that Hell is a combination of a spiritual place in every man's heart and that Satan roams the earth by causing people to listen to that part of their hearts.

About the only thing I can think of that I have never seen Christians disagree on is that Christ is in some way divine and that he died to in some way prevent us from being punished for our inevitable sins.

trvlr2

22nd June 2006, 10:21 PM

by Infornography
Over to the left somewhere.

I am not a Christian of any variety, but I am a low level biblical scholar. I have known christians who run the gammut of belief from the literalist to the minimalist, from the KJV authoritarian to the original text elitist, from the extreme bigot to the extremely tolerant. And I realize you did not mention Falwell, but I did in order to make a point.

I have seen convincing arguments for the belief that hell exists as a physical location and Satan is lord of that domain as well as arguments for the idea that hell is simply a detachment from the love of God and there is no such thing as Satan. Even a very good interpretation that indicated that Hell is a combination of a spiritual place in every man's heart and that Satan roams the earth by causing people to listen to that part of their hearts.

About the only thing I can think of that I have never seen Christians disagree on is that Christ is in some way divine and that he died to in some way prevent us from being punished for our inevitable sins.
Today 12:37 AM

Why study the bible if you're not a christian?
You have already indicated that it is rather murky reading If it were the true 'word of god' it would be clear, no? And not need "interpreting".
Does your statement about christ being in some way divine imply that xtians DISAGREE on exactly how he is/was supposed to be divine?
How do you get that sin is inevitable And that you should be punished?

infornography

22nd June 2006, 10:35 PM

Why study the bible if you're not a christian?

Partially because many things in entertainment media reference the bible in obscure ways and I always find it fun to identify them... not sure why that is so much fun, but it really is.

Also partially so I can better understand the faithful and their beliefs. I find it fascinating from a psychological standpoint as well as a philosphical one.

You have already indicated that it is rather murky reading If it were the true 'word of god' it would be clear, no? And not need "interpreting".

That would depend on the intent of the message. I find I can learn a lot about a person by how they interpret the Bible as a believer. What ideas they latch on to and what ideas they read differently. It could also be argued that mankind has done a poor job of translating it, then retranslating it, then reretranslating it until it is a jumbled mess. All depends on how you look at it. Some people think it is perfectly clear and in need of no interpretation at all... those people scare me.

Does your statement about christ being in some way divine imply that xtians DISAGREE on exactly how he is/was supposed to be divine?

Some say he is God incarnate, some say he is a seperate intelligence from God but very closely connected, possibly that Jesus is a part of the soul of God, some say that he would have been born normal if not for being infused with the will of god as a fetus and that by virgin they meant honest (some obscure double meaning of the word in the original language).

How do you get that sin is inevitable And that you should be punished?

If you look at what is generally considered to qualify as sins, then it is hard to imagine a human being who has never and will never sin short of a stillborn child. As I said before, hell can be interpreted as simply a detachment from god and the punishment could be as simple as existing seperate from the creator, which many would not consider a punishment at all.

Dr Adequate

23rd June 2006, 03:50 AM

Why study the bible if you're not a christian? Why be a non-Christian without studying the Bible?

atari24

23rd June 2006, 07:16 AM

Why study the bible if you're not a christian?

Why study Greek mythology if you don't believe in Zeus?

Dcdrac

23rd June 2006, 08:41 AM

Why be a non-Christian without studying the Bible?

i have read the Bilbe, the Torah, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita nd some Bhuddist tracts.

I don't follow any of those religions, did out of wnating to know what they had to say and came away with my non beleif in any deity/deities confirmed.

Nova Land

23rd June 2006, 09:30 AM

Actually, few people you will meet will be completely aware of why they act ethically.
Yes, I very much agree.

That's why some theists hold what I think is a mistaken notion that people can behave morally only if they believe in god -- and why some atheists hold what I think is an equally mistaken notion that morality is simply a social construct.

It would be a very scary world if people tried live morally simply because they feared god's punishment, or if they lived morally simply because society expected it of them. Fortunately that is not the case. Both theists and atheists seem to me to be capable of knowing what is moral, and of trying to live accordingly -- despite sometimes holding silly notions about why people do.

Instead of coming up with fanciful theories about why other people do (or don't) live up to certain standards, I think a good starting point is asking ourselves, why do I live as I do? We can't read others people's minds. We can read our own, if we try. Not perfectly -- all perception, even self-perception, is imperfect. But it is through our imperfect perceptions, done as carefully and as honestly as we are able, and shared with others as carefully and honestly as we are able, that we -- as a community of living, thinking creatures -- gradually improve our understanding of the reality we live in (and possibly make it a better reality to live in).

For myself, I believe the reason I behave as I do is that in my heart I am able to tell that some choices of action are wrong to do in a given situation, and others are right. This is not absolutely wrong or absolutely right, any more than things I see are absolutely green or absolutely red. But it is a distinct, and real, perception.

I do not believe this is simply arbitrary choice or the result of social conditioning. My belief is that this is as real a sense as the sense of sight, or touch, or taste. I also believe that others have this same sense -- whether they believe in god or not, whether they believe that right and wrong are real or simply social constructs, whether they believe people are able to sense what is right and wrong or think people just follow an arbitraary set of laws they have created.