A big mistake: asking for proof to believe in God...

[Cleopatra]

This thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870039577#post1870039577) started by calladus, inspired me to start this new one because I didn't want to hijack the conversation there.

This mania of the atheists to ask for proofs regarding the existence of God, never seizes to amaze me. I think that in Philosophy there is nothing more irrelevant than asking for proofs in order to accept God.

Let me start with a statement as calladus did to his thread. Although since the day I was kicked off by the political party I was an active member,I try not to define myself with words that end in-ism, I'd say that the word fideism describes my attitude towards religious faith best.

I mean, that I recognize that atheists are probably right, there is no such a person that cures illnesses, performs "miracles"etc but I consider this persistence on providing proofs as irrelevant when the discussion is about God.

Needless to say that since I come from eastern Mediterranean-where the whole plot of Christianity was put on stage- I have nothing to do with fundamentalism, creationism et cetera crapola...

I believe in the symbolism of the Bible, a symbolism that was necessary to built up the Christian faith when it was created.

It seems to me that atheists forget two basic things when it comes to Christianity; time and geography.

We are talking about 2000 years ago, in the melting pot of Mediterranean, an era and am area with complicated social problems, mainly created by the "globalization" that was forced by the Roman Empire, where paganism and every kind of mysticism was on its climax, the only way for new a religion - as Christianity- to be accepted was to embrace and "re-negotiate" all the previous symbolisms that were related with the religious sentiment of people. Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...

The Bible didn't introduce ANYTHING new, on the contrary, it borrowed every existent symbol from earlier religions and with a new costume or a new garnish if you wish, it served it again to people.

The best example is the dogma of the Trinity.

In the forum of "Infidels" I spent ( and regret about it) much time to try to explain to people they refused to understand the History of the symbolism of the Trinity... They insist to take it as a fraud, "of course it is a symbol you stupid but you must understand first what it represents!!" but people seemed so absorbed by their atheism that they refused even to try to understand why Christianity HAD to adopt the dogma of Trinity and why it HAD TO ADOPT IT in the 3th century and why not in the 5th ce... Oh well...

The Trinity is not the only example of violation of "copyright material by the Christians" If you read ancient literature, you will find references to the Holly Christian Mysteries and you will have the feeling that Christians just copied and pasted them to the Bible.

So, it's irrelevant to ask for proofs for the existence of God.

The god of the Christians is not an historical figure ,regardless of what the Gospels claim. I remind you to think again of WHEN those Gospels they were written. If those Gospels were written today, none would dare to claim that a guy called Emanuel or Jesus was promenading in Jerusalem ordering blinds to see and dead people to rise...

Back then though it was totally acceptable to narrate such things.

The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity".

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

Do you want to know if God exists? All you have to do is to run your life in a specific way.

You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant? :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I don't ask for proof of god when god is taken on faith. But there are so many people these days who want to convince me that god exists objectively, even scientifically. Especially if they are trying to cram some god-originated natural laws down my throat. Then it's proof time.

~~ Paul

[Lord Kenneth]

When was ask for evidence of God's existence, we are not specifying the Christian god.

Also, if the bible is the divine word of God like it is supposed to be, then extra symbolism, told as truth and would effect humanity for thousands of years afterwards-- might not be necessary if God used a little of his magic tricks.

Also, it might not be necessary to borrow from other religions. Take scientology, for instance. For quite a wacky religion it appears quite original, and they have their reach all throughout the USA.

Also, if Christianity is just a patchwork quilt of other religion's claims, then why consider it? :confused:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant? :)

Am I to understand you feel the question of the existance of God is irrelevant?

Have you run this by any believers?

I will concede it is irrelevant to me. I'm an Atheist.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
We are talking about 2000 years ago, in the melting pot of Mediterranean, an era and am area with complicated social problems, mainly created by the "globalization" that was forced by the Roman Empire, where paganism and every kind of mysticism was on its climax, the only way for new a religion - as Christianity- to be accepted was to embrace and "re-negotiate" all the previous symbolisms that were related with the religious sentiment of people. Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...



I see, so since they had to lie to get their point across, it's okay?

So since they borrowed the lie from someone else it's okay?

I don't care if there's is proof of God or not. It's the lies I care about. People have to work to lie, and when they do it's for some reason or agenda. Which may or may not be good.

Yes, you're absolutely right, all this fabled crap that has been spun about virtually every major religiion is putting the lipstick on the pig, but it's all the same because humans are fallible. And as such they're greedy power hungry bastards who make up stories about all powerful men in the sky to support why you should obey them, or agree with them, or do what they need doing, or to hate somebody else.

Religion was never about God, it's about making Gods out of men. By claiming to be slightly closer to God than the next guy you insure that the worship (not to mention the money has to come through you.)

I'm not asking for proof of God, there is none.

I'm asking why I should possibly believe the lies.

Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...

I recognize no such thing.

I didn't think about God or religion until the first time I was brought to a synagogues. Three years later I figured, hey this is bunk, and that was the end of that.

I've never had a "religious feeling" of any kind, and as such I have never had to accept or reject it.

People might be born and make up reasons for the unexplained, or some of the more imponderable questions, and those reasons might be just as ridiculous as Christianity or Islam or any of it, but they do not necessarily have to be religious.


You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

Wrong.

There is no lifestyle that leads to god. All lifestyles lead to the same thing. A lifeless body decaying to it's component elements. Wether I choose to spend that life believing in God or not makes exactly the same amount of difference in my life on a practical level as choosing to believe in tinkerbell.

And for me, once again there is no acceptance or rejection involved. I grew up thinking as I do independant of God or religion.

[Phil]

And despite your interpretation of what Christianity is, most Christians believe in a controlling force, and not that God is simply a lifestyle. One would not pray to a lifestyle.

You haven't described the religion as it actually is. You've simply described what it means to be a decent person.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Cleopatra,

So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant?

Well, as an atheist I wouldn't ask somebody who defines God the way you do for proof, because you do not define God to be something that actually objectively exists, but rather an ideal.

But surely you must realize that most people don't define it that way? Most people who claim to believe in God really believe that God is some sort of sentient being who created the Universe, and interacts with it from time to time.

Atheism is not disbelief in anything that anybody arbitrarily decides to call "God". It is lack of belief in a personal God (meaning a sentient being which created the Universe). If you do not believe in such a thing, then you are an atheist too, regardless of the fact that you choose to use the word God to refer to your ideals.

Heck, I often refer to people who are really good at something as "gods", but that doesn't make me a Theist.


Dr. Stupid

[Yahweh]

Very well written, Cleopatra :).

Why does the atheist require proof? The (educated) atheist is always looking for ways to rationalize everything. The atheist doesnt accept "faith" as any means to justify or rationalize a belief (yes, that also includes atheism itself). Nothing wrong with being rational. Its the pursuit of knowledge, more to the point its the pursuit of understanding.

Of course, there is a philosophical principle that says "Religious beliefs dont have to be rational". This just drives me crazy. If that is the case, there is nothing that can be said to support belief or disbelief in religious claims. I've mentioned this "ambigouity principle" many times before. But you have to remember all religous beliefs are valid (just like all hypothesis, because a belief is really just a gussied up hypotheis), but it takes a little scrutiny to support a belief or decided against a belief. Its very hard to rationalize the irrational.

So why ask a believer to stake proof for his belief? Because it is the science of understanding. And if anything else, its probably best to provide a little evidence to support any belief, otherwise its just faith, and faith is irrational.

[Nyarlathotep]

Perhaps I am being dense but I fail to see why the fact that Christianity borrowed concepts from myriad other religions and wouldn't make the same claims as it does it it were invented today makes the act of asking for proof of God's irrevalent.

I can only assume that you mean that the fact that people have so many similar beliefs worldwide is somehow proof ina nd of itself. If that is what you are saying I reject it, not the least because it is simply an appeal to popularity and thus a logical fallacy. If it isn't what you are saying, then I don't know what you ARE saying. In that case, please enlighten me.

Overall, I find asking for proof of God's existance to be no more irrevalant than asking someone who wants me to sink my life savings into an investment, that the investment actually exists. Afte all why should I treat my loyalty, my time, my devotion and energy any more cavalierly than I would treat my money.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Heck, I often refer to people who are really good at something as "gods", but that doesn't make me a Theist.[/B]
Then there are others with megalomanic tendencies who really really want to be god... I cant think of anyone right now off the top of my head... :D

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity".

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

Do you want to know if God exists? All you have to do is to run your life in a specific way.

You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant? :) [/B]

I have never heard of Deity in the way you are using it.

And like most everything, different strokes for different folks. Some atheists may be manic about asking for proof or evidence for a god type being/s. That you think it irrelevant doesn't mean it is for everyone.

I can fully understand why some people would seek evidence for a claim, I do it all the time. I don't see how a god/s/whatever type claim would be any different.


Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...

well. . . how do you know this :) ? EVERY person EVER? What are you meaning by religious feeling, because I have been apathetic throughout my life in regard to religion.



I don't think I am following your point. You wrote about Christianity's forming, how other beliefs of people influenced the Christian religion, and then go on to speak about proof for God being irrelevant. It seems like a non sequitur to me, I don't follow your reasoning.

[Cleopatra]

I will reply to everyone. You, guys are fast!Let me take a breath :)

Paul agreed. When I meet people who try to explain the existence of God scientifically, I am just bringing to their attention that such a thing doesn't exist-- at least the way they present it. I actually use the arguments atheists use.

There is a Greek saying you might have heard : " This task is easier than robbing a church" for churches in Greek stay unlocked.

This is how I feel about fundamentalists for example.

Do not take me wrong but it's not such a big deal to debate those people :)


Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
When was ask for evidence of God's existence, we are not specifying the Christian god.

I know but since we live in Western societies where christianity dominates, we focus on the Christian God.

Also, if the bible is the divine word of God like it is supposed to be, then extra symbolism, told as truth and would effect humanity for thousands of years afterwards-- might not be necessary if God used a little of his magic tricks.

But God, doesn't exist as an individual who performs tricks and magic.

Also, it might not be necessary to borrow from other religions. Take scientology, for instance. For quite a wacky religion it appears quite original, and they have their reach all throughout the USA.

True. But what made Christianity so successful is that it followed an infallible path... religion is quite a primordial feeling, that sprung for the first time when humans faced Nature and they couldn't interpret it, think of the thunderbold or other phaenomena, prehistoric people have deified just because they couldn't understand them.

The power of Light for example, passed in every religion, it exists even in the Christian religion, we even have a Saint that is consider to symbolize the God of Light...

Also, if Christianity is just a patchwork quilt of other religion's claims, then why consider it? :confused:

Ha! You-- that spend so much time in debunking the existence of its founder --must tell me ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Andonyx
[B]

I see, so since they had to lie to get their point across, it's okay?

So since they borrowed the lie from someone else it's okay?

They didn't lie. As I said to Lord kenneth. At the dawn of civilization, people couldn't interpret the Natural Phaenomena and they attributed to them divine powers. Soon, some smarties in the group, noticed that this feeling of fear towards the unexplained was a good way to manipulate the masses... so as societies progressed, this feeling was worked out to meet the more advanced perceptions and minds.

Is it that religion is just the opium to the masses? In my opinion NO. This is not a satisfactory way to interpret deity but I will return to that later.

My point is that suggesting that religion is just a lie is an over-simplification. You cannot deny to somebody what he feels.

Shall I remind you of Protagoras who considered as true only what he found that fitted to his life?

Whether you like it or not, millions of people still have this need to believe in God and there are either stupid or illiterate.

Religion was never about God, it's about making Gods out of men. By claiming to be slightly closer to God than the next guy you insure that the worship (not to mention the money has to come through you.)

Simplistic again but I can see in within the frame of the historical-social "analysis" I did above.

I didn't think about God or religion until the first time I was brought to a synagogues. Three years later I figured, hey this is bunk, and that was the end of that.

As I said this feeling can be easily cultivated, also, I have observed that some people are more religious by nature...


People might be born and make up reasons for the unexplained

Apart from Religion none has ever arrived to give more satisfactory answers as to why we die...


There is no lifestyle that leads to god.

I don't know, I haven't decided yet to invest time and sentimental resources to find out but lifestyles can lead to jail...

I mean there is a logic to that, if a lifestyle can lead you to jail why another lifestyle can't lead you to God?

[Fade]

This mania of the atheists to ask for proofs regarding the existence of God, never seizes to amaze me. I think that in Philosophy there is nothing more irrelevant than asking for proofs in order to accept God.

Cleo, you are such a great poster, but I am amazed at how backwards your thinking is regarding this issue. Any statement about the fundamentals of existence itself demand evidence. The constant question of evidence simply serves to point out that theists, literally, have a meritless position.

I understand and accept that the majority of theists believe in god/spirits/whatever on the basis of faith alone, but that doesn't make them immune from questioning and prodding. Of course, I don't take it upon myself to ask every christian/jew/muslim/hindu I come across to show me the evidence that their belief system is correct, but I will continue to demand that evidence should they wish to maintain that what they are saying is objectively true.

It is absolutely impossible to remain intellectually honest without a litany of questions.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Phil
One would not pray to a lifestyle.

The habit of praying,for example, is a lifestyle

You haven't described the religion as it actually is. You've simply described what it means to be a decent person.

Maybe I haven't described religion the way most of you have experienced it :)

[arcticpenguin]

Cleopatra,

I am baffled by your argument. You seem to have some beef with atheists, and yet most of your post is a refutation of fundamentalism. Perhaps you are not one of them, but there actually do exist people who believe that the Bible is literal, verbatim truth. I have for instance, met someone who is a young earth creationist and is a graduate student in molecular biology. These people vote, and many of them want to enforce their religiously-derived opinions on the rest of us as law. Why wouldn't I fight that?

You say "But God, doesn't exist as an individual who performs tricks and magic.", and yet you can provide no evidence whatsoever that God exists in any form! Why should I accept half a lie?

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


They didn't lie. As I said to Lord kenneth. At the dawn of civilization, people couldn't interpret the Natural Phaenomena and they attributed to them divine powers. Soon, some smarties in the group, noticed that this feeling of fear towards the unexplained was a good way to manipulate the masses... so as societies progressed, this feeling was worked out to meet the more advanced perceptions and minds.


Sounds a lot like a lie to me.

Doesn't matter the reasons, "No that dress doesn't make you look fat," is still a lie.


Is it that religion is just the opium to the masses? In my opinion NO. This is not a satisfactory way to interpret deity but I will return to that later.

My point is that suggesting that religion is just a lie is an over-simplification. You cannot deny to somebody what he feels.


First there is a difference between "religion" and personal belief. If someone wants to believe in the Great Gazoo, that's stupid, but hey it may or may not be hurting anybody. If someone wants to believe that God ordains an entire priest class with an infallible human link at the top as his instrument on earth, who can condemn entire groups of people to hell, then that is religion, it's wrong and it's a lie.

And yes, I can deny to somebody what they feel. I know a guy form college who honestly feels he drives better after drinking. He's an idiot and he's wrong.


Shall I remind you of Protagoras who considered as true only what he found that fitted to his life? Remind me? You'd have to explain it to me fully, but if he only allowed what fitted into his life to be true, then he's missing some great stuff.

I don't know who your were depicting with that stament, but for me I'm allowing for anything, I'm just not believing without a reason to. And no, because it makes me feel good is not a reason, that's what chocolate, booze and cigarettes are for.


Whether you like it or not, millions of people still have this need to believe in God and there are either stupid or illiterate.


I'm assuming you meant to say they are not stupid or illiterate. And no, not all of them. But plenty.

As for the others we all have needs that can be temporarily assuaged by believing in the little lies, and sometimes the big ones. I can believe my hair has stopped thinning even tough my maternal grandfather is bald as a stone.

It won't change the fact that my hair is falling out.

Someone else who is perfectly intelligent can absolutely believe her husband really is working late all the time, and spending extra weekends in Houston to prepare for a big conference. But it won't change the fact that he's going to leave her in six months for his assistant that he's gotten pregnant.

Just because intelligent people do it, doesn't mean the act itself is smart.


As I said this feeling can be easily cultivated, also, I have observed that some people are more religious by nature...


So what.

Some people are serial killers by nature, some people are alcoholics by nature, and you can also easily cultivate fear, hatred, and violence and bigoty. We're easily capable of all these things, not all of them are noble or good, and I don't see how a "religious feeling" to use your squishy, vague, indefineable words, are a good thing.



Apart from Religion none has ever arrived to give more satisfactory answers as to why we die...

Really? Cell death due to accumulated genetic errors sounds good to me.

Since every single thing alive or not eventually decays, what I'd be really impressed with is religion explaining why things should live forever.



I mean there is a logic to that, if a lifestyle can lead you to jail why another lifestyle can't lead you to God?

I got one answer. Jail exists.

If you want to subsitutue some glurgy vague definition for living a good life with the word God, then fine. I think it's ridiculous. And don't expect Websters to be baging on your doorstep anytime soon. But why religion has anything to do with it at all is beyond me.

There are plenty of good people out there who are good because it's good, not because they had to make up some shaky untestable connection to a parent figure in heaven.

[LeFevre]

Cleopatra, what do you mean when you use the word God?

[Frostbite]

God = placebo

[Fun2BFree]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

Do you want to know if God exists? All you have to do is to run your life in a specific way.

You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant? :)

Wow everybody is okay with this? That moral code is based on reason- just like anything proves its worthiness, truthfullness, usefulness by reason--in other words by the proof of evidence---it is not based on Deity- belief in that deity succeeds because it achieves some level of control over men and society---Cleo has it all backwards...believers always want to redefine what is real or true to what THEY think is real or true---that is the first step --destroy and control what reality is then this allows control and power -which is what religion is all about and what has allowed it to flourish and be supported by the various powers that be throughout history....sorry Cleo but if you want to argue with reasoned arguements you must value reason as an important thing...so why should anything be valued above the power of reason???

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870039577#post1870039577) started by calladus, inspired me to start this new one because I didn't want to hijack the conversation there.

This mania of the atheists to ask for proofs regarding the existence of God, never seizes to amaze me. I think that in Philosophy there is nothing more irrelevant than asking for proofs in order to accept God.

Woow, slow down.. Mania of athiests? No need for high strung emotional statements :)

Philosophically I can entertain any number of ideas, including God but if I want to be logical and realistic I will need proof that those ideas exist.


Let me start with a statement as calladus did to his thread. Although since the day I was kicked off by the political party I was an active member,I try not to define myself with words that end in-ism, I'd say that the word fideism describes my attitude towards religious faith best.

I mean, that I recognize that atheists are probably right, there is no such a person that cures illnesses, performs "miracles"etc but I consider this persistence on providing proofs as irrelevant when the discussion is about God.

There seems to be a conflicting statement here.

You recognise that we're probably right? All we point out is that there is no evidence for God therefore there is no need to believe in it. How can we be probably right then? Either you have evidence for something or you don't. No evidence = no need to accept it.

Once again, you fail to show why proof as to existence of mystical entity is irrelevant?


Needless to say that since I come from eastern Mediterranean-where the whole plot of Christianity was put on stage- I have nothing to do with fundamentalism, creationism et cetera crapola...

Ok..


I believe in the symbolism of the Bible, a symbolism that was necessary to built up the Christian faith when it was created.

I know many christians who think the same way...


It seems to me that atheists forget two basic things when it comes to Christianity; time and geography.

We are talking about 2000 years ago, in the melting pot of Mediterranean, an era and am area with complicated social problems, mainly created by the "globalization" that was forced by the Roman Empire, where paganism and every kind of mysticism was on its climax, the only way for new a religion - as Christianity- to be accepted was to embrace and "re-negotiate" all the previous symbolisms that were related with the religious sentiment of people. Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...

The Bible didn't introduce ANYTHING new, on the contrary, it borrowed every existent symbol from earlier religions and with a new costume or a new garnish if you wish, it served it again to people.

The best example is the dogma of the Trinity.

In the forum of "Infidels" I spent ( and regret about it) much time to try to explain to people they refused to understand the History of the symbolism of the Trinity... They insist to take it as a fraud, "of course it is a symbol you stupid but you must understand first what it represents!!" but people seemed so absorbed by their atheism that they refused even to try to understand why Christianity HAD to adopt the dogma of Trinity and why it HAD TO ADOPT IT in the 3th century and why not in the 5th ce... Oh well...

The Trinity is not the only example of violation of "copyright material by the Christians" If you read ancient literature, you will find references to the Holly Christian Mysteries and you will have the feeling that Christians just copied and pasted them to the Bible.

So, it's irrelevant to ask for proofs for the existence of God.

Uhh, what? Your 'proof' has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Let me translate, you say, here, don't ask me to show you an apple because the peach tastes the way it does.

Your argument is not connected to the question. The roots of christianity are irrelevant when asking for proof of God's existence!! :mad:


The god of the Christians is not an historical figure ,regardless of what the Gospels claim. I remind you to think again of WHEN those Gospels they were written. If those Gospels were written today, none would dare to claim that a guy called Emanuel or Jesus was promenading in Jerusalem ordering blinds to see and dead people to rise...

Back then though it was totally acceptable to narrate such things.

The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity".

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

Do you want to know if God exists? All you have to do is to run your life in a specific way.

You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant? :)
And with that you destroyed your own argument. You're basically saying God isn't real, it's an idea, why ask for proof of it. Of course, if you say God is not real I won't ask you for proof of it.

There was no need for the diversions to history and what not, you should've just said - I don't believe in God as being anything more then a set of moral values, therefore God proof of God is not needed since God does not exist.

The problem with that argument is that it only applies to you. You might consider God to be nothing more then an idea but other people believe God to be more then that, therefore when they talk about existence of God, the burden of proof is upon them.

[Ladewig]

The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity".

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

I am a bit lost here for a few reasons. Can you be more specific as to what this "Chrisitian moral code" entails? I am not trying to be pedantic or funny. I can pull up a definition of a Humanist moral code that includes respect for all people, a commitment to the truth, recognizing property rights, a condemnation of sexism and other forms of bigotry, a condemnation of slavery, and a variety of other precepts. Does your Christian moral code extend beyond these basic human rights? If not, then isn't a bit insulting to tell Humanists that their lifestyle leads to God?



You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant?

I find more religious people going to atheists and trying to demonstrate their proofs of God than I do atheists going to religious people asking for proofs. As an atheist, I am not offended or bothered by people doing whatever they want on Sunday (or Saturday) morning. I have discovered a fair number of believers who are bothered by my not believing.

[Tez]

Cleopatra, it was an intriguing post.

Let me try and say something I've never really tried to express before - but I hope that if you accepted this viewpoint, you'd find the monochromatic demands by atheists for "evidence" a little less irritating.

Firstly, let me say it appears to me that you have mistakenly identified atheism with irreligiousness. Many atheists carry some form of religiosity with them in one way or another; many have a profound respect for the power of mythology in their own and other peoples' lives - just as you do. Such atheists do not demand evidence of these feelings/experiences, they simply accept them. Such atheists look at religion as a window through which to learn more about what it is to be human - what it is to feel a oneness with this awesome universe, and through which to understand mechanisms by which to strengthen and perpetuate this feeling.

I am such an atheist.

As such an atheist, I feel a burning desire to use the flicker of time in which consciousness is condensed into me, to try and understand this universe better. I try to leave behind my understanding in the hope it will impact on those who come after me. Do I belive that physics (and science) delves into some platonic unverse of absolute truths? Of course not - they are a part of the human experience; they are a human construct, a part of humanity's program to expand its frontiers of interaction with the universe. As with religion, they are a construct which sheds light into the human experience.

A crucial part of that construct is the realisation that "evidentiary thinking" is an extremely powerful equalizer. One which universalizes the human experience far more than any religion ever has. Evidentiary thinking distills those aspects of our interaction with the world which are universally human, from those which are specific to points in space, time or brain matter of particular individuals.

So, I feel its best to look at the atheist's demands for evidence as part of their quest for a universality of human understanding. Its a quest to find those aspects of our interaction with the world and each other which do not depend on the specifics of any particular indivdual's experience. The underlying conviction is that these things, and these things only, are useful for the human monkey to perpetuate indefinitely as their traditions and beliefs - a position open to question. The demand for evidence from atheists is not a demand directed at people like you. It is a demand from those (generally incapable of it) to distill from their beliefs those things which are universal. As a Pragmatist (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p7.htm#prgt) , it is those things, and only those things, that I personally can ever call truths.

[calladus]

Lovely Lady of the Nile, Your Majesty!

:th:

Seriously though - Wonderful post! Please excuse me while I see if I understand what you are saying -

Originally posted by Cleopatra

This mania of the atheists to ask for proofs regarding the existence of God, never seizes to amaze me. I think that in Philosophy there is nothing more irrelevant than asking for proofs in order to accept God.

Let me start with a statement as calladus did to his thread. Although since the day I was kicked off by the political party I was an active member,I try not to define myself with words that end in-ism, I'd say that the word fideism describes my attitude towards religious faith best.


(nodding) your beliefs are based on faith, not on truth.


I mean, that I recognize that atheists are probably right, there is no such a person that cures illnesses, performs "miracles"etc but I consider this persistence on providing proofs as irrelevant when the discussion is about God.

Needless to say that since I come from eastern Mediterranean-where the whole plot of Christianity was put on stage- I have nothing to do with fundamentalism, creationism et cetera crapola...

I believe in the symbolism of the Bible, a symbolism that was necessary to built up the Christian faith when it was created.

It seems to me that atheists forget two basic things when it comes to Christianity; time and geography.

We are talking about 2000 years ago, in the melting pot of Mediterranean, an era and am area with complicated social problems, mainly created by the "globalization" that was forced by the Roman Empire, where paganism and every kind of mysticism was on its climax, the only way for new a religion - as Christianity- to be accepted was to embrace and "re-negotiate" all the previous symbolisms that were related with the religious sentiment of people. Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...

The Bible didn't introduce ANYTHING new, on the contrary, it borrowed every existent symbol from earlier religions and with a new costume or a new garnish if you wish, it served it again to people.

The best example is the dogma of the Trinity.

I completely agree here - everything in the Christian religion is borrowed from older religious symbols - clear back to Beowulf and druidism, and even further!

In the forum of "Infidels" I spent ( and regret about it) much time to try to explain to people they refused to understand the History of the symbolism of the Trinity... They insist to take it as a fraud, "of course it is a symbol you stupid but you must understand first what it represents!!" but people seemed so absorbed by their atheism that they refused even to try to understand why Christianity HAD to adopt the dogma of Trinity and why it HAD TO ADOPT IT in the 3th century and why not in the 5th ce... Oh well...

The symbols themselves are not frauds - symbols are very important to humans. Christians had to adapt to prevailing symbols, such as fish on Fridays, or the birth of Jesus in midwinter so that they could convert the pagens to Christianity. It didn't bother the pagens as much to convert when all their old traditions and symbols stayed the same.

The Trinity is not the only example of violation of "copyright material by the Christians" If you read ancient literature, you will find references to the Holly Christian Mysteries and you will have the feeling that Christians just copied and pasted them to the Bible.

So, it's irrelevant to ask for proofs for the existence of God.

The god of the Christians is not an historical figure ,regardless of what the Gospels claim. I remind you to think again of WHEN those Gospels they were written. If those Gospels were written today, none would dare to claim that a guy called Emanuel or Jesus was promenading in Jerusalem ordering blinds to see and dead people to rise...

Again, I agree with you - the God of the bible was just an adaptation of earlier gods. You can even see some of that adaptation happening in the old testament. The god of the bible does not exist because the god concept was just stolen by Christians.

Back then though it was totally acceptable to narrate such things.

The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity".

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

Do you want to know if God exists? All you have to do is to run your life in a specific way.

You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.

This seems to be sort of like a "Richard Bach" concept to me - very like Bach's books, Jonathan Livingston Seagull (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380012863/qid=1060305244/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8186626-8214240?v=glance&s=books) or Illusions, (Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah) (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0440204887/qid=1060305260/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8186626-8214240?v=glance&s=books).

Bach suggests in his books that we are all deities, but just haven't realized it. More relevant to this issue, Bach sometimes suggests that we approach knowing perfection and god through our actions and our 'moral code' as you put it.

If Deity is just a result of a lifestyle that is dictated through a moral code, then I would have to assume more than one deity, because there is more than one moral code. (Yes, I realize that philosophy has 'proved' that there is a such thing as a universal ethic - unfornately philosophers have not been able to determine what that is, exactly, just yet.)

Therefore, I could use the lifestyle based on Christian morals to create a Christian deity, and Islamic morals to create an Allah deity - right?

Which leads me to ask - If I live my life according to my own moral code, I would be creating my own deity?

(Whoah! A few days ago I followed the link in Ruby's Thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23845) and discovered my Medieval Occupation was Bishop! Now I am creating my own Deity?! I'll have to call the religion Calladism! :D )


So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant? :)

Because I don't think it is irrelevant.

You see, if Christianity put it the way that you put it, something to the effect of, "Live your life in accordance to our moral code and you will know god by creating him." then I would be more tempted to join up again. But there are some problems with this.

First, I think that some of the 'Christian' moral code is bankrupt. It separates and divides people - it invites discrimination due to class, race, gender, wealth, and sexual preference. The Christian moral code treats people very much like property in many cases. I do not find it worth following.

Second, since there is more than one moral code on earth, we could have several concepts of God, which would again be divisive to the world's population. People would still war over their beliefs. The people of one religion would still think that they are better than the people of another religion.

Lastly, I think it is relevant to ask for proof of God because the religious population has asserted that there is a real, live being, a God that is immaterial, all powerful, all knowing and all good. Historically infidels have been (untill recently) killed for denying the existance of such a being. Today a nonbeliever is ridiculed and vilified by believers, leaders of churches, leaders of religious empires, and leaders of countries.

The only tool that a nonbeliever owns that can halt such venom in its tracks is one simple question, "Where is the proof?"

Prove it! Show me! Where IS the BEEF?

When a true believer finally gets tired of offering anecdotes, vague ancient texts, wild claims, and other woo-wooedness, he finally exclaims in frustration, "What kind of proof would satisfy you?!"

Hence the thread I started.

And yea, it's fun to consider what would make you believe in a real live God - but as it was pointed out, even if some of us DID believe in such a god, it does not mean that he would be worthy of our worship.

It is relevant to ask for proof of god as long as there is a religion that asserts that a real, live god exists.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Andonyx
I've never had a "religious feeling" of any kind, and as such I have never had to accept or reject it.

As a Christian, I often felt what I thought was a 'religious feeling' - a deep awe and wonder of an all powerful, all knowing being who knew me, and cherished me.

It was difficult, at first, to overcome this during my deconversion.

Then, one day, as a new nonbeliever I stumbled on Carl Sagan's explanation of how we are all made of 'Star-Stuff', and BAM! Awe and wonder! I was so happy! Michael Shermer, and a new science article firmed it up with an explanation of how the human brain is wired to feel this way. Wonderful! - awe and wonder is NORMAL in humans, it comes FROM US and shouldn't be attributed to some wonderful ghost.

[thaiboxerken]

If someone is going to use "God" to justify their actions, then hell yes, I think evidence and proof of "god" is relevant. If they want to teach creationism in public schools as science, then yes, evidence is relevant.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I have discovered a fair number of believers who are bothered by my not believing.

Man, I have to agree with that!
I have had Christians who are 'bothered' by my Atheism. One one occasion, when I said that I was a 'deconverted Christian' I had a spitting mad Christian who was LOUDLY bothered by my Atheism!

[Fun2BFree]

A recent national opinion poll found that 50% of people would not vote for an atheist candidate. This reflects a serious misunderstanding by believers about how believers and nonbelievers differ- just to be sure I believe a number of states specifically forbid atheists from holding public office (in direct contradiction of the US Constitution which very specifically bars any religious test for holding any public office or trust anywhere in the US.) The ones with the problem thinking about belief and God are the believers, not the atheists. We are the ones being discriminated against so irrationally.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
I believe a number of states specifically forbid atheists from holding public office (in direct contradiction of the US Constitution which very specifically bars any religious test for holding any public office or trust anywhere in the US.)

Interesting. Can you find out if it's true?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
I believe a number of states specifically forbid atheists from holding public office


http://www.yale.edu/ypq/articles/oct98/oct98c.html

Discrimination also pervades the public and political sphere. Currently, the state constitution of Mississippi proclaims that "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." The constitutions of Tennessee, Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, and Arkansas contain similar discriminatory clauses, while South Carolina's constitution bars unbelievers from state office three separate times, and once explicitly from the office of governor. The "Bill of Rights for Unbelievers" demands that these insulting, bigoted statutes be removed immediately from all public documents and business.
That's from 1998 - I am pretty sure that South Carolina had to let an atheist become a notary republic, so that's at least one down. More of these may have already been changed.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity".
1. This is not what most Christians mean when they use the word God.

2. Even if it was, it's still wrong. Consider this: the Bible does not condemn slavery, and yet you know slavery is immoral. This strongly implies that your Christianity is not in fact the source of your morals, but rather the product of them. Which refutes your premise. One does not get to God by being moral; rather, one invents God by being moral.

[Fun2BFree]

Regarding the South Carolina Notary Public case (an issue which was already long ago settled in 1961 by the Supreme Court in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (1961)(Maryland Constitution's Supreme Being Clause violates First Amendment and Religious Test Clause)

from :
http://www.infidels.org/activist/state/sc.shtml



"05/97 courts say atheists can hold public office; no religious oaths required. This occurred after the state tried to prevent an atheist from becoming a notary public by trying to enforce Article XVII-Miscellaneous Matters, Sec. 4, Supreme Being of the South Carolina Constitution which says, "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution". The courts found that enforcing this would be a violation of the federal Constitution. However, the offensive clause has not been removed."

There is one guy who claims that there is not one admitted atheist serving in either Congress or in any state legislature anywhere in the US...
http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=122

[Fade]

Originally posted by Yahzi

1. This is not what most Christians mean when they use the word God.

2. Even if it was, it's still wrong. Consider this: the Bible does not condemn slavery, and yet you know slavery is immoral. This strongly implies that your Christianity is not in fact the source of your morals, but rather the product of them. Which refutes your premise. One does not get to God by being moral; rather, one invents God by being moral.

This is coherent in terms of cultural anthropology. Religion developed after community, mostly as a tool of cohesion and rule. So, as you so stated, one invents God afterwards, as a rationalization of what they already feel.

Is it any wonder that anthropology boasts probably the highest number of atheists of ANY science? Once you understand the when, and the why, religion becomes a ludicrous proposition.

[LuxFerum]

I don't really care much if someone belive in god or not.
This is a matter of choice.
What I really don't like is their justification for it.:mad:

[Diamond]

I am an agnostic. If there's good proof to be had for the existence of a supreme being then let me have it!

[Yahzi]

We seemed to have drowned poor Cleo. So this post is just a Cleopatra appreciation post.
:rub:

[Cleopatra]

Thank you Yahzi.

I am on vacation on a volcanic island and I had a great time during the day ( it's 23:30 here) thinking about this conversation and the posts I have been reading at my pace :) Some might think that I have a twisted sense of having good time on vacation and they will probably be right... Oh well :)

Ok. I read very carefully every single post.

In my opening post, I didn't try to refute fundamentalism, as articpenguin suggested. Before visiting USA for the first time in my life, 12 years ago,I haven't even realized what Creationism and fundamentalism is and what sort of problems those beliefs create.

I couldn't understand why American atheists engage themselves in endless battles regarding biblical tales. For example, I considered it ( and still I do) ridiculous to discuss if Jesus was pro or against slavery, considering when this Jesus lived...

Of course, I didn't have any idea that in your country they were people who seriously tried to justified slavery with references to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.

You see, the same Book that was used as a main tool for promoting any kind of obscurantism to your country, to my country it was used to keep alive the Greek Language and to inspire to people the ideal of liberation and freedom from the ottoman occupation. It was a priest who lifted his gun and declared the War of Independence in 19th ce...

One book, two different uses. A book that can enslave and can inspire Freedom as well.

This cannot be a common book.:)

To return to my initial argument and to reply to the most of you, my major disagreement with Atheists is that they try to interpret Faith with the tools of Science. Funny, because Fundamentalists do the same mistake when they are trying to interpret Science by using their Faith.

Asking for a proof that God exists is like asking for a proof that love exists.

Does love exist?

No? Then why your heart beats faster every time you see a specific person or why we find ourselves thinking of a specific person many times a day?
It does? Are you sure? I know thousands of people that they are willing to testify under oath that there is no such a thing as love.

Where is the truth? What proves that the one or the other side is right?

The same stands for religion.

If we agree that the Bible is a collection of Symbolisms and myths then, the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ is the path that leads to Deity.

If you remember, even the miracles that Jesus performed had as prerequisite Faith. The people that he cured were those who believed in his Devine powers. It was this irrational belief; it was this leap of Faith that made the miracle possible. So, according to the Bible and not according to me ( as many of you suggested) Faith and observance in ( or it's of? ) a moral code is what humans need in order to experience "God's Grace".

I do not see why this must shock us ( I repeat if we put aside the stupid theories of creationism etc etc etc,) and reject the existence of deity.

Leaps of Faith is what we do when we fall in love, for example, when we sacrifice, in quite an irrational way, without having or asking any proofs in advance, part of our egos in order to meet happiness in a "paradise" that is on Earth.

Can you experience love if you don't follow a specific behavioral code? Do you expect to experience love by lying or cheating or being violent or vindictive ( just giving examples) ? Do you sign any agreements with your subjects of love that they will love you back for ever if you behave according to a specific behavioral code? No! You just believe the same way Christians do.

If my post came as a surprise to you -- many of you suggested that this is just my way to perceive God and many other Christians do not feel the same- I can imagine what impression Tez's post must have caused.. and judging by the reaction this intriguing theist approach to atheism must have been very relieving to many of you.

So, allow me to reply to Tez in a separate post after thanking you, first, for this interesting discussion :)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

If we agree that the Bible is a collection of Symbolisms and myths then, the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ is the path that leads to Deity.

[/B]

I have a problem with this statement. People can't even agree on what "the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ" was. People have comitted great acts in the name of that code and people have comitted some truly heinous acts in the name of that code, and everything in between. This leads me to ask myself, is this some great universal truth that is somehow self contracdictory or do people just project their own values and ideas onto it. I find the latter much more likely. That being the case, I have to ask whether they are inspired in some way to come up with these values or do they simply form these values out of their own fears, beliefs, prejudices, experiences, etc. Occams razor leads me to conclude the latter is more likely. This being the case, I see no reason to believe that any sort of deity exists.

The rest of your argument seems to be that the existance of a deity is a matter of faith, not science. I won't argue that, but as for myself, I have no faith in faith. I have never seen blind faith as a good thing and likely never will

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
T
Does love exist?

No?

If you remember, even the miracles that Jesus performed had as prerequisite Faith. The people that he cured were those who believed in his Devine powers. It was this irrational belief; it was this leap of Faith that made the miracle possible. So, according to the Bible and not according to me ( as many of you suggested) Faith and observance in ( or it's of? ) a moral code is what humans need in order to experience "God's Grace".

Strawman. We are not discussing love. We are discussing the existence of a deity, and the wisdom of questioning that existence. Try to stay on-topic.

Actually if you read your new testament you will find that (doubting) Thomas was supplied with a miracle even though he experienced doubt. So faith was not a prerequisite for the experience of miracles. (supposedly).

Among christians, the question of faith vs. good works has been going on a long, long time, so the answer to that one is not clear even within the context of belief.

I have a bridge to sell you. If you bought it, you could have faith thet you actually owned it. Doesn't make it true or even worthwhile.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I have a problem with this statement. People can't even agree on what "the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ" was.
True. But the scripts are there, waiting for new interpretations. Those disputes over the scripts are very old, that's why we had all these decrees of faith in the the various Ecumenical Synods.

I do not see a problem when a theory, every kind of theory or moral code is open to multiple intrepretations.

Of course, I wonder with how many ways you think that one can interpret : " Love your fellow human being".

People have comitted great acts in the name of that code and people have comitted some truly heinous acts in the name of that code, and everything in between.

People didn't wait for Jesus and his moral code to commit " truly heinous acts", a quick read in Thucidete's Peloponessean War will persuade you about that...

This leads me to ask myself, is this some great universal truth that is somehow self contracdictory or do people just project their own values and ideas onto it. I find the latter much more likely.
This is a question I intend to pose to Tez who compared physics with religion, I believe that you are right, this is the basis of fideism anyway.

That being the case, I have to ask whether they are inspired in some way to come up with these values or do they simply form these values out of their own fears, beliefs, prejudices, experiences, etc.
I believe that this is the case but I disagree with that :
This being the case, I see no reason to believe that any sort of deity exists.

Deity? Do you mean a stage of existence or a person who commits magic tricks? I will take the later.

It's called credo par consolans Faith to console our fierce human souls...

The rest of your argument seems to be that the existance of a deity is a matter of faith, not science. I won't argue that, but as for myself, I have no faith in faith. I have never seen blind faith as a good thing and likely never will

Do you believe in Love? Don't you consider Love as the ultimum example of blind faith?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Of course, I didn't have any idea that in your country they were people who seriously tried to justified slavery with references to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
They not only tried, they succeeded. The abolitionists (those that opposed slavery) conceded the Biblical argument. They won on moral grounds, not theological ones.

This cannot be a common book.:)
Actually, it is. As you just demonstrated, the inspiration came not from the book, but from the people who used it. They could have just as easily used a rock or bit of string as their symbol.

Does love exist?
Yes. We can measure it in the lab now.

Where is the truth? What proves that the one or the other side is right?
You are familiar with my baseball bat test, yes? The truth lies in the baseball bat.

As has been said before, reality is that which remains when you stop believing in it. As your post acknowledges, that does not include religion.

If we agree that the Bible is a collection of Symbolisms and myths then, the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ is the path that leads to Deity.
1. Many people do not agree that it is only symbolism. Most of them, actually. Including the people that wrote the book.

2. Jesus's ethical code is obscure.

3. What we can make out of Jesus' code is incompatible with the moral code that eliminated slavery. To follow the code of Jesus is to forgoe family, procreation, planning for the future, and any notion of private property. It is also to tolerate and condone slavery and the oppression of women.

It was this irrational belief; it was this leap of Faith that made the miracle possible.
The idea that merely believing in the irrational makes the impossible happen is itself, irrational. And being irrational is once again repudiating the moral code that eliminated slavery.

Modern rationality is why we oppose slavery, and support women's rights. You cannot claim to adhere to that moral code while simultanously rejecting it.

Leaps of Faith is what we do when we fall in love, for example, when we sacrifice, in quite an irrational way, without having or asking any proofs in advance, part of our egos in order to meet happiness in a "paradise" that is on Earth.
Um, no. Love is a biological function, not at all irrational, it's not so much a sacrifice as an investment, and we ask for plenty of proofs in advance. Like engagement rings, just to name two month's salary worth of proof.

Yes, people implicitly sign agreements. This is why a spouse can murder their philandering partner and invariably recieve a lighter sentence than if the partner was not cheating on them. Because society at large recognizes that we do make contractual obligations, even if they are moral and informal instead of legal and written down.


Asking for proof of an existance claim is never unwarranted. If you are asserting that one can believe in God without asserting He actually exists, that assertion is unusual enough to require some explanation. The problem is that your explanation is backwards. You claim that God is a moral code, but in fact, you have a moral code which you describe as God. These are two entirely different things.

[thaiboxerken]

For example, I considered it ( and still I do) ridiculous to discuss if Jesus was pro or against slavery, considering when this Jesus lived...

This Jesus is supposed to be the moral symbol, leader of christianity. The christians claim that "God's" morals are the same yesterday, as they were today. Since Jesus and God are the same, according to the christians, shouldn't jesus be against slavery? Or.. maybe the rest of us is wrong and slavery is ok.


One book, two different uses. A book that can enslave and can inspire Freedom as well.

This cannot be a common book.:)

It sure can, many religious books are used to justify all kinds of actions, from charity to facism. It's more common than you know.


To return to my initial argument and to reply to the most of you, my major disagreement with Atheists is that they try to interpret Faith with the tools of Science. Funny, because Fundamentalists do the same mistake when they are trying to interpret Science by using their Faith.

No.. Faith is something that I don't have use for in my life. I require evidence to draw conclusions and predictions. Faith is belief without reason.


Asking for a proof that God exists is like asking for a proof that love exists.

No it's not. Love is simply a description of what we feel and observe. Love is evident. God is not.


Does love exist?

Yes, it's evident.


It does? Are you sure? I know thousands of people that they are willing to testify under oath that there is no such a thing as love.

They can testify, but the emotion that we call love has been validated by science.


Where is the truth? What proves that the one or the other side is right?

Evidence.


The same stands for religion.

You're right, religions have no evidence to support their claims of gods. They are wrong.


If we agree that the Bible is a collection of Symbolisms and myths then, the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ is the path that leads to Deity.

If we use your non-standard, unorthodox definition of Deity, then yes. However, many of us would rather stick to the standard definitions of words.


If you remember, even the miracles that Jesus performed had as prerequisite Faith. The people that he cured were those who believed in his Devine powers. It was this irrational belief; it was this leap of Faith that made the miracle possible. So, according to the Bible and not according to me ( as many of you suggested) Faith and observance in ( or it's of? ) a moral code is what humans need in order to experience "God's Grace".

Yea, and we've come to understand that it's BS. By using the "faith" arguement, they've made the claims unfalsifiable.


Leaps of Faith is what we do when we fall in love, for example, when we sacrifice, in quite an irrational way, without having or asking any proofs in advance, part of our egos in order to meet happiness in a "paradise" that is on Earth.

Hardly. Love is an emotion, and also a choice. It is evident in our actions and feelings.


Can you experience love if you don't follow a specific behavioral code?

What code?


Do you expect to experience love by lying or cheating or being violent or vindictive ( just giving examples) ?

People that are "in love" can still lie, cheat and commit violence.

Do you sign any agreements with your subjects of love that they will love you back for ever if you behave according to a specific behavioral code?

Yea, it's called marriage. Sometimes it's an agreement made privately.


No! You just believe the same way Christians do.

Nope, if my wife ignored me, slept around and kicked me in the testicles, I'd realize that she didn't love me.

If my post came as a surprise to you

No surprise, you're arguements aren't original or unique.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Of course, I wonder with how many ways you think that one can interpret : " Love your fellow human being".

Even that simple statement has been interpreted multiple ways. From the middle ages up until recent decades people wrestled with the question whether blacks and indians counted as human beings and history has shown just how much love was shown to them. Further, some people still question whether they should love ALL of their fellow human beings or just certain select ones.

Even the simplest statement can be open to interpretation and we humans have an amazing capacity to justify the most terrible things on the flimsiest of pretenses.



People didn't wait for Jesus and his moral code to commit " truly heinous acts", a quick read in Thucidete's Peloponessean War will persuade you about that...

I am working on a History major in college, I am familiar with the Peloponessian war and many other incidents taht show atrocities to be confined to neither the modern nor western world. I have no doubt that people were cruel and barbaric to each other since time immemorial. I am sure that the first time the first caveman realized that he could gain something by crushing a nearby caveman's head in with a rock, he did so without hesitation or remorse. I am equally sure we will be finding new and interesting ways to kill and torture each other as long as we exist as a species.

I only used Jesus' moral code because you did. My point is that people make their own moral codes. They may adapt the codes of others but will interpret them to fit their own desires. Morality, in my opinion, comes from within, not without.


Deity? Do you mean a stage of existence or a person who commits magic tricks? I will take the later.

It's called credo par consolans Faith to console our fierce human souls...

I am not sure I get what you mean here. Could you please clarify?



Do you believe in Love? Don't you consider Love as the ultimum example of blind faith?

I belive lots of people feel lots of things they DEFINE as love. There are sexual attraction and parent/child bond which are hardwired into us biologically. I have no illusions otherwise and don't feel that this fact diminishes them one bit. There is also friendship, loyalty and that sort of thing, I think that this is just the human "pack instinct" given another name. I don't see any connection between these things and faith.

Now you could mean "do you have faith in those you love?". I do, but it isn't blind faith. i have faith in my wife and my friends because I know them well enough that I feel I can trust them and I know what they likely to do.

Ihave faith in my children because I feel that they have been raised to be decent individuals.

I only call these things faith because there is no better term for it. Faith based on experience and familiarity is a far different thing, I think, than the sort of blind faith required to believe in a diety.

[thaiboxerken]

True. But the scripts are there, waiting for new interpretations. Those disputes over the scripts are very old, that's why we had all these decrees of faith in the the various Ecumenical Synods.

I do not see a problem when a theory, every kind of theory or moral code is open to multiple intrepretations.

The scriptures are not theories. Also, this "god" of yours supposedly wrote the book with concrete morals that everyone is supposed to understand. What happened?


Of course, I wonder with how many ways you think that one can interpret : " Love your fellow human being".

Well.. there is "love your fellow human being, unless he's gay" and "love your fellow human being, unless he's atheist". Those are both in that bible.

People didn't wait for Jesus and his moral code to commit " truly heinous acts", a quick read in Thucidete's Peloponessean War will persuade you about that..

So what? People still used Jesus' moral code to kill people with. Hitler used the code to try and exterminate an entire race of people. If "Jesus" was the son of a god and his word is "good", what happened?

Do you believe in Love? Don't you consider Love as the ultimum example of blind faith?

No and no. Love is evident, no need to beleive in it, it exists.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cleopatra
It seems to me that atheists forget two basic things when it comes to Christianity; time and geography.

We are talking about 2000 years ago, in the melting pot of Mediterranean, an era and am area with complicated social problems, mainly created by the "globalization" that was forced by the Roman Empire, where paganism and every kind of mysticism was on its climax, the only way for new a religion - as Christianity- to be accepted was to embrace and "re-negotiate" all the previous symbolisms that were related with the religious sentiment of people.

I don't believe this is correct. I think the mystery religions were adopted in Alexandria as a Jewish mystery religion. This Jewish mystery religion was set into an historical setting by the "Gospels". Eventually the only thing that separated the Jewish Mystery Religion from every other mystery religion (Attis Serapis, Mithra, etc) was the belief, by ignorant, enthusiastic people, that "our myth actually happened!" The rest is miserable history. It was not "a brand new religion", it was the moronification of the old one.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Yahzi



That's from 1998 - I am pretty sure that South Carolina had to let an atheist become a notary republic, so that's at least one down. More of these may have already been changed.

I found this on Google regarding the Supreme Court's opinion on this
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/Torcaso.htm

[Tormac]

Interesting post Cleopatra, I fear I am not sure if I am missing a subtle point in your post. But I may have lost it in the ebb and flow of debate.

Are you suggesting your point from the point of view of religion as a cultural construct, rather like Vonnegut did in "Cats Cradle" where he invented a religion that was in its own words “lies all lies” and spent the rest of the book demonstrating the value of an openly false religion to a population?

I certainly agree with what I think you mean, up to the point where the Christian tries to force his religious view to be taught in a science class as just as valid as evolution.

I would never claim that one should not have faith in a moral idea or symbol. People often need this kind of icon to reinforce notions of morality. As long as the story and teaching of Christianity are read as parables, with instructive value, I think they are wonderful. If only there were not people here in the States that honestly think it is unjust if their personal religious views are not held to be on par with secular science or philosophy.

When I read your posts Cleopatra, I am often afraid I am missing a subtle point, since you command both subtlety and complexity with everyday language. If I understand your point Cleo, it is one that I think Atheists should understand. Sometimes we (atheists) can become jerks, and loose site of the field where skepticism is valid.

[Suddenly]

I think I agree with what you are saying Cleopatra, but there is always a chance I misunderstand, so I'll try to reformulate what I understand.

Were are dealing with a concept of "God" that is neither physical nor supernatural, rather closer to what we would call a "concept."

A few posts ago you said:Faith to console our fierce human souls...

I'm first curious if by soul you mean something close to this which I posted in a different thread, in response to the assertion that a physical soul does not exist. It went by unremarked in that thread as the discussion veered elsewhere and I was on a bit of a tangent.

This argues that a physical soul does not exist. Does a soul need to be physical? I'm not convinced belief in an non-physical eternal soul is supernatural, depending on the definition of "soul".
<edit>

Non physical things can exist. Concepts for one. My concept of the number 3 is not physical. It can only be expressed, examined or discussed through physical means, but the concept of "3" is not by itself physical.

I think it was Aristotle who originated this concept that a person's "soul" is analogous to a computer's program. Thus, to keep it brief, a person's soul is in fact the essence of what they are. Instead of the concept of the number 3, we have the concept of "Bill Jones." Bill Jones is his personality, memories, thought processes, etc., and not his body.

The main hypothetical litmus test for this sort of thing is thus: If we destroy "Bill Jones'" body, and replace it with an exact replica (and I mean exact, down to the subatomic level) would the new person be "Bill Jones?"

Those who believe in a "ghost in the machine" type soul would have to say no. However, saying yes to this question seems to require that someone be something other than just his or her body. Not anything supernatural, just that that person's "program" is relected in their body structure, and that program, much like the concept of "hot" or the number "3" , exists apart from the physical world.

Or am I just a nut stuck on semantics?

I guess to keep this short, that the "God" you speak of would be like the Platonic form of this kind of soul?

[Ladewig]

If you remember, even the miracles that Jesus performed had as prerequisite Faith. The people that he cured were those who believed in his Devine powers. It was this irrational belief; it was this leap of Faith that made the miracle possible. So, according to the Bible and not according to me ( as many of you suggested) Faith and observance in ( or it's of? ) a moral code is what humans need in order to experience "God's Grace".

Two more cases of people not having the prerequisite faith:
Luke 22:50-51. When the soldiers and priest come to arrest Jesus, a disciple draws a sword and cuts off the ear of a priest's servant. Jesus heals the severed ear. Matt 8:5-13 Jesus heals the servant of a centurion.

For example, I considered it ( and still I do) ridiculous to discuss if Jesus was pro or against slavery, considering when this Jesus lived...

I do not understand why you consider this discussion to be ridiculous. Are you saying that if an immoral act (slavery) is popular enough, then there is no need to speak out against its immorality?

"Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code.

I can find Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahá'ís, and Scientologists who all claim the same thing with very differing moral codes. I think asking for evidence as to why your path to God is more true than other paths being promoted is a fair request. You are asking people to throw away previously held beliefs and morals and accept the ones you advocate. Asking for some information is appropriate.

[Cleopatra]

Ok. I will reply to everybody. Just give me some time :)


Originally posted by Tormac
[quote] Are you suggesting your point from the point of view of religion as a cultural construct, rather like Vonnegut did in "Cats Cradle" where he invented a religion that was in its own words “lies all lies” and spent the rest of the book demonstrating the value of an openly false religion to a population?

I do not know of what you are talking about, you reference is very unfamiliar but I want to learn though

I would never claim that one should not have faith in a moral idea or symbol. People often need this kind of icon to reinforce notions of morality. As long as the story and teaching of Christianity are read as parables, with instructive value, I think they are wonderful. If only there were not people here in the States that honestly think it is unjust if their personal religious views are not held to be on par with secular science or philosophy.

I agree. In fact this is what I am trying to say.

When I read your posts Cleopatra, I am often afraid I am missing a subtle point, since you command both subtlety and complexity with everyday language. If I understand your point Cleo, it is one that I think Atheists should understand. Sometimes we (atheists) can become jerks, and loose site of the field where skepticism is valid.

I am grateful for the opportunity you give me to clarify some things. I do not consider you jerks, especially in this forum that’s why I spend so much time here but I must admit that sometimes I feel very strange. I have particularly experienced this feeling in the site of Infidels. As I have said, they remind me of the monkey house in banana time.

Look. I am 33 years old. Let’s say that somebody can identify himself when he is 8 or 10. Religion bothers me and tortures me since I was 15. That makes us more than half of my life. I can read and speak ancient Greek and four foreign languages apart form modern Greek and Hebrew. I have studied tones of books and still I am not sure about anything. I feel little … strange where a little s**** from an unknown village somewhere in USA identifies himself as an atheist and comes to lecture and mock me about God. I was born in Jerusalem, where the biggest Religion is Man’s history was born, however I claim that I have many questions about it. I do not know, I am trying to learn more from other people.

Do I have to feel respect for every little s*** that claims to be an atheist?

I confess, Sir that I do not and I apologize in advance about it.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok. I will reply to everybody. Just give me some time :)
Look. I am 33 years old. Let’s say that somebody can identify himself when he is 8 or 10. Religion bothers me and tortures me since I was 15. That makes us more than half of my life. I can read and speak ancient Greek and four foreign languages apart form modern Greek and Hebrew. I have studied tones of books and still I am not sure about anything. I feel little … strange where a little s**** from an unknown village somewhere in USA identifies himself as an atheist and comes to lecture and mock me about God. I was born in Jerusalem, where the biggest Religion is Man’s history was born, however I claim that I have many questions about it. I do not know, I am trying to learn more from other people.

Do I have to feel respect for every little s*** that claims to be an atheist?

I confess, Sir that I do not and I apologize in advance about it.
It sounds personal then.

No, you don't have to have respect for anyone, even though you do underestimate his age. However if you are claiming your viewpoint is valid or superior because of your age and language ability, I would hope the fallaciousness of that would be obvious to you.

You may believe what you want, but if you accept an intellectually lazy position, it is certainly our right to withhold intellectual respect for it.

[Cleopatra]

Let me remind you that this thread is about the methods of discussing about God and not about my preaching you on a religion I do not even believe in the historical existence of its founder...

Also, I have mentioned more than five times so far that fundamentalism and creationism do not concern me in this thread, so you don't really need to repeat me that there are Christians that believe in those theories,unless you are sort of other arguments. I know it very well but I come from a social environment that was very unfavorable to the creation of such theories. I find it extremely interesting how fundamentalism and creationism never became endemic to the geographical areas that born religions and became that popular to your country... Something must be going wrong either to my area or to yours...


Originally posted by Tez

Tez

Either you or me define us wrongly. Maybe you are a fideist and I belong to those atheists that carry : "some form of religiosity with them in one way or another".

Do not take the following as an attempt to refute your post, let's say that I feel that we both stand on the opposite sides of a very narrow and easy to cross river and I am giving you my hand to hold it firmly and grab me to your side unless...while reading this you find my hold firmer and you decide to come to my side. I am exploring those things myself anyway.

Firstly, let me say it appears to me that you have mistakenly identified atheism with irreligiousness.

Not me! The Greek language according to which atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of a deity.

This is the first time in my life that I hear that atheists believe in some sort of deity... To my knowledge, your kind of people are called fideists, yes, exactly as people like me define ourselves :)

many have a profound respect for the power of mythology in their own and other peoples' lives -- Such atheists look at religion as a window through which to learn more about what it is to be human

If this is not fideism and you still insist that you are an atheist, then it's the most poetic definition of the science of social anthropology I have ever read...

As such an atheist, I feel a burning desire to use the flicker of time in which consciousness is condensed into me, to try and understand this universe better.

You don't need to be an atheist in order to get into that procedure you know. Why you try to attribute a main characteristic of human's behavior to atheists especially to the subcategory that you belong, those that leave a room to God in their minds?

Do I belive that physics (and science) delves into some platonic unverse of absolute truths? Of course not - they are a part of the human experience; they are a human construct, a part of humanity's program to expand its frontiers of interaction with the universe. As with religion, they are a construct which sheds light into the human experience.

This reminds me of what Michael Shermer calls the "Paradox of Pirsig"referring to the famous dialogue of the heroes in the book of Robert Pirsig :" Zen and the Art of Motorcycling maintenance".

What do you suggest? That gravity didn't exist before Newton describes it in his Law? Because I believe that God didn't exist before we invent him, if you compare those two as you do in the sentence above, then I must conclude that the Laws of Physics didn't exist either before we describe them.

A crucial part of that construct is the realisation that "evidentiary thinking" is an extremely powerful equalizer. One which universalizes the human experience far more than any religion ever has. Evidentiary thinking distills those aspects of our interaction with the world which are universally human, from those which are specific to points in space, time or brain matter of particular individuals.

The stress with bold is mine. At last!! Now I believe that you are an atheist since you make what I call the common mistake atheists do by insisting on applying the same method to two different things because this is what you do when you suggest that "evidentiary thinking" expands the human experience far more than any religion. The purpose of Religion does not coincide the purpose of "evidentiary thinking" unless you are a Creationist of course.

The demand for evidence from atheists is not a demand directed at people like you. It is a demand from those (generally incapable of it) to distill from their beliefs those things which are universal.

I will never seize to repeat is that if some people choose to interpret a theory wrongly this is not the problem of the theory... Maybe, we should turn our quest towards the social circumstances that create those misinterpretations.

If this "Jesus" asked people to love each other and some people chose to love only those who have the same skin color-just to bring an example- this is not the problem of "Jesus" ...

[Cleopatra]

Arctic penguin

Thank you for your remarks. How would I, a naive theist, ever possibly thought about them myself.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Arctic penguin

Thank you for your remarks. How would I, a naive theist, ever possibly thought about them myself.
Thank you for the sarcasm, although I have plenty of my own. Since your main thesis seems to be that your royal *** should be exempt from criticism I will now exit the thread.

[Cleopatra]

Let me come to you now, my dear Gorgias... errr I mean Yahzi :)

Originally posted by Yahzi

[quote]They not only tried, they succeeded. The abolitionists (those that opposed slavery) conceded the Biblical argument. They won on moral grounds, not theological ones.

I am terribly sad to hear about it. You know,the only way to debunk those guys was to know some History... you didn't realy need Theology , of course , History needs some studies and pain but what so ever... both of sides were left with the impression that they have accomplished something big...*sigh*


Actually, it is. As you just demonstrated, the inspiration came not from the book, but from the people who used it. They could have just as easily used a rock or bit of string as their symbol.


[quote]Yes. We can measure it in the lab now.

No we can't/! We are trying to deciphre Love but we haven't arrived to a solid conclusion so far... Love seems so elusive... :)

You are familiar with my baseball bat test, yes? The truth lies in the baseball bat.

No I am not!

1. Many people do not agree that it is only symbolism. Most of them, actually. Including the people that wrote the book.

Ah those people again. How many times shall I express my sympathy towards american narrowmindeness that has created those theories? The people who wrote the book are entitled to believe what ever they wish.

2. Jesus's ethical code is obscure.

None forces you to accept it if you think so...

3. What we can make out of Jesus' code is incompatible with the moral code that eliminated slavery. To follow the code of Jesus is to forgoe family, procreation, planning for the future, and any notion of private property. It is also to tolerate and condone slavery and the oppression of women.

Of course you are wrong and you know it. In fact I find this quite a cheap argument. is as cheap as accusing the Founding Fathers for keeping slaves. Jesus talked about the slaves to the will of God... Have you ever been in love? have you ever felt enslaved to another person? I think that this what Jesus had in mind...if the south methodist disagree with me.. oh well, you know, apart from the South none else knows about them.

Modern rationality is why we oppose slavery, and support women's rights. You cannot claim to adhere to that moral code while simultanously rejecting it.

Modern rationality? You must be joking! It was the historical needs that made white males aknowledge the importance of blacks and women in production.

Even God didn't have to do anything with it!


Um, no. Love is a biological function, not at all irrational, it's not so much a sacrifice as an investment, and we ask for plenty of proofs in advance. Like engagement rings, just to name two month's salary worth of proof.

I am devastasted again to realize that your perception of love is about two month's salary worth proof... but what so ever, the proof that love is a biological funtion and not an experience is still pending.

Yes, people implicitly sign agreements. This is why a spouse can murder their philandering partner and invariably recieve a lighter sentence than if the partner was not cheating on them. Because society at large recognizes that we do make contractual obligations, even if they are moral and informal instead of legal and written down.

As a criminal lawyer, allow me to assure you that Science hasn't concluded yet as to what makes people murder each other not to mention that that "contractural obligatiotions" dictated by marriage are very ofter legal and written down...

Asking for proof of an existance claim is never unwarranted.
Of course it's not!!! Is it the right way to approach Truth though? That is my question!!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Thank you for the sarcasm, although I have plenty of my own.
In that case, one should expect that you would be immuned but I guess that having your own sarcasm just excludes other people from having their own .

Since your main thesis seems to be that your royal *** should be exempt from criticism I will now exit the thread. [/B]

Judging from your valuable contribution to this thread I think that your absence will be a true loss.

[Cleopatra]

Now I am owning some answers to calladus and to thaiboxerken and to the rest of the people here but I am particularly interested in answering to Nyarlathotep.

[thaiboxerken]

You still haven't demonstrated how or why it would be a big mistake to ask for evidence/proof of a god. All you've basically done was change the definition of deity/god and defend that position. Why not deal with the definition of god that 90% of the world uses?

[Cleopatra]

I am sorry but Creationists and Fundamentalists do not represent the 90% of the world.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am sorry but Creationists and Fundamentalists do not represent the 90% of the world.

I didn't say that they did. I said that the definition of a god that you use is not common. Ask most people what a god is, and they certainly won't come up with your definition.

Stick with the common definition of god/deity. I think it's perfectly rational and intelligent to ask for evidence and proof of a god or deity, assuming we use the common definition of god/deity.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Asking for a proof that God exists is like asking for a proof that love exists.
I'd like to point out this particular piece of nonsense.

A correct analogy, Cleopatra, would be "Asking for proof that people believe in God is like asking for proof that people fall in love." Personally I see no reason to ask for proof that people believe in God.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870039577#post1870039577)
It seems to me that atheists forget two basic things when it comes to Christianity; time and geography.

We are talking about 2000 years ago, in the melting pot of Mediterranean, an era and am area with complicated social problems, mainly created by the "globalization" that was forced by the Roman Empire, where paganism and every kind of mysticism was on its climax, the only way for new a religion - as Christianity- to be accepted was to embrace and "re-negotiate" all the previous symbolisms that were related with the religious sentiment of people. Because I hope that even atheists recognize that humans are born with this religious feeling that they either accept and cultivate as they grow-up or reject it totally...

The Bible didn't introduce ANYTHING new, on the contrary, it borrowed every existent symbol from earlier religions and with a new costume or a new garnish if you wish, it served it again to people.

The best example is the dogma of the Trinity.

In the forum of "Infidels" I spent ( and regret about it) much time to try to explain to people they refused to understand the History of the symbolism of the Trinity... They insist to take it as a fraud, "of course it is a symbol you stupid but you must understand first what it represents!!" but people seemed so absorbed by their atheism that they refused even to try to understand why Christianity HAD to adopt the dogma of Trinity and why it HAD TO ADOPT IT in the 3th century and why not in the 5th ce... Oh well...

The Trinity is not the only example of violation of "copyright material by the Christians" If you read ancient literature, you will find references to the Holly Christian Mysteries and you will have the feeling that Christians just copied and pasted them to the Bible.

clip

I think historical and cultural contexts are important to understand how ideas, dogma, and beliefs develop. It is helpful to know the influences that guide beliefs. I have immense interest in these matters.

Thnaks for sharing this Cleopatra

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Stick with the common definition of god/deity.

This is exactly what the priest of my neighborhood has told me a couple of years ago before showing me the exit of our Church :)

Anyway, I will try one more time to show you why I think it's wrong to ask for proof for the existence of God plus that "my" definition of God is more common that you think, not in order to persuade you but just for the sake of the discussion :)

[Yahzi]

Cleopatra
Let me come to you now, my dear Gorgias...
My admittedly shallow Google search identifies Gorgias as a nilhist, but I think perhaps you meant to refer to this particular aspect of his character:

Chaer. I understand, and will ask him: Tell me, Gorgias, is our friend Callicles right in saying that you undertake to answer any questions which you are asked?

Gorgias. Quite right, Chaerephon: I was saying as much only just now; and I may add, that many years have elapsed since any one has asked me a new one.

Indeed, I have bemoaned in the past that theists never seem to ask any new questions. :D The larger point, that my grasp of the ancients is spotty in the extreme, is readily conceded, even though I actually have a degree in philosophy.

you didn't realy need Theology , of course
Um. This is exactly my point. Theology has always been incidental in the progress of morality. Ergo, it seems unwarranted to equate it with morality.

No we can't/! We are trying to deciphre Love but we haven't arrived to a solid conclusion so far... Love seems so elusive... :)
Only because you don't have a SQUID (super-conducting quantum interference device). Love is not elusive to people with SQUIDs. They can see it in your brain.

For example: show a woman pictures of handsome men, and part of her brain lights up. Show her pictures of male friends and family members, and a different part of her brain lights up. Show her a picture of her beloved, and a third part of her brain lights up. Viola. Love in the lab.

No I am not!
The Yahzi patented Baseball Bat test (TM) is an empirical method of demonstrating the primary nature of objective reality. Succinctly:

1. Obtain a baseball bat.
2. Strike yourself in the head until you no longer doubt the reality of baseball bats.

Or, in other words, if your epistimology cannot account for a baseball bat striking you in the head, there is a priori something wrong with your epistimology.

The people who wrote the book are entitled to believe what ever they wish.
Now that is an interesting concept, that the author's intention and meaning are irrelevant to the reader. A bit too post-modern for my tastes, though. By that logic, we could just as well hold up "Mien Kampf" as an ideal of morality, so long as you replace the nasty bits with made-up good stuff.

Of course you are wrong and you know it.
Not at all. The arguments that the Southern Baptist Convention advanced as biblical endorsement of slavery still stand, unrefuted. They cannot be refuted by any theology that accepts the authority of the Bible.

As Roadtoad has mentioned, upon careful re-reading, the Bible is often discovered not to say what you want it to say.

Have you ever been in love? have you ever felt enslaved to another person? I think that this what Jesus had in mind...
Perhaps there is a language barrier here, but I don't think of love as enslavement. I'm pretty sure that would be a co-dependent relationship, and not at all healthy. For the record, I disagree with the entire concept of worship. I interpret worship as "following without question," and I don't think anything should be unquestionable.

Modern rationality? You must be joking! It was the historical needs that made white males aknowledge the importance of blacks and women in production.
But it was modern rationality that let them keep it. After all, white males already had a way of using women and blacks in production. It was called slavery. It is true that the rise of technology, and its empowering effect on every individual, changed the equation. But the rise of technology is itself a product of modern rationality. Consider: the Chinese had a stable, functioning society for a thousand years without a technological curve. Our modern world is a product of Greek rationalism.

Even God didn't have to do anything with it!
Then what bloody use is He? If He didn't stop slavery, and His moral code didn't stop slavery, then really, of what value is it?

I am devastasted again to realize that your perception of love is about two month's salary worth proof
I was making fun of DeBeer's diamonds. They tried to establish the notion that you should spend 2 months salary on a diamond engagement ring ("How else could 2 months salary last forever?"). Perhaps that joke was too culturally specific.

The point remains that we do demand proofs of love. While I recongize that a great deal of trust is necessary, and that if you aren't inclined to trust your lover, no amount of proof will convince you: at the same time, people routinely act as if their lover will fulfill certain obligations (many of which are unspoken). If a man consistently acted as if he did not love you, you would eventually suspect he might not really love you. Unless you are one of the really, really gullible ones.

Science hasn't concluded yet as to what makes people murder each other
Science has concluded this. The problem is not in figuring out why people kill each other, it is in getting them to stop. That's an engineering problem. As any engineer will tell you, the distance between "proof of concept" and "product" can be a very long one.

Of course it's not!!! Is it the right way to approach Truth though? That is my question!!
Only if you think Truth exists.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Do I have to feel respect for every little s*** that claims to be an atheist?
No, you are not required to respect anyone. But you must respect their arguments, if their arguments are sound. It does not matter how small or smelly the person is: if his arguments are sound, then they must be respected.

Out of the mouth of babes... or do you not know the fable of the Emperor's new clothes?

More formally, to not do so would be to commit ad hominen.

Which you already know, so apologize to the Penguin already.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat


Atheism is not disbelief in anything that anybody arbitrarily decides to call "God". It is lack of belief in a personal God (meaning a sentient being which created the Universe). If you do not believe in such a thing, then you are an atheist too, regardless of the fact that you choose to use the word God to refer to your ideals.



A few errors here as per usual with you. Atheism is not a lack of belief in a "God" (that's agnosticism), but rather the positive belief that there is no "God". Moreover this "God" need not be personnel, and need not have created the Universe, nor need interact with it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


So why ask a believer to stake proof for his belief? Because it is the science of understanding. And if anything else, its probably best to provide a little evidence to support any belief, otherwise its just faith, and faith is irrational. [/B]

{shrugs}

Then everything we have ever believed pertaining to the world is irrational since all one has is faith. How do we know the Universe will not pop out of existence in a second's time?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
[B]Perhaps I am being dense but I fail to see why the fact that Christianity borrowed concepts from myriad other religions and wouldn't make the same claims as it does it it were invented today makes the act of asking for proof of God's irrevalent.



I find it remarkable that atheists demand proof of God's existence when we have proof of nothing else in the world, not even the existence of other people. What makes God so special that we should demand proof, and failure to provide such proof should compel us to subscribe to its non-existence? What is the logic, what is the rationale behind the thinking here. Is there any?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
When I meet people who try to explain the existence of God scientifically,


It would be pretty strange to be able to explain God scientifically. That would presuppose the correctness of materialism. But theists are not normally materialists! In as much as we cannot explain finite consciousnesses, why should an infinite consciousness be any more amenable?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tez
Such atheists look at religion as a window through which to learn more about what it is to be human - what it is to feel a oneness with this awesome universe,



I would scarcely describe an inert, lifeless, meaningless Universe as being awesome! This is what materialism tends to imply.

[Lord Kenneth]

Silly Ian, we don't think the universe will pop out of existence because we have no evidence.

Your solipsist arguments are tiring...

We believe other people exist because we interact and observe them daily. Now, we realise that it COULD all be an illusion, but we don't have evidence that it is an illusion.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Silly Ian, we don't think the universe will pop out of existence because we have no evidence.

Your solipsist arguments are tiring...



I repeat, I am simply pointing out that all our beliefs about the world rest on a type of "faith".



We believe other people exist because we interact and observe them daily. Now, we realise that it COULD all be an illusion, but we don't have evidence that it is an illusion. [/B]

You observe peoples bodies not their consciousnesses. Likewise it might be said we observe God's body ie the physical Universe but we do not observe God's consciousness. Consciousness is not the type of existent which can be observed. It's reality does not depend on its observability.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Atheism is not disbelief in anything that anybody arbitrarily decides to call "God". It is lack of belief in a personal God (meaning a sentient being which created the Universe). If you do not believe in such a thing, then you are an atheist too, regardless of the fact that you choose to use the word God to refer to your ideals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few errors here as per usual with you. Atheism is not a lack of belief in a "God" (that's agnosticism), but rather the positive belief that there is no "God". Moreover this "God" need not be personnel, and need not have created the Universe, nor need interact with it.

Once again trying to tell other people what they believe. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it is rather presumptuous of you to be telling atheists that they are wrong about what the word they use to describe themselves means?

In any event, the definition I gave is the most general. Anybody who calls himself an atheist, at the very least, does not believe in God. Not everybody who calls himself an atheist believes that there could not possibly be any sort of God.

Furthermore, the definition you gave makes no sense. What does it mean to say that you believe God does not exist, when you don't stipulate what "God" means? Does an atheist believe that Grace Slick's daughter doesn't exist?

So why ask a believer to stake proof for his belief? Because it is the science of understanding. And if anything else, its probably best to provide a little evidence to support any belief, otherwise its just faith, and faith is irrational.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{shrugs}

Then everything we have ever believed pertaining to the world is irrational since all one has is faith. How do we know the Universe will not pop out of existence in a second's time?

He said evidence Ian, not unobtainable absolute proof. If you don't think there is evidence that the universe will not pop out of existence in a second, then you don't know what the word "evidence" means. In fact, you are just defining it to be meaningless, in order to try to drag rational beliefs down to the same level as your irrational ones.

Such atheists look at religion as a window through which to learn more about what it is to be human - what it is to feel a oneness with this awesome universe,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would scarcely describe an inert, lifeless, meaningless Universe as being awesome! This is what materialism tends to imply.

The universe is neither inert nor lifeless. The fact that it is not magical does not make it any less awesome, and the fact that you think it does just reveals your lack of imagination.


Dr. Stupid

[Cleopatra]

Thaiborxeken.

This Jesus is supposed to be the moral symbol, leader of christianity. The christians claim that "God's" morals are the same yesterday, as they were today. Since Jesus and God are the same, according to the christians, shouldn't jesus be against slavery? Or.. maybe the rest of us is wrong and slavery is ok.

"Jesus" was not pro-slavery, on the contrary he taught that everybody in front of God are equal. The disputed passages are those who talk about the slaves of God. He is obviously talking about obedience to God's will. Also, another disputed passage is the one in which he says that he didn't come on Earth to abolish the Law of Prophets but to complete it. He was referring to the Mosaic Law and the Ten Commandments. As far as I know, none of the Ten Commandments is pro-slavery.

If some people in the South of USA decided to misinterpret the Bible this is not Bible's problem the same way that our War of Independence that I mentioned as an example , is not the product of ...Divine Intervention...its because some people used the same Book in a different way.

The fact that the biggest crimes in History have been committed in the name of God, this is not God's problem and it doesn't prove either it's existence or his non-existence.

One might suggest that the authors of the Bible have predicted the misinterpretation, that's why "Jesus" warned people that in the Judgment Day those who sinned and misinterpret his teachings will pay for their crimes.

Regarding your strict Theological questions, I think that it's better to address them to Christians. I am just a Theist who doesn't believe in the historical existence of Jesus, so I guess that I am not even entitled to identify myself as Christian.

Now, you claim that you know that Love exists because it's evident. If it was that evident Science wouldn’t bother to try to study it as a separate phenomenon, without having arrived to any definite conclusions yet.

Me: Do you expect to experience love by lying or cheating or being violent or vindictive ( just giving examples) ?

You :People that are "in love" can still lie, cheat and commit violence.

Exactly as Christians do that's why I chose Love to make the comparison.

Me: No! You just believe the same way Christians do.

You :Nope, if my wife ignored me, slept around and kicked me in the testicles, I'd realize that she didn't love me.

Many Christians quit the Church when God fails to cure their child or spouse... It's the same thing. The lose their trust so they lose their faith...

Me: If my post came as a surprise to you

You:No surprise, you're arguements aren't original or unique.

Strange. Some lines above you claimed :

your non-standard, unorthodox definition of Deity

To recap.

Thaiborxeken. I think that it's wrong to ask for proof regarding the existence of God because you cannot use the methods of science to interpret Deity which is more complicated than "Who created the World". If you ask for proof then you make the same mistake Fundamentalists make when they are trying to interpret science by using their Faith.

Religious Faith is trying to answer to many other questions apart from the creation of the World. It has answers to our fears regarding Death, misfortunes, fear of the unknown future and it was the answer to those questions that have made all the religions so popular in Human's History and not the their fairy tales about the creation of the world...

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Thaiborxeken. I think that it's wrong to ask for proof regarding the existence of God because you cannot use the methods of science to interpret Deity which is more complicated than "Who created the World". If you ask for proof then you make the same mistake Fundamentalists make when they are trying to interpret science by using their Faith.


Sorry for jumping in like this, but while I agree that science and faith are two very separate things addressing separate issues, I feel this dodges a very important question. Is there anything virtuous about faith to begin with? It seems in our society faith is viewed unquestioningly as a virtue in itself, and I can find no justification for this.


Religious Faith is trying to answer to many other questions apart from the creation of the World. It has answers to our fears regarding Death, misfortunes, fear of the unknown future and it was the answer to those questions that have made all the religions so popular in Human's History and not the their fairy tales about the creation of the world...

The central problem, as I see it, is that these answers provided by Religious Faith are just as contrived and no more likely to be true than the answers Religious Faith provides concerning empirical questions. Is it not more honest to admit that we have no answers (or admit the possibility that no answers exist) to these questions rather to invent one?

In other words, it certainly may be that proof is irrelevant to faith. I feel, however, that faith is irrelevant to everything.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Flatworm


The central problem, as I see it, is that these answers provided by Religious Faith are just as contrived and no more likely to be true than the answers Religious Faith provides concerning empirical questions.

This is true!

Is it not more honest to admit that we have no answers (or admit the possibility that no answers exist) to these questions rather to invent one?

Religion is one of the many philosophical approaches that tried to give answers to similar questions... I mean we have so many philosophers who have been trying to give asnwers to the question of Death or how to cope with difficulties and we don't accuse them for dishonesty.

Some of them, like Epicurus for example, are very popular even amongst Atheists.

In other words, it certainly may be that proof is irrelevant to faith. I feel, however, that faith is irrelevant to everything.

I see. If by irrelevant you mean needless, I can understand your point. The "problem" is that some people, like me, have the psychological need to believe in God. And how irrelevant a need can be?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[b]Ian,



Once again trying to tell other people what they believe. :rolleyes:

Don't you think it is rather presumptuous of you to be telling atheists that they are wrong about what the word they use to describe themselves means?



You simply cannot go around redefining words all the time. Atheism means a rejection (not lack of belief) of any reality or existent which could reasonably be labelled as "God". Not a lack of belief in a personal God, but a rejection of any God whether personal or impersonal. This includes the type of God hinted at by Hick in my sig.



In any event, the definition I gave is the most general. Anybody who calls himself an atheist, at the very least, does not believe in God. Not everybody who calls himself an atheist believes that there could not possibly be any sort of God.



Strawman. Rejecting the existence of a God or positively asserting there is no God certainly need not imply certitude on their part.



Furthermore, the definition you gave makes no sense. What does it mean to say that you believe God does not exist, when you don't stipulate what "God" means? Does an atheist believe that Grace Slick's daughter doesn't exist?



No sort of "God" which one could reasonably label as such.



He said evidence Ian, not unobtainable absolute proof. If you don't think there is evidence that the universe will not pop out of existence in a second, then you don't know what the word "evidence" means.



Evidence if you presuppose the inductive principle, sure. But we have no evidence that the inductive principle itself is true.



In fact, you are just defining it to be meaningless, in order to try to drag rational beliefs down to the same level as your irrational ones.



What beliefs do I have that are irrational?



The universe is neither inert nor lifeless.



Ah yes, my error, there are a few robots within the Universe living out their purposeless and futile lives (i.e ourselves should materialism and atheism be true).



The fact that it is not magical does not make it any less awesome, and the fact that you think it does just reveals your lack of imagination.



Ah yes, most awesome those mental representational models patterning and ordering our perceptual experiences (which is all that science can ever be) :rolleyes:

[ImpyTimpy]

Sorry for the harshness, but this is getting plain pathetic. Cleo, you're not providing any arguments as to why we're not supposed to ask for existence of God. In fact, your argument about love was pointless, since as many pointed out:

a - it's a strawman.

b - it can be examined physically.

You're arguing for existence of a physical deity yet are trying to tell us to accept it on faith alone. You're also trying to twist the definition of God attempting to cloak it into nothing more then a concept, yet in the same breath labelling it as a physical deity! If that wasn't enough you're trying to tell us most of the world thinks the way you do! You're providing no evidence, you're making hasty generalisations, you're trying to muddle up definitions yet what you come down to is "accept it on faith".

In that case, I ask you to accept all kinds of woo-woo nonsense, since all you need is faith!

:mad:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I find it remarkable that atheists demand proof of God's existence when we have proof of nothing else in the world, not even the existence of other people. What makes God so special that we should demand proof, and failure to provide such proof should compel us to subscribe to its non-existence? What is the logic, what is the rationale behind the thinking here. Is there any?

I won't disagree that you can't prove anything exists with a 100% degree of certainty. But I do think that there is enough evidence that other things exist that I am pretty safe in saying that they do. I cannot say the same for God and if someone claims that God DOES exist, and wants me to believe that fact, all I ask is convincing evidence not absolute proof. The reason I would demand more evidence of Gods existance than, say, yours is simple. The existance of God is more problematic than the existance of other people. The existance of other people is not incompatible with the universe as I know it, the existance of God is. If somoene is going to tell me that the model of the universe that I know is wrong then they are going to have to convince me. A good start would be convincing evidence of the existance of God

[Aardvark_DK]

Alright, from Dictionary.com:
atheist

\A"the*ist\, n. [Gr. ? without god; 'a priv. + ? god: cf. F. ath['e]iste.] 1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
Disbelieves, Ian.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
And how irrelevant a need can be?
I assume that you mean "And how can a need be irrelevant?" My answer to that is that most needs are incredibly irrelevant. Watch Oprah sometime and you'll see lots of people talk endlessly about needs that are of no interest to anyone.

What does this have to do with asking for proof of God's existence or not?

[calladus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I find it remarkable that atheists demand proof of God's existence when we have proof of nothing else in the world, not even the existence of other people. What makes God so special that we should demand proof, and failure to provide such proof should compel us to subscribe to its non-existence? What is the logic, what is the rationale behind the thinking here. Is there any?
:confused: :confused: :confused:

What? If another person hits me in the head with a Louiville Slugger, I will take that as sufficient proof of his or her existance. I've asked the mythical god for a similar demonstration, but so far he has demurred. Maybe because he does not exist.

As for the logic, the rationale for asking for proof of god - that is so simple that I'm sure you can grasp it. I was told by a religious person that god exists. I asked a simple question in reply, "prove it."

Lastly, your definintion of Atheism bites. The forum has played the dictionary game too often before, so I won't get into it now - but when someone tells me that they are an Atheist, I immediately sav, "Oh? What flavor?"

There are many paths to the different forms of nonbelief, and few names to describe each path. If you assume that every atheist activly disbelieves, you will be mistaken much of the time.

[calladus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I would scarcely describe an inert, lifeless, meaningless Universe as being awesome! This is what materialism tends to imply.

Maybe an absolute materialist would think so - I dunno. I'm humanistic myself - I believe that humans are wonderful, and capable of wonder. I think that the clockwork universe is worthy of wonder and awe.

It is not that the unfeeling universe can force us to feel wonder - awe is not a gift from a god - the wonder, meaning, awe and joy that we feel when we discover such things is exactly the value that we humans place on the universe.

[calladus]

Queen Cleopatra, did you forget about me? ;)

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Sorry for the harshness, but this is getting plain pathetic.
Oh no! It's ok.I understand that these matters cause a lot of frustration :)

In fact, your argument about love was pointless, since as many pointed out:

a - it's a strawman.

Why is it a strawman? I tried to bring a similar example of an "irrational" sentiment that all of us can relate with.

b - it can be examined physically.

Yes!! Exactly as Deity!

You're arguing for existence of a physical deity yet are trying to tell us to accept it on faith alone.
On the contrary. From the opening post I declared that I do not believe in the physical existence of Deity. As I said Deity is a sum of traditions and myths that was created to satisfy pcychological needs.This doesn't consitute my personal interpretation. It's quite a common interpretation.

You're also trying to twist the definition of God attempting to cloak it into nothing more then a concept, yet in the same breath labelling it as a physical deity!

As I said above, you must have misunderstood my point because I am suggesting exactly the contrary.

Calladus, no. I haven't forgotten you! Don't be in hurry, after all God will stay where he is waiting for us to define Him, he won't go away :p

[ImpyTimpy]

And as I already told you, with that you kill your own argument. Of course you don't need proof for a concept because a concept is a concept. However, most people do not share your pet definitions and therefore the argument applies only to you. :)

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Oh no! It's ok.I understand that these matters cause a lot of frustration :)

Why is it a strawman? I tried to bring a similar example of an "irrational" sentiment that all of us can relate with.

Yes!! Exactly as Deity!

On the contrary. From the opening post I declared that I do not believe in the physical existence of Deity. As I said Deity is a sum of traditions and myths that was created to satisfy pcychological needs.This doesn't consitute my personal interpretation. It's quite a common interpretation.

As I said above, you must have misunderstood my point because I am suggesting exactly the contrary.

Calladus, no. I haven't forgotten you! Don't be in hurry, after all God will stay where he is waiting for us to define Him, he won't go away :p

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
Alright, from Dictionary.com:

Disbelieves, Ian.

Which means to reject the belief in something or other, not simply have a lack of belief.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by calladus
[B]
:confused: :confused: :confused:

What? If another person hits me in the head with a Louiville Slugger, I will take that as sufficient proof of his or her existance. I've asked the mythical god for a similar demonstration, but so far he has demurred. Maybe because he does not exist.



Why do you take that as proof? Why do you take it as evidence even?? A person acting thus is simply the result of physical laws playing out. According to materialism, a persons behaviour can be wholly understood from third person facts ie the processes occurring in his brain and his local environment. No need to appeal to consciousness to explain his behaviour, and therefore consciousness cannot be inferred. Or in as much as you can infer it, why cannot one similarly infer the existence of an underlying consciousness embracing all things from the behaviour of the Universe as a whole?



As for the logic, the rationale for asking for proof of god - that is so simple that I'm sure you can grasp it. I was told by a religious person that god exists. I asked a simple question in reply, "prove it."



One cannot prove it anymore than you can prove other people exist or prove anything else regarding the world.




There are many paths to the different forms of nonbelief, and few names to describe each path. If you assume that every atheist activly disbelieves, you will be mistaken much of the time.

Tell me the difference between an atheist who simply merely lacks a belief in a "God" and an agnostic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
[B]Sorry for the harshness, but this is getting plain pathetic. Cleo, you're not providing any arguments as to why we're not supposed to ask for existence of God. In fact, your argument about love was pointless, since as many pointed out:

a - it's a strawman.

b - it can be examined physically.



Love can be examined physically? Er . .I think not. Consciousness is not physical and cannot be examined. This of course includes any states of consciousness such as love.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Which means to reject the belief in something or other, not simply have a lack of belief.
Once again, from Dictionary.con:
disbelieve

\Dis`be*lieve"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Disbelieved; p. pr. & vb. n. Disbelieving.] Not to believe; to refuse belief or credence to; to hold not to be true or actual.
"I do not believe in god/I refuse to believe in god until I see solid evidence for his existence." How's that? Is it alright if I call myself an atheist?

Incidentally, Ian, have you ever tried Yahzi's Baseball Bat test (TM)? Just curious.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Which means to reject the belief in something or other, not simply have a lack of belief.

sorry to butt in, but...

What do you mean by "reject" in this context?

I cannot see any meaningful distinction of the top of my head between lacking belief X and rejecting belief X (except, of course, in the context of a person who has never heard of belief X, who could fairly be said to lack it without having rejected it).

[The Mad Linguist]

This argument seems to be swinging on definitions.

Cleopatra said:

Deity is a sum of traditions and myths that was created to satisfy pcychological needs

and earlier:

The God of Christians is a system of moral values

and she therefore argued that atheists are making a big mistake when they ask for evidence for the existence of God.

But it was pointed out - rightly - that what atheists mean when they ask for evidence of God is not what Cleopatra meant. Instead, we're talking about something closer to the traditional definition.

So let's clear this up a bit. I'm going to invent two new words, and since they're my words, they can mean exactly what I want them to mean.

My two new words are "blaarg" and "fnoob". They are defined thusly:

Blaarg: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent supernatural personal being, creator of the Universe.

Fnoob (with apologies to Cleopatra): "a system of moral values ... the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code... a sum of traditions and myths that was created to satisfy pcychological needs".

Now I think we're all agreed that a Blaarg and a Fnoob are very, very different entities. The existence of one is entirely independent of the existence of the other. So Cleopatra's opening argument, that atheists make a mistake when they ask for evidence of the existence of a Fnoob, boils down to this:

Theist: "A Blaarg exists!"

Atheist: "What evidence do you have that a Blaarg exists?"

Cleopatra: "It's a mistake to ask for evidence of the existence of a Fnoob!"

Clearly this is not relevant.

To express my meaning without the nonsense words, Cleopatra criticizes us for asking for evidence of God (her definition). But that's not what we were asking for evidence of in the first place!

Cleopatra has gone further, however, and suggested that the correct understanding of the word "God" is as a Fnoob, and that those who define "God" as a Blaarg are incorrect. I must say that on this point I am with those who have said that the usual definition of "God" is, in fact, a Blaarg. The God that the overwhelming majority of Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in is a Blaarg. Cleopatra is the first person I have ever heard express belief in a Fnoob. She characterises Blaargists as "Creationists and Fundamentalists" who make the mistake of interpreting science via faith - but there are many Blaarg-believers who are not Bible literalists and do not believe in the Creation account, instead assigning the Blaarg some vague role as first mover of, and occasional tinkerer with, the universe.

So where am I going with this? Cleopatra, if you really want atheists to stop asking for proof of the Blaarg, you're going to have to stop the theists we debate with from claiming that the Blaarg exists. This is something we atheists have been trying for some time, with little success. In other words, for your criticisms of atheism to hold water, you're going to have to convince one billion plus theists to abandon belief in the Blaarg and instead follow the Fnoob that you believe in.

Good luck with that.

When that day comes - and I'm not holding my breath - we can start to discuss the Fnoob. The first issue I'd raise would be the pretty fuzzy definition of the Fnoob. But that's an argument for another day.

[Yahweh]

Very well written Mad Linguist! :)

I am who I am - a Blaarg.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Don't you think it is rather presumptuous of you to be telling atheists that they are wrong about what the word they use to describe themselves means?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You simply cannot go around redefining words all the time. Atheism means a rejection (not lack of belief) of any reality or existent which could reasonably be labelled as "God". Not a lack of belief in a personal God, but a rejection of any God whether personal or impersonal. This includes the type of God hinted at by Hick in my sig.

I am not redefining any words here. Go look in a dictionary, Ian. You will find several common usages of the term "atheism", which range from simple lack of belief, to positive assertions against specific conceptions of God, to positive assertions against all conceptions of God.

Like I said, lack of belief is the most general definition. If somebody says they are an atheist, then that is about the only thing you can assume about their position.

And if you want to argue about technical definitions, you have already lost. Theism is belief in a personal God, not belief in any conception of God you want to pull out of your ass. And attaching the prefix 'a' to a word just means "without".

In other words, technically speaking, an atheist is anybody who is not a theist.

In any event, the definition I gave is the most general. Anybody who calls himself an atheist, at the very least, does not believe in God. Not everybody who calls himself an atheist believes that there could not possibly be any sort of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strawman. Rejecting the existence of a God or positively asserting there is no God certainly need not imply certitude on their part.

I never said anything about certitude.

Furthermore, the definition you gave makes no sense. What does it mean to say that you believe God does not exist, when you don't stipulate what "God" means? Does an atheist believe that Grace Slick's daughter doesn't exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No sort of "God" which one could reasonably label as such.

Who decides what can be reasonably labeled as a God? You?

I don't think that anything other than a sentient being which created the Universe can be reasonably labeled as a God. So there.

He said evidence Ian, not unobtainable absolute proof. If you don't think there is evidence that the universe will not pop out of existence in a second, then you don't know what the word "evidence" means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence if you presuppose the inductive principle, sure. But we have no evidence that the inductive principle itself is true.

Like I said, you have no idea what the word evidence means.

In fact, you are just defining it to be meaningless, in order to try to drag rational beliefs down to the same level as your irrational ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What beliefs do I have that are irrational?

As near as I can tell, all of them. Even those beliefs you have which I agree with, do not appear to be based on any rational kind of reasoning. It seems to me that your entire criteria for deciding whether you believe something is true or not, amounts to whether you want it to be true or not.

The universe is neither inert nor lifeless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes, my error, there are a few robots within the Universe living out their purposeless and futile lives (i.e ourselves should materialism and atheism be true).

What a load of nonsense. Theism, Idealism, and Dualism, do not give meaning to your life. Only you can do that.

And I am not a Materialist, remember?

Meaning comes from ethical and moral philosophy, and ultimately from subjective values, not from metaphysical speculation and mythology.

The fact that it is not magical does not make it any less awesome, and the fact that you think it does just reveals your lack of imagination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes, most awesome those mental representational models patterning and ordering our perceptual experiences (which is all that science can ever be)

If you actually bothered to understand anything about science, rather than just dismissing it because it doesn't agree with your religious beliefs, you might find out how truly awesome it is.

Tell me the difference between an atheist who simply merely lacks a belief in a "God" and an agnostic.

I know of two definitions of agnosticism:

1) To lack knowledge of something (in this case, God).

2) The claim that knowledge about the existence of God is unobtainable.

Neither of those is equivalent to atheism. In fact, one can believe in God, and still hold either of the above two positions (although doing so is not very rational).

Agnosticism is neither equivalent to, nor mutually exclusive to, atheism.

Love can be examined physically? Er . .I think not. Consciousness is not physical and cannot be examined. This of course includes any states of consciousness such as love.

Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence to support this claim.

Your superstitious beliefs are of no consequence to this discussion. You might as well be arguing on the basis of what the Arch-Angel Gabriel told you in a dream.

Dr. Stupid

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


This is exactly what the priest of my neighborhood has told me a couple of years ago before showing me the exit of our Church :)

Anyway, I will try one more time to show you why I think it's wrong to ask for proof for the existence of God plus that "my" definition of God is more common that you think, not in order to persuade you but just for the sake of the discussion :)

Well, I'm glad you are on the path of enlightenment in realising that there is no god (common definition of god).

But, you are doing what many have done before.. you simply change the definition of god into something we know to exist, and then say see.. god exists.

God is the sky.. we know the sky exists.. therefore god exists.

It's just plain silly.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Well, I'm glad you are on the path of enlightenment in realising that there is no god (common definition of god).

Could you please show me the post where I claimed that God exists as a "physical" presence?Or where have I posted that God exists with what you consider as his common definition?


But, you are doing what many have done before.. you simply change the definition of god into something we know to exist, and then say see.. god exists.

God is the sky.. we know the sky exists.. therefore god exists.

It's just plain silly.

Could you please show me again where have I posted this? :)

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Yahzi


Currently, the state constitution of Mississippi proclaims that "No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state." The constitutions of Tennessee, Texas, Maryland, North Carolina, and Arkansas contain similar discriminatory clauses, while South Carolina's constitution bars unbelievers from state office three separate times, and once explicitly from the office of governor. I would have no problem complying with this requirement were I seeking office, since I am, myself, a Supreme Being -- although not God or even a god. If you don't believe it, just ask me. I could hardly deny my own existence, could I? These sorts of regs are apparently written to cover all possible religions but end up being so general as to be meaningless.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I am not redefining any words here. Go look in a dictionary, Ian. You will find several common usages of the term "atheism", which range from simple lack of belief, to positive assertions against specific conceptions of God, to positive assertions against all conceptions of God.

Like I said, lack of belief is the most general definition. If somebody says they are an atheist, then that is about the only thing you can assume about their position.



I have already corrected you on this. If you won't listen so be it. End of story.



And if you want to argue about technical definitions, you have already lost. Theism is belief in a personal God, not belief in any conception of God you want to pull out of your ass.



You cannot declare that those who believe in an impersonal God are atheists! :eek:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In any event, the definition I gave is the most general. Anybody who calls himself an atheist, at the very least, does not believe in God. Not everybody who calls himself an atheist believes that there could not possibly be any sort of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strawman. Rejecting the existence of a God or positively asserting there is no God certainly need not imply certitude on their part.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I never said anything about certitude.



"Could not possibly be" sounds like certitude to me!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the definition you gave makes no sense. What does it mean to say that you believe God does not exist, when you don't stipulate what "God" means? Does an atheist believe that Grace Slick's daughter doesn't exist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No sort of "God" which one could reasonably label as such.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who decides what can be reasonably labeled as a God? You?

I don't think that anything other than a sentient being which created the Universe can be reasonably labeled as a God. So there.



{shrugs}

I'm really not interested in your limited idea of God. Especially as you discount the existence of any such God anyway!

Dear me!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He said evidence Ian, not unobtainable absolute proof. If you don't think there is evidence that the universe will not pop out of existence in a second, then you don't know what the word "evidence" means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidence if you presuppose the inductive principle, sure. But we have no evidence that the inductive principle itself is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Like I said, you have no idea what the word evidence means.



I'm afraid that it is in fact you who doesn't understand what the word means if you dispute this. There is no evidence for induction which doesn't presuppose induction (and therefore can't be evidential).



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, you are just defining it to be meaningless, in order to try to drag rational beliefs down to the same level as your irrational ones.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What beliefs do I have that are irrational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As near as I can tell, all of them. Even those beliefs you have which I agree with, do not appear to be based on any rational kind of reasoning.



If you could be serious for one second I would be very interested if you could name just one belief I have which a sensible intelligent person could deem to be irrational.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The universe is neither inert nor lifeless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes, my error, there are a few robots within the Universe living out their purposeless and futile lives (i.e ourselves should materialism and atheism be true).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What a load of nonsense. Theism, Idealism, and Dualism, do not give meaning to your life. Only you can do that.



I was talking about purpose not meaning :rolleyes:



And I am not a Materialist, remember?



Yes you are. You believe in a wholly unknowable physical sub-stratum which somehow mysteriously gives rise to consciousness.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that it is not magical does not make it any less awesome, and the fact that you think it does just reveals your lack of imagination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah yes, most awesome those mental representational models patterning and ordering our perceptual experiences (which is all that science can ever be)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you actually bothered to understand anything about science, rather than just dismissing it because it doesn't agree with your religious beliefs, you might find out how truly awesome it is.



This doesn't alter what I have said. I say again, how can mental representational models patterning and ordering our perceptual experiences, even if written in the language of mathematics, be awesome?? Are you going to answer my question or what?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me the difference between an atheist who simply merely lacks a belief in a "God" and an agnostic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I know of two definitions of agnosticism:

1) To lack knowledge of something (in this case, God).

2) The claim that knowledge about the existence of God is unobtainable.



And do they not also generally lack a belief in God? And don't those who lack a belief maintain that they lack the knowledge and generally suppose that such knowlege, at the present time, is effectively impossible to obtain? There is insufficient distinction between how you define agnosticism and how you define atheism. Atheism has always meant the rejection of Gods, and moreover a rejection of all Gods including impersonal Gods and non "God of the gaps" Gods.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love can be examined physically? Er . .I think not. Consciousness is not physical and cannot be examined. This of course includes any states of consciousness such as love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence to support this claim.



It's meaningless to say love can be examined physically like a physical object such as a table, because love is an emotion, a state of mind. What possible perceptual qualia do you believe equates to love?? :rolleyes:

[Yahzi]

Lemastre
I could hardly deny my own existence, could I?
While it is true you lack many of the qualities of a Supreme Being (such as Supremeness), it is interesting that you can, in fact, easily demonstrate your existance to the satisfaction of all concerned. One has to wonder at the nature of Supremeness, that beings normally asserted to enjoy this quality are so disadvantaged in this particular area.

Cleopatra
Mad Linguist has it right on. No-one here has ever disputed the existance of philosophy, a set of morals and behaviours that deserves the title "Christian." However, to assert that as the definition of God is both disingenous and wrong. It is disingenous because that is not at all what people mean when they say God: they mean a personal being, with personal attributes, like anger and mercy. Any other use of the word God is at best confusing and at worst deception.

Secondly, it is wrong, because as we have shown, your morality does not exist independently. Your morality is not derived from Christian teachings. Rather, your version of Christianity is derived from secular and empirical society. Proof of this is your inability to accept that the Bible flat out condones slavery: that it has been described as a "slave-owner's manual," that it includes rules on the proper treatement of slaves, and that at no point anywhere does Jesus ever say anything negative about the social institution of slavery.

In other words, you have made up a nice philosophy, and are now trying to pretend the philosophy made you. This is obviously silly, and it should be obvious why it is counter-productive.

Finally, as a strict materialist, if it can't be investigated by science, then I don't believe it exists. It is my expierence that anything that is part of the empirical universe is investigatable by scientific means, and anything that is not investigatable by science is indistinguishable from unicorns, pixes, and other fantasies.

[Cleopatra]

Nyarlathotep

This is long I am afraid but you brought up some really interesting points that is nice to discuss about them anyway.

Me : Of course, I wonder with how many ways you think that one can interpret : " Love your fellow human being".

You: Even that simple statement has been interpreted multiple ways. From the middle ages up until recent decades people wrestled with the question whether blacks and indians counted as human beings and history has shown just how much love was shown to them. Further, some people still question whether they should love ALL of their fellow human beings or just certain select ones.

Even the simplest statement can be open to interpretation and we humans have an amazing capacity to justify the most terrible things on the flimsiest of pretenses.

I cannot disagree with that but as I have been saying to others as well, can we blame these misinterpretations to the authors of the Bible or to founders of every religion?

In the thread about Pope and Rain, I mentioned ( and made arctic penguin furious again) the book of Fraser, The Golden Bough. I mentioned this book because is a classical book and a very well known one. In that book, Fraser demonstrates how we came to the religions as we know today and many of our fellow human beings embrace.

Maybe we wouldn’t be far from truth, if we redefined religion as follows: “ A corpus of ceremonies and prejudices that describe the way Humans understand Nature and the world that surrounds them on the one hand and on the other hand symbolize their conscious or unconscious fears regarding illnesses, fear of death. It seems that in a certain moment in History, some thought to use this corpus in order to manipulate the majority”

If by using this example and by avoiding the example of Love that everybody hated that much but none managed to refute, I made you see clearer what I am suggesting, then maybe you will agree that the fact that some people took advantage of the Religious feeling of common people doesn’t diminish the value and the role of this feeling in humans’ lives.

To my perception, the way to debunk those who claim that Nature must be interpreted by using our Faith and that “ corpus of ceremonies and prejudices that describe the way Humans understand Nature and the world that surrounds them on the one hand and on the other hand symbolize their conscious or unconscious fears regarding illnesses, fear of death”, is not by asking them to prove that God exists. How can you ask somebody to prove to you his prejudices and fears because this is what Religion is about and this is not me that claims that but great anthropologists that have interpreted the phenomenon.

Maybe the way is to show them that this Faith addresses their sub consciousness only. Maybe in that way, those who choose to be in touch with their sub consciousness by believing in this God will put Religion to its appropriate place and they won’t let it govern their lives and the most important; they won’t let it govern other peoples’ lives.

Now as for the rest of your post that I do not want to leave it unanswered.

My point is that people make their own moral codes. They may adapt the codes of others but will interpret them to fit their own desires. Morality, in my opinion, comes from within, not without.

I understand but apart from the personal moral codes that spring from within indeed, societies do have moral codes that members that belong to the same group must follow. Other people call these moral codes, Laws but if you think about laws there are nothing else but moral codes that come to individuals from without.

And let me close with the Love argument.

My argument that many of you took as a strawman, didn’t come as a flash to me nor it’s another “brilliant” idea of my stupid me.
If you read the Theological texts of the first 6 centuries of Christianity, the texts of the Desert Fathers that they were actually those who built the edifice of Christian Faith, you will find plenty of comparisons between love and religious faith.

One of them in particular, Anthony the Great ( later scholars question whether it was Anthony who wrote those superb texts or Athanasius the Great but this is another issue), suggested that God ( he believed in his physical existence he wasn’t a heretic like me) loves deeply His creations the human beings. On the other hand, human beings are not perfect enough to experience and give back the absolute divine love, so, what can they do? They can experience the Love of God trough their love for another human being. That love should be the unconditional, free from egoism, devoted and faithful love.

So, without wanting to appear as a sophist ( Yahzi is much better in this and this is a compliment )but just trying to show you better what I mean, if Anthony the Great could read what you have defined as love towards your wife and friends, he would assure you that you have taken the path that leads directly to God. :)

When you will meet him at the end of this path, come and tell us how it was ;)

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I have already corrected you on this. If you won't listen so be it. End of story.heh. Not really getting the concept of a discussion board, are you Ian? This is not a lecture hall where you are the professor and always right.

Can you address his reply?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Like I said, lack of belief is the most general definition. If somebody says they are an atheist, then that is about the only thing you can assume about their position.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already corrected you on this. If you won't listen so be it. End of story.

The great Ian has spoken. All bow down to his idiotic and useless definitions. :rolleyes:

And if you want to argue about technical definitions, you have already lost. Theism is belief in a personal God, not belief in any conception of God you want to pull out of your ass.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cannot declare that those who believe in an impersonal God are atheists!

What part of "If you are not a theist, then you are an atheist" are you having trouble with?

I never said anything about certitude.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Could not possibly be" sounds like certitude to me!

Only if you deliberately take it out of context.

Who decides what can be reasonably labeled as a God? You?

I don't think that anything other than a sentient being which created the Universe can be reasonably labeled as a God. So there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{shrugs}

I'm really not interested in your limited idea of God. Especially as you discount the existence of any such God anyway!

Dear me!

How can atheism possibly not refer to a limited idea of God????

Like I said before, being an atheist doesn't mean I don't believe in my neighbor's dog, who happens to be named God. It means that I am not a theist. I don't believe in a personal God. That is all it means.

Like I said, you have no idea what the word evidence means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm afraid that it is in fact you who doesn't understand what the word means if you dispute this. There is no evidence for induction which doesn't presuppose induction (and therefore can't be evidential).

Wrong. It means that induction cannot be proven. Evidence is based on induction. I can't prove induction is valid without assuming it is, which would be circular. That does not mean that evidence is not meaningful.

Asking for evidence that the concept of evidence is valid, is just plain stupid. If you want to reject induction, go ahead and take yourself out of the gene-pool. See if I care. Meanwhile, the principle of falsifiability, and the scientific method in particular, works quite well.

What beliefs do I have that are irrational?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As near as I can tell, all of them. Even those beliefs you have which I agree with, do not appear to be based on any rational kind of reasoning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you could be serious for one second I would be very interested if you could name just one belief I have which a sensible intelligent person could deem to be irrational.

Your belief in the supernatural is completely irrational.

What a load of nonsense. Theism, Idealism, and Dualism, do not give meaning to your life. Only you can do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was talking about purpose not meaning

Don't play stupid word games with me. The same goes for purpose.

And I am not a Materialist, remember?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes you are. You believe in a wholly unknowable physical sub-stratum which somehow mysteriously gives rise to consciousness.

I am not even going to argue this with you anymore. You are a liar. I believe in no such thing, and you know it.

If you actually bothered to understand anything about science, rather than just dismissing it because it doesn't agree with your religious beliefs, you might find out how truly awesome it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't alter what I have said. I say again, how can mental representational models patterning and ordering our perceptual experiences, even if written in the language of mathematics, be awesome?? Are you going to answer my question or what?

Well, given that something being awesome is a subjective qualification, the fact that I personally consider it to be awesome pretty much covers that one. (This is where you tell me what I believe again :rolleyes: ).

I know of two definitions of agnosticism:

1) To lack knowledge of something (in this case, God).

2) The claim that knowledge about the existence of God is unobtainable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And do they not also generally lack a belief in God?

No. I actually know quite a few more agnostic theists than agnostic atheists. Most of them just don't refer to themselves as agnostics, but instead are just Christians who admit that they do not know that their beliefs are true, but accept them on faith anyway.

And don't those who lack a belief maintain that they lack the knowledge and generally suppose that such knowlege, at the present time, is effectively impossible to obtain?

Sometimes, but not always. Some atheists believe there are no Gods, and claim to know this is true (usually based on some flawed metaphysical argument). Others lack belief, and do not claim to know one way or the other, but do not claim that the knowledge is unobtainable.

There is an entire continuum of positions. I am afraid most people just don't fit neatly into the little niches you have made for them.

There is insufficient distinction between how you define agnosticism and how you define atheism. Atheism has always meant the rejection of Gods, and moreover a rejection of all Gods including impersonal Gods and non "God of the gaps" Gods.

That's just stupid. How can somebody reject a conception of God that hasn't even been defined?

Prove it. Or at least provide some evidence to support this claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's meaningless to say love can be examined physically like a physical object such as a table, because love is an emotion, a state of mind. What possible perceptual qualia do you believe equates to love??

Love, like all emotional states, is a combination of brain processes. I know you desperately want it to be magical, but reality is what it is. And it does not apparently care what you want it to be.


Dr. Stupid

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]"It's meaningless to say love can be examined physically like a physical object such as a table, because love is an emotion, a state of mind. What possible perceptual qualia do you believe equates to love??"
Love is a term given to describe a complex human emotion. Emotions are reduceable to (a whole s**tload of) natural neural processes. We can measure physical changes (such as increase in brain chemicals like endorphins and such) occurring in the brain when one sees another who they love.

A similar reaction is happiness. Its a much simpler, primitive emotion, but an emotion nonetheless. If you see a funny movie (physical stimuli), you feel happy (emotional response). I dont know the names of many of the molecules and chemicals that linked to specific emotions, but I'm just going to make up one. For the chemical linked to happiness, I'll call it "Smilix". When one becomes happy, there is a measureable increase in Smilix. If no Smilix was ever present, there would be no feeling of "happiness". That suggests qualia is directly related to a physical chemical reaction in the brain. It also suggests that the mind and consciousness do not exist outside of physical matter or materialistic reality. And if that is true, qualia are reduceable down to simple physical matter and natural matter interactions. (Wow, I've never simplified qualia vs. physical stimuli quite like that...)

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[...]you will find plenty of comparisons between love and religious faith.
But you weren't comparing love to religious faith; you were comparing love to God. Could you make up your mind please?

[ImpyTimpy]

Love can be examined physically when we examine the by-products that love causes - physical changes when subject is viewing the loved one...

Also we're not talking about conciousness here ;)

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Love can be examined physically? Er . .I think not. Consciousness is not physical and cannot be examined. This of course includes any states of consciousness such as love.

[Ladewig]

I think I am low man on the totem pole here. Cleopatra answers some posters, becomes sarcastic towards others, becomes condescending towards still others and ignores a few. I fall into that last category.



Nyarlathotep-
Even that simple statement [love others as yourself] has been interprted multiple ways. From the middle ages up until recent decades people wrestled with the question whether blacks and indians counted as human beings and history has shown just how much love was shown to them. Further, some people still question whether they should love ALL of their fellow human beings or just certain select ones.

Cleopatra-
I cannot disagree with that but as I have been saying to others as well, can we blame these misinterpretations to the authors of the Bible or to founders of every religion?

I think I can sum up all my concerns and questions into one hypothetical. Say we are in the U.S. in 1859. Because I have never heard of any form of Christianity, I have my own moral code. I walk into town and meet you and a local preacher. The preacher says, "if you follow the moral guidelines laid out in the Bible, you will come to know God." You say the same thing verbatum. I ask if there is any difference between the moral guidelines each of you follow. The preacher says, "yes, I believe in slavery (which is supported by KJV Ex.20:17, most of Ex 21, Titus 2:10-11, and 1 Pet.2:18), however, Cleopatra does not." You say, "the preacher is misinterpreting the stated moral code." My question to you is, "how do I know that you are interpreting it correctly and the preacher is not? After all, you are asking me to change every aspect of my moral code. Why should I believe you and not him?"

The follow-up question would be, "why should I follow the moral code you champion and not the moral code of this impoverished, wandering Shaolin priest? or will both paths lead to knowing Diety?"

[evildave]

Does your god exist?

Does a god exist?

I don't know, and I don't care.

Does Superman exist?

Does a Superman exist?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ladewig
I think I am low man on the totem pole here. Cleopatra answers some posters, becomes sarcastic towards others, becomes condescending towards still others and ignores a few. I fall into that last category.

Ladewig you are wrong! :)

I do not ignore anybody, I just can't reply to all of you at once since I need time to think of your posts before replying. As you might have observed, my replies are long and I devote quite some time in composing them, regardless if you don't like them or you find them condescending.

I ignore only those who belong to the category" monkeys in banana time" but there is only one person in this category who is in my ignore list anyway :)

[Ladewig]

regardless if you don't like them or you find them condescending.

I canot believe that I am the only person who finds the following comments condescending.

I can read and speak ancient Greek and four foreign languages apart form modern Greek and Hebrew. I have studied tones of books and still I am not sure about anything. I feel little … strange where a little s**** from an unknown village somewhere in USA identifies himself as an atheist and comes to lecture and mock me about God. I was born in Jerusalem, where the biggest Religion is Man’s history was born, however I claim that I have many questions about it. I do not know, I am trying to learn more from other people.
....................
Ladewig you are wrong!

I do not ignore anybody, I just can't reply to all of you at once since I need time to think of your posts before replying.

Then I will wait patiently. My last post was longer than was necessary - I apologize.

[Cleopatra]

The part you quote is more than condescending indeed but if you read a bit more carefully you'd see that with a couple of exceptions that they are enjoying their vacation in my ignore list-- I was not referring to the members of this forum.I think I stated it clearly.

Ladewig, usually I think twice before posting and I thought more than twice to post the part you quoted.

Apart from condescending it was candid and honest as well but I do not expect you to take it as such, I mean I understand that it made many people furious.

edited to add: Early this morning, when I read your post I was tempted to answer it at once because it gave me some great hints to clarify my views, especially after the Mad Linguist parodized them but I have promised myself that today I'd reply to calladus first. :)

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Early this morning, when I read your post I was tempted to answer it at once because it gave me some great hints to clarify my views, especially after the Mad Linguist parodized them but I have promised myself that today I'd reply to calladus first. :)

Parodized? I was writing pariody? News to me. I expounded my viewpoint using a definition from theism and another definition which I quoted from you verbatim and I was fully in earnest and being completely serious.

Just to clear that one up.

[Cleopatra]

Mad Linguist

I loved your post but you must have been addressing it to a Cleopatra in a parallel universe and not to me because you took two tiny phrases of my whole post and after building a theory of your own, you attributed it to me :)

Some people call this strawman, I don't!

I guess that when you typed it you were just addressing at Mercutio and his language award :)

But I will return to your post later.

[The Mad Linguist]

Not strawman. Honest misconception of your argument. I will go back, read again, and try to work out what you really were arguing.

[Reaver]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist
Not strawman. Honest misconception of your argument. I will go back, read again, and try to work out what you really were arguing.

Cool, when you're done could you explain it to the rest of us? 'cause I have no idea what's going on. ImpyTimpy's post on the second page of this thread aligns with what *I* believe is happening but that may be in error.

[Boo]

Wow, after being stuck at work for 5 days without internet access (satellite bites ;) ) I log in and BOOM! I read Cleopatra's original post and thought "somebody else is wrestling with the same issue I am". Much to my husbands dismay I just spent the last 45 min or so reading the entire thread.

My understanding of Christianity comes down to 2 things, we are asked to 'love one another as we love ourselves' and that we accept Him and God on faith.

If you want proof, well that is what miracles are for. If you can disprove a miracle then it isn't one. If after examining the miracle and finding that the occurance cannot be explained then it is a true miracle. This does not mean that the answer for the miracle is "I think it could be explained by (fill in the blank) but I can't prove it" Either it can be explained by reason, science or whatever methodology you choose, or it can't. BTW, I think 'miracle' is a much overused word to describe an occurance of low probability that still has a rational explanation.

Belief and faith are personal. An individual may believe or not in something using the criteria of their choice, whether it's science, a philisophical premise or personal experience. It is my impression that atheists hold to stricter standard of proof (scientific method) then believers of a particular religion or Supreme Being. This neither right nor wrong. It is a personal choice.


Cleo, I admire your eloquence and willingness to state your beliefs in this forum. Personally, I believe in a Creator Spirit that gives to each an Understanding as to their needs.

This includes the Laws of the Universe. If you require a need to understand that which surrounds you by equations and testable proofs here are the immutable laws. When I can be shown that these are based on the premise other than "because that's the way the Universe works" and that it was just a random quirk that gives us the perfect logic and beauty of the scientific laws, then will I give up my belief in a Creator Spirit.



Boo

[Tormac]

Hi Cleopatra,

I apologies for not responding to you earlier, I spend too much time tinkering with my car over the weekend. I was not sure if I should bring this up again, as it is in response to an old post.

I wanted to comment on something you had said in response to me earlier. You asked if you

" have to feel respect for every little s*** that claims to be an atheist?

I confess, Sir that I do not and I apologize in advance about it.”

I say bravo to that statement. I certainly would not encourage anyone to respect someone who is full of it on any topic. A problem with any “ism” is the notion that most people start to get that my “ism” makes me righteous, regardless of my personal morality, or how closely I am to the “facts” of a situation.

When I made the statement about Atheists being jerks, I was not trying to put those words in your mouth, but making a critique about my self at times. I grew up a “fundi”, and after much soul searching as an adult gave up on religion. Sometimes I worry that I am a dogmatic Atheist, when that dogmatism what the source of what I found repellent in religion in the first place. It is still important to understand religion because it can be a moral compass, and has (and still is) one of the shapers of human culture and thought. It is also important to recognize that science, and “materialism” has limits, places where it has little explanatory value.

Theists are not materialists. Theists are often happy with just faith. Most Atheists are not. As Interesting-Ian pointed out, to argue with a theist that there is no deity, because there is not objective proof of one is pointless. But here in the states the reverse argument crops in our popular culture continuously (i.e. gay marriages should illegal because they are contrary to the laws of nature since my religion says so). Often the argument that the “objective proof” on a subject should be subservient to an article of faith or Christian doctrine is seriously argued as justification of state policy. From articles from Europe (mostly the BBC) I’ve often come across what seems to be a popular notion that “God is dead” or “Science (and or philosophy, humanism, materialism, etc) has killed, wounded, or hurt God” Here in the states there is defiantly no popular notion that “God is dead”. In fact I often think that “God” is strong enough to hold off “science”. It may be a frustration that in many areas both among the “religious” and the “secular” the two sides are viewed as mutually opposing forces, with adherents on both sides painting the other as a threat to civilization itself. Atheists here in the states can often become dogmatic, although I personally think it is a defensive position. We (atheist) need people to call us on it if we try to apply values based on materialism into areas where they have no value (i.e. trying to “disprove” a religious doctrine). At the same time when theists attempt make objective reality subservient to articles of “faith”, it is just as futile to get me to agree that things are just so because its in the word of God.

Religion, spirituality, a sense of purpose in meaning in the world, these are important for the long term happiness and well being of a human. I’ve constructed my own, largely from Ayn Rand’s notions of the purpose of humans (I hate to use the tem Objectivism in light of a previous poster’s poor behavior, I would describe that poster as some who has lost the right to expect my respect, even though I like much of the spiritual side of Objectivism) as well as the writings of other scientific humanists such as Sagan, and the classical humanists. This notion of one’s place and purpose in the material universe is a central function that religions offer an individual. I cannot imagine how this cannot be a construct of a culture, or individual though. I’m willing to claim my own as a personal construct, and not try to use it as a justification to change state policy, but sometimes being human, I forget that my internalized sense of right and wrong may have little to do with the objective data of the material world that we all have to share. If I step out of line as an atheist, and try to force my own sense of righteousness on a situation, regardless of the facts of the mater, or the rights of others involved, then I encourage everyone to give me a little smack up side of my intellectual head. No one has the obligation to respect someone who is “full of it”, regardless of what ism the parties hold. It is important that people remember the arenas where a particular way of thinking has meaning. “Because God said so” is not satisfying proof as to why man did not evolve from lower primates, or why the covenant of marriage should not be extended to couples of the same sex. At the same token there is no way I can prove that God does not exist, or that my notion of what an ideal human should strive to be is any better that any other ideal.

I am sorry about the length of this post. I know I can be long winded. As an aside Cleopatra, if you are ever looking for a new book to read, I would recommend Kurt Vonnegut’s “Cat’s Cradle”. It may be a little offensive to a theist, if you take it the wrong way, as the book does try to demonstrate that religion is more powerful than God, but then again the book also shows how religion can be more useful to a culture than the “materialist” facts of existence.

[Cleopatra]

Tormac thank you for your time and your insight.

My problem is that I am away from a printer and I have difficulty in reading long posts that's why it takes me sometime, plus that I really need time to think.

Boo, thanks, I am feeling very comfortable in expressing my ideas to this forum because people are not only tolerant but very passionate in discussing various matters with no prejudice :)

I wish I could deal with this matter once and for good but I can't, it tortures me. From one hand I have the strongest possible belief in Science, from the other hand my "soul" is not satisfied and it searches for more a deeper meaning in things.

Boo I do not want to be indiscreet but if I remember well from another thread, your child faces a health problem.

Families with members with health problems are in my mind when I am talking about the psychological comfort that Faith provides.

I believe that only doctors and their science can deal with health problems but it's my Faith that gives me the strength to have the patience to wait for the new medical breakthrough that might cure a person I love.Does this make me a woo-woo?

Back to the discussion, at least for me because I owe tones of answers :)

[Nyarlathotep]

Cleopatra

I believe that the core of our the disagreement between you and most of the atheists here (including myself) boils down to one of definition. If I understand you correctly, you seem to subscribe to a definition of God as an internal force whereas I and most of the rest of the people taking the opposite side of this debate define God as an external force.

To me, if you define God as an internal force, this makes him into nothing more than a metaphor for ones own thoughts, feelings, etc. That's fine I suppose,if one keeps everything in perspective. But it is hardly the definition of God that most of the world is asking us atheists to accept nor is it the definition of God that most atheists are asking for proof of. I am satisfactorily convinced that I have thoughts, feelings and a moral code and if one wants to call those things God, that's fine with me (though it is still not a metaphor that I, personally, would use). It is an external God that I demand evidence of before I will accept its existance.

I do have a small quibble with this little bit, though.

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I understand but apart from the personal moral codes that spring from within indeed, societies do have moral codes that members that belong to the same group must follow. Other people call these moral codes, Laws but if you think about laws there are nothing else but moral codes that come to individuals from without.

I wouldn't define laws as an externally imposed moral code as much as I would call them a set of rules to make society function. There is a difference. Many people obey the law not because they see the law as right, but because they fear the consequences of disobeying.

Prisons are full of people whose personal moral codes permit them to disobey the law and do so despite the fact that the law says otherwise.

Lastly....

So, without wanting to appear as a sophist ( Yahzi is much better in this and this is a compliment )but just trying to show you better what I mean, if Anthony the Great could read what you have defined as love towards your wife and friends, he would assure you that you have taken the path that leads directly to God. :)

When you will meet him at the end of this path, come and tell us how it was ;)

I am not that familiar with the works of the early Christian Church, so I am not familiar with Anthony the great. But if what he says is correct then I have little to fear even if I am wrong.

[Chanileslie]

I have been a rather outspoken atheist for many years. Heck, I even have my own group, the Northern Nevada Atheists. I have partaken for many years, online and in person, many arguments and debates on the whole god issue, and for the most part (there are exceptions), I usually don't see atheists ask for 'proof' of god until some theists requests 'proof' that god doesn't exist.

Also, the whole idea of a proof that such a being exists is absurd. I have never asked for such a thing, nor should I. I would request if I am to be told that such a being exists and that I should believe in it then I do require *evidence* that such a being exists. To believe in the existence of anything because that guy over there believes in it is not rationale to me.

Now, on to generalizations. I could simply say that all christians are murders and canabals simply because X was such and X also termed himself as a christian. It is poor correlation, but I see this happen a lot. I can not say this enough, generalizations are bad, *bad*, BAD!!! They lead to atrocities because it allows people to objectify a whole goup, and thereby abuse that group based on the actions of a few.

Now, if anyone can show me any verifiable, quantifiable evidence that a god exists, any god, I will believe. Now, ask me if I would worship because that is a whole different subject.

[Boo]

Cleo,

You were not being indiscreet :) . I actually have 2 children with Autism. My son also has moderate to severe brain damage. It is my faith and belief in science that allows me to wait for treatments that will improve the quality of life for my children and the tens of thousands like them. For them I do not wait for a cure, only a better understanding of why they are as they are.

It is my personal Faith that kept me from saying "why me" and allowed me to focus on "what can I learn from them". To accept that their birth was not a random incident, that there is purpose and reason for their existence. I may never know that purpose or reason, but I cannot accept that their lives are happenstance.

This is what Faith gives me.

Cleo, as for being a woo-woo......If you ignore current medical research in favor of 'alternative therapy' then you are a woo-woo. If try 'alternative therapy' after exhausting all treatments established by current medical research, then you are desperate and deserve compassion and support.



Boo

[Tez]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Either you or me define us wrongly. Maybe you are a fideist and I belong to those atheists that carry : "some form of religiosity with them in one way or another".

Do not take the following as an attempt to refute your post, let's say that I feel that we both stand on the opposite sides of a very narrow and easy to cross river and I am giving you my hand to hold it firmly and grab me to your side unless...while reading this you find my hold firmer and you decide to come to my side. I am exploring those things myself anyway.

Point taken, and appreciated. Ditto for this reply...

Not me! The Greek language according to which atheist is somebody who doesn't believe in the existence of a deity.

This is the first time in my life that I hear that atheists believe in some sort of deity... To my knowledge, your kind of people are called fideists, yes, exactly as people like me define ourselves :)

Well, I never claimed belief in any of the stereotypical deities and/or supernatural beings, and it is in that sense that I call myself "atheist". As others are discussing in excruciating detail on this thread, there are a myriad of possible notions of deities - including yours. I am quite sure under a vague enough definition of deity, I could well be a deist. Regardles, the label "atheist" means absolutely nothing to me. My goal was only to differentiate between those I suspect you are predominantly frustrated with, from those more like myself. As long as what I do and dont believe is understood reasonably clearly by anyone interested, I'm happy.


If this is not fideism and you still insist that you are an atheist, then it's the most poetic definition of the science of social anthropology I have ever read...



You don't need to be an atheist in order to get into that procedure you know. Why you try to attribute a main characteristic of human's behavior to atheists especially to the subcategory that you belong, those that leave a room to God in their minds?

Unfortunately it seems that I was not clear - my whole post should be taken as nothing more than personal introspection disembogued into a public arena that, to be honest, I am not actually that comfortable posting these sorts of thoughts on! It was not meant to encompass any more than that. I completely accept that others with vastly different beliefs are engaged in the same quest that I am - I interact with such people daily. I also accept that those with almost identical beliefs to me may choose somewhat different directions for their life. I was not trying to construct a consistent, underlying logical edifice. I was simply painting a personal picture, a picture of my thoughts, beliefs and motivations - one that you may, of course, think overlies a completely illogical scaffold....


This reminds me of what Michael Shermer calls the "Paradox of Pirsig"referring to the famous dialogue of the heroes in the book of Robert Pirsig :" Zen and the Art of Motorcycling maintenance".

What do you suggest? That gravity didn't exist before Newton describes it in his Law? Because I believe that God didn't exist before we invent him, if you compare those two as you do in the sentence above, then I must conclude that the Laws of Physics didn't exist either before we describe them.


The stress with bold is mine. At last!! Now I believe that you are an atheist since you make what I call the common mistake atheists do by insisting on applying the same method to two different things because this is what you do when you suggest that "evidentiary thinking" expands the human experience far more than any religion. The purpose of Religion does not coincide the purpose of "evidentiary thinking" unless you are a Creationist of course.



I will never seize to repeat is that if some people choose to interpret a theory wrongly this is not the problem of the theory... Maybe, we should turn our quest towards the social circumstances that create those misinterpretations.



So now we get to the statement which has primarily motivated my reply. However, I suspect it may take the form of a cathartic ranting, the contents of which you find uninteresting. Just nod and smile, and let me get it off my chest. Once again, what follows is personal opinion and philosophy:

You are quite right - the laws of physics did not exist before we, a bunch of glorified chimpanzees, formulated them. They are a human construct, built around imperfect linguistic concepts, themselves a consequence of seeking to describe our interactions with the "stuff" around us. This overwhelming impetus - of describing, moulding, categorising and debating the range of human experience, of passing on and empowering others through our thoughts and observations, of honing our thoughts feelings and emotions about the other people or parts of this universe within which we are inextricably immersed - is the bedrock of the constructs we call science, religion and philosophy. Where others see di- or tri-chotomy and schisms, I simply see a continuum of human endeavours. I see them as all ultimately ignited by the same, very human, fears and feelings and passions and prejudices.

Does this mean I see all such endeavours as equally valuable or correct? No. However, I am not so naive as to think I can convince all others that my worldview is "correct". This is not merely due to lack of resources, or the finite intelligence of my `adversaries'. Rather, it is because I do not accept "correctness", or "truth" in any sort of platonic sense. Within the paradigm of my own beliefs, I find some consensus about some things with some other human monkeys - I ultimately evaluate truth (or otherwise) purely through such a relativised framework.

Thus, I believe that the ultimate "purpose of religion" is non-orthogonal with the "purpose of science". They are both systems of belief, and many people draw from both constructs as they try to refine and encapsulate their own credo. I hope it is now clear why I think such heretical thoughts, and why I would take mild offence if you continued to insist I have made a "common mistake of atheists". From my perspective it is in fact you who has interpreted the theory incorrectly, as it were, by creating a rather subtle false dichotomy.

As I tried, obviously unsuccessfully, to point out in my previous post, there are reasons I believe that science has identified a significantly more all-encompassing set of ideals and ideas, of creeds and procedures than other belief systems. The insistence on "evidence" forms part of that system. If someone does not accept this as a tenet of their own belief system, their own approach to the universe, then no consensus can be reached with those who do.

This does not seem to prevent folks here trying....

[Cleopatra]

Tez I love the tone of your posts. Such discussions should be done over a glass of wine. I am glad I gave you my hand to drag me to your side of the river if your hold turns out to be firmer...

calladus

At last we meet again! :)

I don't have any comments for the points that we are in agreement. I confess though that I turn to those few lines of agreement for comfort before and after reading the various posts in this thread :p

This seems to be sort of like a "Richard Bach" concept to me - very like Bach's books, Jonathan Livingston Seagull or Illusions, (Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah).

Bach suggests in his books that we are all deities, but just haven't realized it.

Oh no! This not what I had in my mind, not at all but this is not something new anyway. According to the New Testament God created us after him but we are all deities in process, if we follow God's will we will eventually become deities.

If Deity is just a result of a lifestyle that is dictated through a moral code, then I would have to assume more than one deity, because there is more than one moral code. (Yes, I realize that philosophy has 'proved' that there is a such thing as a universal ethic - unfornately philosophers have not been able to determine what that is, exactly, just yet.)

Therefore, I could use the lifestyle based on Christian morals to create a Christian deity, and Islamic morals to create an Allah deity - right?

Which leads me to ask - If I live my life according to my own moral code, I would be creating my own deity?

I think that all Religions claim pretty much the same. If you follow their moral code you will be rewarded by a enjoying a candlelight dinner with God and certainly with a place next to Him in afterlife.

I believe what cultural anthropologists say about religions that they function pretty much the same way in every place on earth. Each religion claims that it's infallible so yes, we do have a plethora of moral codes. As for you, if you live in an organized society you have to abide by its legislation regardless if this legislation springs from Saria or from most liberal Constitution, as I showed to Nyarlathotep legislation is a sort of moral code and if you read this excellent thread of ceo-esq our modern legislation is based on the OT.

Now to my question : "So, why atheists insist on asking something so irrelevant?"

You replied : Because I don't think it is irrelevant.

You see, if Christianity put it the way that you put it, something to the effect of, "Live your life in accordance to our moral code and you will know god by creating him." then I would be more tempted to join up again. But there are some problems with this.

If Christianity put it that way, calladus, it wouldn't be an organized Religion this is what I tried- but I obviously failed-to demonstrate in my opening post. Organized Religions and churches are about myths are about pre-cooked solutions, are about moral codes that ask for discipline, organized religions must claim that they can solve your problems in order to have a clientele. This is why I am not a follower of any religion anymore but I have prevailed the Faith to God in my life because as I have said many times so far, I need to believe in the existence of God, how can you ask me to prove you if this God I believe in really exists? What I can prove you though, by using the scientific results of social anthropology is that is common for people to have this need to believe in God and that it was exactly this need that Religions took advantage of.

First, I think that some of the 'Christian' moral code is bankrupt. It separates and divides people - it invites discrimination due to class, race, gender, wealth, and sexual preference. The Christian moral code treats people very much like property in many cases. I do not find it worth following.

My purpose is not to defend the Christian moral code, when I felt it was necessary I tried to point out that is important to take into consideration when and where the Biblie was composed. I think that it's important to put the Bible in its historical context and never forget about it when we are dealing with the biblical texts.

As I have mentioned in another thread, I used to attend the Church on a regular basis even after I have accepted that the Bible is nothing but a book of myths and symbolisms. When I met in court the first priest who was accused for molesting numerous children, I realized that this moral code was not enough to prevent people from atrocities. Of course, another priest who happens to be a friend of mine had an answer about this too but he didn't persuade me.

Lastly, I think it is relevant to ask for proof of God because the religious population has asserted that there is a real, live being, a God that is immaterial, all powerful, all knowing and all good. Historically infidels have been (untill recently) killed for denying the existance of such a being

I agree and I think that I was clear about that.

Today a nonbeliever is ridiculed and vilified by believers, leaders of churches, leaders of religious empires, and leaders of countries.

Today we experience the vice-versa as well… Many people who dare to declare that they believe in God are ridiculed.

It is relevant to ask for proof of god as long as there is a religion that asserts that a real, live god exists.

Yes but you, that you are aware of what social anthropology says about religion will smile with sympathy and you will understand that it's ok for them to believe in myths as long as it serves their psychological needs. Unless you are addressing fanatic creationists that they want to abolish the teaching of evolution in schools. As I have previously stated, in the place that I was born that it's the place that Christianity was born none even dares to suggest such things…

[Cleopatra]

Ladewig

Interesting case study.

First of all I am not defending the Christian morality here. I used the example of slavery just to support my idea that the Biblical texts should be read in their historical context. But just for the sake of the argument I will try to reply the way an Orthodox Christian would.

I think I can sum up all my concerns and questions into one hypothetical. Say we are in the U.S. in 1859. Because I have never heard of any form of Christianity, I have my own moral code. I walk into town and meet you and a local preacher. The preacher says, "if you follow the moral guidelines laid out in the Bible, you will come to know God." You say the same thing verbatum. I ask if there is any difference between the moral guidelines each of you follow. The preacher says, "yes, I believe in slavery (which is supported by KJV Ex.20:17, most of Ex 21, Titus 2:10-11, and 1 Pet.2:18), however, Cleopatra does not." You say, "the preacher is misinterpreting the stated moral code." My question to you is, "how do I know that you are interpreting it correctly and the preacher is not? After all, you are asking me to change every aspect of my moral code. Why should I believe you and not him?"

The follow-up question would be, "why should I follow the moral code you champion and not the moral code of this impoverished, wandering Shaolin priest? or will both paths lead to knowing Diety?"

Back in 1859 an Orthodox Christian would reply that Jesus spoke exactly for the slaves and he gave them a new perspective in their lives by suggesting that all people are equal in front of God and tha in the Day of Judgment, Kings and slaves will stand in front of Him as equals in order to be Judged with the same Law.

An Ortodox Christian would insist that the relationship of individuals with God is that something that needs time to develop, exactly like a relationship between mortals. He would insist that if you followed his moral code you would receive God’s grace in your everyday life? How? If, for example you refuse to succumb to your egoistic urges and you treated people around you with understanding, your heart would fill with Joy and that's because of God's Grace.

I also think that an Ortodox Christian would stress to you that unlike Abraham, the God of NT didn't make an agreement with humans that He will keep his promises. You have to make the leap of Faith and just believe, follow God's orders and you will rewarded in the Day of Judgement.

I don't know if an Orthodox Christian back in 1859 would persuade you to embrace his dogma.

I think that it would depend on your social needs. If you were white and you lived in the American South, probably the theories of the local preacher would suit you better.

If you lived in another social environment and you were a slave of the Ottoman Empire the idea that in the Day of Judgement kings and slaves would be equally judged in front of God, would sound very appealing.

So, since in both cases, it's only a matter of needs dictated primarily by the social context, it would be irrelevant to ask both the priest and this hypothetical Orthodox Christian to prove to you which version of God really exists.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I think that it would depend on your social needs. If you were white and you lived in the American South, probably the theories of the local preacher would suit you better.

If you lived in another social environment and you were a slave of the Ottoman Empire the idea that in the Day of Judgement kings and slaves would be equally judged in front of God, would sound very appealing.

So, since in both cases, it's only a matter of needs dictated primarily by the social context, it would be irrelevant to ask both the priest and this hypothetical Orthodox Christian to prove to you which version of God really exists.
And if you lived in, say, Saudi Arabia at the end of the 20th century it might suit you to believe that a god wants you to fly a plane into some tall building far away and that he would reward you with a truckload of horny virgins.

Maybe if these people realised that their notion of god is a load of rubbish they might not be inclined to, say, fly planes into buildings? Of course, we could just question their social need to believe all this, but isn't asking for proof of their god a valid way of doing this?

[Cleopatra]

If you live in a Palestinian refugee camp with no education, no health care, no future is very easy to get persuaded that if you wear a jacket with explosives not only you will go to the paradise but you will help your fellow human beings as well.

Since you are helpless and locked in a camp you are more likely to choose a religion that advocates the death of your enemy than the one that advocates love for the fellow human being.

If you have no alternative to give to such a person is very irrelevant to ask him to prove to you that in his Paradise, virgins are waiting for him indeed....

The same stands for the Saudi Arabian you mention. If you dare to ask him for a proof about his beliefs, he will ask you to prove to him that the american president is not the personification of Devil of Earth, since this is how he has experienced the policy of US. To him the "load of rubbish" is not his deity that gives him an alternative but your arguments.

So ,which is the best way to do this? I guess the way ancient Skeptics did it...

[Ladewig]

So, since in both cases, it's only a matter of needs dictated primarily by the social context, it would be irrelevant to ask both the priest and this hypothetical Orthodox Christian to prove to you which version of God really exists.

I wasn't clear in my hypothetical. I was not asking either the slaver-holding preacher or the abolitionist preacher to prove that God exists. Assume I am ready to follow God's path, reject my moral code, and adopt the one that has been divinely inspired. I then ask each them why I should follow one and not the other given that each calls the other mistaken. How am I to make my decision between these two?

More precisely, how am I to make my choice from all the different religiously inspired paths. Despite your claim that "all Religions claim pretty much the same," the religions themselves claim irreconcilable differences. The Hindu holyman describing the importance of vegetarianism, the ancient Greek priestess describing the necessity of animal sacrifice, the Norse seeress describing how only the most couragous and violent warriors will eat at Odin's table, the Druid priest describing the living spirit of the earth, all these people have very different paths that they claim lead to very different places.

[The Mad Linguist]

Cleopatra, I’m increasingly confused as to what you’re getting at, so I’ve gone back to your opening and subsequent posts to try and work it out.

I think that in Philosophy there is nothing more irrelevant than asking for proofs in order to accept God... I mean, that I recognize that atheists are probably right, there is no such a person that cures illnesses, performs "miracles" etc but I consider this persistence on providing proofs as irrelevant when the discussion is about God.
Then you discuss how Christianity made up/borrowed a lot of its tenets and dogmas and moral codes for social/psychological reasons. And then you conclude:

So, it's irrelevant to ask for proofs for the existence of God.
But you’ve not demonstrated it! You’ve stated it twice, but the discussion of the origins of Christian thought on the Trinity and various other matters do nothing to support your basic claim.

It was to reconcile this that I assumed you meant that, as far as you’re concerned, God is this moral code/way of life/etc. of Christianity. That was what motivated my previous response. However, you have said that this was not what you meant at all.

Be that as it may, so far, you have recognised that atheists are “probably” right in not accepting the existence of “such a person” as God, and yet insisted that asking for evidence for God’s existence is a mistake! So far so confusing. Let us press on.

The god of the Christians is not an historical figure ,regardless of what the Gospels claim.
It’s not clear whether you mean Yahweh or Jesus here, but since you’ve stated elsewhere that you do not believe in the historicity of Jesus, I’ll assume you mean him. I don’t see how the fact that you, one Christian, accept that Jesus was not a historical figure, has any bearing on whether atheists are mistaken to ask for proof of the existence of God.

The God of Christians is a system of moral values that once you accept them and you try to apply them to your everyday life, you will meet with what Christians call "deity". "Deity" is the result of a specific lifestyle, of a lifestyle that is dictated by a moral code, the Christian moral code. Do you want to know if God exists? All you have to do is to run your life in a specific way. You either accept this lifestyle that leads to "God" or reject it, there is not room for proof in this religion.
I hope you can understand how, reading these words of yours, I and others came to the conclusion that you believe “God” to be “a system of moral values”, “a lifestyle dictated by a moral code”. We came to that conclusion because you said it!

You have said that there is no room for proof in this religion. Fine, I’ll take your word for it. I don’t care if there’s no room for proof within Christianity. I’m not a Christian. There is room for, and a need for, proof in my worldview. (And by proof I don’t mean absolute proof. I mean enough evidence to make it more likely than not that God exists.)

So far, you have provided nothing to support your original claim about the “mistake” atheists make.

Your next post:

When I meet people who try to explain the existence of God scientifically, I am just bringing to their attention that such a thing doesn't exist-- at least the way they present it. I actually use the arguments atheists use.
So, you’re an atheist now??? I don’t get it. How can someone agree with all the arguments atheists use against claims of a God and not be an atheist? That’s what being an atheist means. Again, this lead me to conclude that the God you believe in is radically different to the God theists believe in.

God, doesn't exist as an individual who performs tricks and magic
That led me to the same conclusion.

what made Christianity so successful is that it followed an infallible path…
Christianity is infallible? In what sense? Surely your whole discourse on the cobbled-together origins of Christianity is evidence against the infallibility of the Christian path?

And finally, you said to Lord Kenneth:

You-- that spend so much time in debunking the existence of its founder --must tell me {why one should consider Christianity given its patchwork origins}
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. If you (or anyone else) want to us to consider Christianity, you (or whoever) must give us some evidence that it is worth considering.

In your next post you made an effort to clarify what your point is:

My point is that suggesting that religion is just a lie is an over-simplification. You cannot deny to somebody what he feels. Shall I remind you of Protagoras who considered as true only what he found that fitted to his life? Whether you like it or not, millions of people still have this need to believe in God and there are either stupid or illiterate.
This gives me a new perspective on your thoughts. Are you arguing that “God” should be defined as “the human being’s need to believe”?

I certainly don’t deny that millions of people have a need to believe in God. Nor would I suggest that these people are all stupid and illiterate. Many of them are intelligent and highly educated. But I do deny that their need to believe in any way makes irrelevant the question of whether that which they believe in actually exists – a question which may only be determined by reference to the evidence.

I mean there is a logic to that, if a lifestyle can lead you to jail why another lifestyle can't lead you to God?
That analogy falls down in that we have plentiful evidence that jail exists and that certain lifestyles lead there. However you seem to be claiming that the existence of God, and his location at the end point of certain lifestyles, should be exempt from the scrutiny of evidence.

In a later post…

To return to my initial argument and to reply to the most of you, my major disagreement with Atheists is that they try to interpret Faith with the tools of Science. Funny, because Fundamentalists do the same mistake when they are trying to interpret Science by using their Faith.
This is not quite accurate, at least as far as I’m concerned. I do not try to interpret Faith through Science. I deny that Faith is a valid tool to use for the interpretation of anything. The scientific method is the only way we have to distinguish truth from falsehood. Faith cannot do this.

You appear to be setting apart some section of the human experience, and saying that it falls beyond the purview of science. But nothing is a priori beyond the purview of reasoned, evidenced enquiry (which is what the scientific method is) and you have offered no reason why religious thought – or love for that matter – should be exempt from reasoned, evidenced inquiry.

Asking for a proof that God exists is like asking for a proof that love exists.
As others have pointed out, love is amenable to laboratory analysis. But it is, more immediately, relevant to empirical investigation – we can observe love in ourselves, and its effects on the behaviour of others. This is very good evidence for the existence of love. You seem to be suggesting that God is some sort of emotion. But if this were the case, the “definitions” counterargument I presented in my previous post would not be a strawman.

Clearly, the religious tendency in human beings is just as amenable to empirical investigation as is love. But the existence of a religious tendency is logically independent of the existence of a God.

If we agree that the Bible is a collection of Symbolisms and myths then, the ethical code that was taught by Jesus Christ is the path that leads to Deity
This is a monstrous non-sequitur, if I were a less charitable fellow I’d nominate it to BillHoyt. I do agree that the Bible is a collection of symbolisms and myths. But neither of the following things proceed logically from this: 1) that there is a Deity 2) that the ethics of Jesus lead to that Deity!

In response to something Nyarlathotep said, you said:

Nyarlathotep :This being the case, I see no reason to believe that any sort of deity exists.

Cleopatra: Deity? Do you mean a stage of existence or a person who commits magic tricks? I will take the later. It's called credo par consolans Faith to console our fierce human souls
Again, you are deliberately defining God as not a supernatural being but you are not being clear as to exactly what you think God is. “A stage of existence” – whatever that means. You also seem to suggest that God consists of the consoling effect of Faith. But faith in what? Faith in something which (as we saw earlier) you accept does not exist? All that is clear to me is that it is Faith in something which you think we atheists should not ask for evidence of. But you have provided no arguments in support of this opinion of yours.

A couple of posts down, you said something which was instrumental in suggesting to me that you were working by the definition of God which I gave to the Fnoob in my previous post:

I believe that God didn't exist before we invent him
Just wanted to point that one out.

And then you said to Tez:

you make what I call the common mistake atheists do by insisting on applying the same method to two different things because this is what you do when you suggest that "evidentiary thinking" expands the human experience far more than any religion. The purpose of Religion does not coincide the purpose of "evidentiary thinking" unless you are a Creationist of course.
Evidentiary thinking is the only way that human beings can find out things that are true. Religion makes truth claims. The only way to evaluate these truth claims is by evidentiary thinking (or the Scientific Method as I like to call it). Religion doesn’t just make truth claims – it does many other things as well, such as holding societies together, consoling through faith, etc, and evidentiary thinking may well not be appropriate in these contexts. But the fact that it does so does not exempt it from the necessity of supplying evidence for truth claims.

The existence of God is a truth claim. Evidence must be supplied, or there is no reason – NONE – to accept it.

If this "Jesus" asked people to love each other and some people chose to love only those who have the same skin color-just to bring an example- this is not the problem of "Jesus" ...
It is if he was an omnipotent superbeing, as Christians claim. If he was an omnipotent superbeing, he had the ability – and thus the responsibility – to be a bit clearer about such an important detail.

And then, a short while later:

Yahzi: Asking for proof of an existence claim is never unwarranted.

Cleopatra: Of course it's not!!! Is it the right way to approach Truth though? That is my question!!
So… you agree with us after all? But hang on... what do you mean by that second bit? “Is this the right way to approach Truth”? I have a sneaking suspicion that we’re not on the same page here. Are you suggesting that there is something more to truth than whether or not a given claim is in correspondence with reality? If so, what?

To Thaiboxerken you replied:

I think that it's wrong to ask for proof regarding the existence of God because you cannot use the methods of science to interpret Deity which is more complicated than "Who created the World". If you ask for proof then you make the same mistake Fundamentalists make when they are trying to interpret science by using their Faith.
This is a reiteration of your starting claim, but you still have not provided any reason to accept any of the following propositions:

1) that the correct meaning of “God” is something other than “supernatural being, creator of the Universe”
2) that this Deity is beyond the scientific method
3) that evidence of this Deity’s existence is irrelevant.

Furthermore, you say that Deity is more complicated than we think – a ridiculous notion, since an atheist’s idea of what God is derives from the theists we debate, so your beef is with them not us – but you make no effort to say how or to explain the complexity.

Religious Faith is trying to answer to many other questions apart from the creation of the World. It has answers to our fears regarding Death, misfortunes, fear of the unknown future and it was the answer to those questions that have made all the religions so popular in Human's History and not the their fairy tales about the creation of the world...
I agree absolutely that it is religions’ teachings on these subjects that have made them immensely popular. But do the answers provided have any relation to the reality of the universe?

Just because a religion gives us some reason to think that life has meaning, that suffering is not in vain, that death is not the end, does not mean that any of these truth claims are correct.

You have given us no reason to accept that the claims that religions make on such matters are outside the scope of the scientific method. A priori, as truth claims, we have a right to demand evidence for them.

You later said:

The "problem" is that some people, like me, have the psychological need to believe in God. And how irrelevant a need can be?
Of course one’s needs are very relevant to one’s life. But a need is utterly irrelevant to determining whether the object of that need exists or not. So again, I was driven to the conclusion that you consider “God” to consist of “the psychological need to believe in a higher being”. Which led to the definitions argument I laid out. My interpretation was incorrect, you say. So what exactly did you mean?

Again,

From the opening post I declared that I do not believe in the physical existence of Deity. As I said Deity is a sum of traditions and myths that was created to satisfy pcychological needs.
This led me to the not unreasonable conclusion that you believe that “Deity is a sum of traditions and myths that was created to satisfy pcychological needs”.

after all God will stay where he is waiting for us to define Him, he won't go away
So now you do believe that God has an existence independent of those who believe in him??? I’m confused.

Later on, after introducing a new definition of “religion”, you said:

the fact that some people took advantage of the Religious feeling of common people doesn’t diminish the value and the role of this feeling in humans’ lives.
No it doesn’t. But this has no relevance to whether it is appropriate to ask for evidence to back up claims of the existence of God.

To my perception, the way to debunk those who claim that Nature must be interpreted by using our Faith and that “ corpus of ceremonies and prejudices that describe the way Humans understand Nature and the world that surrounds them on the one hand and on the other hand symbolize their conscious or unconscious fears regarding illnesses, fear of death”, is not by asking them to prove that God exists… {snip}…Maybe in that way, those who choose to be in touch with their sub consciousness by believing in this God will put Religion to its appropriate place and they won’t let it govern their lives and the most important; they won’t let it govern other peoples’ lives
You have again stated your claim – that we shouldn’t ask for evidence of God. But you have again provided NOTHING to back it up. You also seem to be suggesting that god is “a way of getting in touch with one’s subconscious” – yet another new and non-standard definition, and yet you said my response to such definition-chopping was not applicable to what you were claiming?

Later you said:

From one hand I have the strongest possible belief in Science, from the other hand my "soul" is not satisfied and it searches for more a deeper meaning in things.
Surely it must be clear that your need for deeper meaning is not evidence that the said meaning actually exists? And that the existence of God – or whatever else one might use to supply “meaning” – is not substantiated by the existence of a need for meaning?

Personally, my own struggle for meaning ended when I realised that the search for meaning was just a part of being a human animal, and that it meant nothing – absolutely nothing – in terms of the way the universe functions.

I believe that only doctors and their science can deal with health problems but it's my Faith that gives me the strength to have the patience to wait for the new medical breakthrough that might cure a person I love.Does this make me a woo-woo?
No. But it doesn’t show either that God exists, or that the question of God’s existence is not amenable to the scientific method.

To Calladus you said:

Organized Religions and churches are about myths are about pre-cooked solutions, are about moral codes that ask for discipline, organized religions must claim that they can solve your problems in order to have a clientele. This is why I am not a follower of any religion anymore but I have prevailed the Faith to God in my life because as I have said many times so far, I need to believe in the existence of God, how can you ask me to prove you if this God I believe in really exists?
Because it is a truth claim, and evidence is required to support truth claims. Again, you have restated your argument but not provided any reason to think that it is correct.

I apologise for the length of this post. I just wanted to make sure I had treated your claims comprehensively. But it is far from obvious, from what you have written, what you consider God to be, whether you believe in God (as usually defined), and why you consider that claims of God’s existence should be exempt from demands for evidence.

I know I have asked some questions above, but in such a long post you must feel free to ignore them. There are, however, a couple of questions I would like to ask you:

What do you mean when you say “God”? That is to say, how do you define the word "God"?

Do you believe that this God exists in reality?

Do you believe that this God exists independently of those human beings that believe in him?

Do you have any evidence for the existence of this God?

If yes, what?

If not, why do you believe in this God’s existence?

Why is evidence irrelevant to discovering the truth or otherwise of claims of this God’s existence?

And finally, If your definition of “God” is not something along the lines of “omnipotent personal being, creator of the Universe”, then how was my prior argument a straw man?

Best,

The Mad Linguist

edited to fix tags and clarify a question

[Yahzi]

Maybe this is what Cleo is getting at:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1015350,00.html

Religious truth does not stand or fall by the historicity of its scriptural narratives. It will survive only if it enables people to find meaning and value when they are overwhelmed by the despair that is an inescapable part of the human condition. When we are discussing the meaning of life and the death of meaning, the historicity of [Noah's] flood becomes an irrelevant distraction from the main issue. We are dealing not with history or science but with myth.

Today in popular parlance, a myth is something that did not happen, so to claim that a biblical story is mythical is to deny its truth. But before the advent of our scientific modernity, myth recounted an event that had - in some sense - happened once, but which also happened all the time. It was never possible to interpret a myth in terms of objective reason.

There were two ways of arriving at truth, which Plato called mythos and logos (reason). They complemented each other and were of equal stature; both were essential. Unlike myth, logos had to relate accurately to the external world: from the very earliest days, we used it to create effective weapons and to run our societies efficiently.

But humans are also meaning-seeking creatures, who fall very easily into despair. When faced with tragedy, reason is silent and has nothing to say. It was mythology and its accompanying rituals that showed people how to acquire the strength to go on.

As a result of our scientific revolution, however, logos achieved such spectacular results in the west that myth was discredited. By the 19th century, believers and sceptics alike began to read the biblical myths as though they were logoi.


Really, this is Gould's Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument. But I disagree with the premise: I think that reason has lots to say about tragedy, and I think it's way more effective at dealing with tragedy.

This is the old view: that without the illusion of meaning created by myth, man will wither and die. But it's not true. You can live a life of pure reason. You can decide that what you do, here and now, matters because you did it. You can view your life as a work of art in progress, to be framed in time and stand forever as your personal creation. Does a true artist care if no one sees his work?

Once you abandon the childish notion that the universe should conform itself to your selfish desires, you realize that you don't need any God to justify your existance. Making your child smile is all the justification you require. And then, after a while, you begin to see how the notion of God actually robs life of all meaning, how the idea that this life is just a one-question test for your real existance later is the problem, not the solution.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ladewig


I wasn't clear in my hypothetical. I was not asking either the slaver-holding preacher or the abolitionist preacher to prove that God exists. Assume I am ready to follow God's path, reject my moral code, and adopt the one that has been divinely inspired. I then ask each them why I should follow one and not the other given that each calls the other mistaken. How am I to make my decision between these two?

As I have already replied you will base your choice on your needs, as millions of people since the dawn of Humanity have done before you.

Despite your claim that "all Religions claim pretty much the same,"

Where did I say that? I said that according to social anthropology that has studied the phenomenon of Religion, the psychological process that leads to the creation of the religious feeling and faith is the same for every human being wherever he lives. I used as a referrence the most well-known work that has ever been published on the matter " The Golden Bough", a book that Americans are very familiar with, of course this is not the only book that exists on the matter but since I am not an expert and like others here I base my knowledge on "common" readings, I hope you don't expect a full bibliographical reference.

Now that I am thinking about it I could have used as a referrence the work of Claude Levi Strauss but he has studied more specific matters of religion, like totemism, the magical function of masks and how it survives in modern western societies ( with the use of make-up and with the follie of fashion of course...) and other things. Fascinating! I wish I could read them all :)

the religions themselves claim irreconcilable differences.

These are external characteristics that are formed based on the enviromental and historical circumstances. They do not concern us in this discussion.But if you want, in another thread we can discuss ( based on our readings) what the similarities between religions are. I bet that similarities are more than the differencies and maybe people in this forum who have studied social anthropology will have many things to say.

Ladewig. regardless if I have persuaded you (I know that I haven't) can you see better now where I am coming from, at least, can you see my point regardless if you agree or disagree with it?

[Ladewig]

Ladewig-
Despite your claim that "all Religions claim pretty much the same,"

Cleopatra-
where did I say that? I said that according to social anthropology that has studied the phenomenon of Religion, the psychological process that leads to the creation of the religious feeling and faith is the same for every human being wherever he lives


From your first post on page 4:

"I think that all Religions claim pretty much the same. If you follow their moral code you will be rewarded by a enjoying a candlelight dinner with God and certainly with a place next to Him in afterlife."

I was not disagreeing with "the phenomenon of Religion [is] the psychological process that leads to the creation of the religious feeling and faith" I was challenging the proposition that they all "claim the same thing" - namely follow the moral code and you will meet God in the afterlife. That's why I chose those specific examples. They do not promise everyone who follows the code a meeting with God in the afterlife. I also chose them to illustrate how contradictory divinely-inspired moral codes can be.

Ladewig. regardless if I have persuaded you (I know that I haven't) can you see better now where I am coming from, at least, can you see my point regardless if you agree or disagree with it?

No. I have even less understanding of your original point now than when I started. In fact, it would be incorrect for me to say I disagree with you, because I have so little understanding of your position.

I will bow out of the discussion and continue to read the thread. I think your response to the Mad Linguist's last post may help me understand what you are saying.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ladewig



From your first post on page 4:

"I think that all Religions claim pretty much the same. If you follow their moral code you will be rewarded by a enjoying a candlelight dinner with God and certainly with a place next to Him in afterlife."

I was not disagreeing with "the phenomenon of Religion [is] the psychological process that leads to the creation of the religious feeling and faith" I was challenging the proposition that they all "claim the same thing" - namely follow the moral code and you will meet God in the afterlife. That's why I chose those specific examples. They do not promise everyone who follows the code a meeting with God in the afterlife. I also chose them to illustrate how contradictory divinely-inspired moral codes can be.



I do not see the contradiction. If you attempt a comparative study of religions, you will trace "contradictory divinely-inspired moral codes " indeed.

For example, the God of the Jews doesn't recognise forgiveness and Jesus, who according to the Gospels came to complete the OT suggested exactly the contrary by encouraging his followers to turn their other cheek as well once they have been slapped.

Both versions of this Deity though, the Jewish and the Christian, are promising a meeting with God if you follow their moral code and they are not the only ones.

I cannot understand what is your problem with that. Do you think that you can't accept that God exists because there are many paths that lead to him and many moral contradictory codes? Ok.Don't choose one.Or do you think that this contradictory moral codes do not make your question irrelevant. If you think the later you are wrong I am afraid.

As I have said, using your very own case study, the God and the moral code that you will choose, if you decide to choose one, will be determined by your social environment.

If you live in Manhattan and you are a broker, the moral code of Saria and vindictive Allah has very little to offer to you and there are a few possibilities that it will inspire you. But it would be irrelevant to ask from a Palestinian who is locked in a refugee camp to prove to you that this Allah of his really exists.

If you ask him how he explains this contradiction in moral values and whose deity says the truth, he will nod with sympathy and he will start explaining you that the others perceive deity in a different way because they haven't seen the truth yet, that's why he wears the jacket with the explosives in order to make them see the unique truth that it happens to be his of course...

You might attempt it. The fact that you won't get any logical answers won't diminish the value of his God and it won't make you look smarter than him because when people are posing irrelevant questions they accomplish almost nothing.Surely, they do not accomplish to prove that they have discovered the truth.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You might attempt it. The fact that you won't get any logical answers won't diminish the value of his God and it won't make you look smarter than him because when people are posing irrelevant questions they accomplish almost nothing.Surely, they do not accomplish to prove that they have discovered the truth.
Can you think of any question whatsoever that would be relevant to ask of such a person? Asking him whether he thinks that God really wants him to blow up other people is just as irrelevant as asking him for proof of God's existence. Maybe you do have a point - namely that it is irrelevant to ask religious people about anything at all because...

You know what? Never mind.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

Can you think of any question whatsoever that would be relevant to ask of such a person?

"Why do you believe that God exists? "

This is a nice way to start a conversation and make the Theist admit at the end of it that he believes in God out of convenience or habit, or need, or becauce none has ever asked him to question his beliefs.


You know what? Never mind.

Are you upset?

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Are you upset?
No, tired of banging my head against a wall. Have fun.

Edit: Oh, and I second this:
Originally posted by Ladewig
I have even less understanding of your original point now than when I started. In fact, it would be incorrect for me to say I disagree with you, because I have so little understanding of your position.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
As I have already replied you will base your choice on your needs, as millions of people since the dawn of Humanity have done before you.
But we don't want them to do that. We want them to make their choice based on a rational analysis of their needs and the possible solutions. We want people to be reasonable. This is not something they are used to doing. Being reasonable is a fairly recent invention. But we are really, really attached to it, and we really think everybody else ought to be in favor of it, too.

Don't you agree? Don't you think that everybody ought to at least try to be reasonable?

The mere fact that human beings routinely believe arrant nonsense is hardly justification for their doing so.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Cleopatra




Both versions of this Deity though, the Jewish and the Christian, are promising a meeting with God if you follow their moral code and they are not the only ones.




Can you point me to some documentation that outlines this ' promise of a meeting with God ' as part of Jewish religious beliefs.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
No, tired of banging my head against a wall.

You have composed less than 10 lines in this thread all of them irrelevant.

Have fun.

I will, thank you!! :)

Edit: Oh, and I second this:


That's because I haven't learned yet how to use properly the Clue Stick 2000. It's only matter of time...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Yahzi

But we don't want them to do that. We want them to make their choice based on a rational analysis of their needs and the possible solutions. We want people to be reasonable. This is not something they are used to doing. Being reasonable is a fairly recent invention. But we are really, really attached to it, and we really think everybody else ought to be in favor of it, too.

Don't you agree? Don't you think that everybody ought to at least try to be reasonable?

The mere fact that human beings routinely believe arrant nonsense is hardly justification for their doing so.

At last Yahzi we are heading somewhere!!!

I agree and I can accept that( although there is another moral issue here that deserves a thread of its own) for the western societies. I mean yes, you are entitled to ask from somebody who lives in a western society to try at least to be reasonable BUT you will accomplish that by questionning the usefulness of his belief.

You must show to the Christian Ortodox who lives in Athens in 2003 that has nothing in common with the Christian Orthodox of the 18th ce. so he can't believe to the same things that the later believed.

You can't ask him to proove you that God doesn't exist because you can't apply the scientific method when it comes to religious faith and this is where I disagree with Mad Linguist and others of course.I have serious doubts about the method your are using.

You guys, cannot even prove to each other what the word Atheist really means and you expect from other people to prove to you that God exists?

[The Mad Linguist]

You can't ask him to proove you that God doesn't exist because you can't apply the scientific method when it comes to religious faith
That's a mighty strong claim, and you have yet to provide any reasons for us to accept it as true.

[Cleopatra]

Oh yes I have showed you why I think that you can't apply the scientific method to religious faith, I have done it more than once.

Religious faith addresses psychological needs and not rational thought.

You can't ask somebody who is afraid to die and he believes in God to prove to you God's existence but you can show him that he believes in God exactly because he is afraid to die.

Asking for proofs serves poorly your cause but by debunking the need that creates the feeling, does a better job.

edited to add a t

[Cleopatra]

BTW Mad Linguist.

Have atheists concluded to the definition of the word atheist? Who is an atheist after all?

[The Mad Linguist]

I agree. Religious faith does address psychological needs.

But it ALSO makes existence claims. E.g. for omnipotent superbeings.

I'm sorry, but I am unable to see how you get from the fact that religion addresses psychological needs to the notion that it should be exempt from the necessity of supplying evidence for existence claims.

It doesn't follow!

This is why I say you have given us not reasons to think that your claim is true: because everything that you have said about psychological needs etc. is logically independent of the issue of evaluating truth claims.

You can't ask somebody who is afraid to die and he believes in God to prove to you God's existence but you can show him that he believes in God exactly because he is afraid to die.

er... call me stupid, but what does the former have to do with the latter?

Demonstrating to someone that their faith is a result of their psychological need they possess can explain why they have their faith, sure. But it does NOTHING to address the issue of whether the content of their faith - its truth claims - are in accordance with the reality of the universe. It is to decide the latter issue that we ask for evidence.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
BTW Mad Linguist.

Have atheists concluded to the definition of the word atheist? Who is an atheist after all?

Well I say it means "not a theist" but if you've got another definition you prefer, I'll happily go along with it for the sake of argument.

In fact, that's what I have been doing on this thread.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


But it ALSO makes existence claims. E.g. for omnipotent superbeings.

Yes I know that it does we have discussed this.

A Christian will reply to you that you can't understand this superbeing because you don't follow God's will, you can't debate those people rationally. BUT let me reply for a n time, it's crucial to debate them when they want to enforce their beliefs in other people ( by excluding the teaching of evolution in schools for example) Whenever such cases went to court they lost exactly because in courts of Law you have to provide evidence and not vague notions.

because everything that you have said about psychological needs etc. is logically independent of the issue of evaluating truth claims.

To somebody who has a need for something, who is madly afraid of death for example, logic is irrelevant.The logic that dominates his brain is how God will help him to evade death.

I am not defending them, I am just trying to show you how I think that they are thinking.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


Well I say it means "not a theist" but if you've got another definition you prefer, I'll happily go along with it for the sake of argument.

Me? I am curious to see if atheists will agree with you because each atheist has its own definition.

In fact, that's what I have been doing on this thread.

Your sacrifice- sort of christian habit allow me to remark- is greatly appreciated, Mad Linguist.

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am not defending them, I am just trying to show you how I think that they are thinking.

So when you say that it is a mistake to ask for proof of a God, are you saying that it is a philosophical mistake or a practical mistake?

I can see that you have made a case (in a very muddled way) for the latter, that in many circumstances it can be practically counterproductive. But you have given no reason for me to agree with the former.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


So when you say that it is a mistake to ask for proof of a God, are you saying that it is a philosophical mistake or a practical mistake?

Both. I started this thread in order to attempt to demonstrate that it's philosophically wrong.

I can see that you have made a case (in a very muddled way) for the latter, that in many circumstances it can be practically counterproductive. But you have given no reason for me to agree with the former.

Tomorrow, I will go find a printer to print out the thread and I will make a last attempt to show what I mean and of course I owe answers to those that took the time to compose long posts, including you Mad Linguist.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Both. I started this thread in order to attempt to demonstrate that it's philosophically wrong.



Suddenly I believe in God again. Don't know why.


:cool:

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Sundog


Suddenly I believe in God again. Don't know why.


:cool:

And I believe that you will burn in Hell :p

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


And I believe that you will burn in Hell :p

But it might, just might, be worth it...

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am curious to see if atheists will agree with you because each atheist has its own definition.

I have discussed differing definitions of this word, and why these differences exist, at some length in the opening post of
this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25105), which sparked some very interesting responses.

[Lord Kenneth]

Does Cleopatra even know what she is talking about? She tries to make her own definition of god and deity up and then says evidence shouldn't be needed.

Well, guess what. It doesn't matter if people decide to call the claim a "faith-based" claim, it's still a claim and can be scientifically examined. If it does not withstand scrutiny then it is useless.

No matter what the intent or the claim is.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist


I have discussed differing definitions of this word, and why these differences exist, at some length in the opening post of
this thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25105), which sparked some very interesting responses.

Yes, I am following this thread, in fact I have some questions regarding your op but I haven't found the time to post them there yet.

Lord Kenneth I must forward you the e-mail of Claude Levi Strauss to complain to him about "Cleopatra's definition of deity..." I hope that social anthropology is a science that you aknowledge.

[renata]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Can you point me to some documentation that outlines this ' promise of a meeting with God ' as part of Jewish religious beliefs.

I do not want to butt in, but I can confirm that medieval Jewish philosphers wrote extensively on that subject. It has been a very long time since I studied this subject, but if I recall correctly, Yehuda ha Levi in particular wrote that in the afterlife, people will be positioned close to god depending on their behavior in life, and the most holy men will only have a transparent mehitza between god and themselves.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/kuzari.html

I cannot find the very passage I am thinking of, but here are another ones, with similar implications.



Know that he who converses with a prophet experiences spiritualization during the time he listens to his oration. He differs from his own kind in the purity of soul, in a yearning for the [higher] degrees and attachment to the qualities of meekness and purity. This was a manifest proof to them, and a clear and convincing sign of reward hereafter. For the only result to be expected from this is that the human soul becomes divine. being detached from material senses, joining the highest world, and enjoying the vision of the divine light, and hearing the divine speech.

......

111. The Rabbi: We do not deny that the good actions of any man, to whichever people he may belong, mill be rewarded by God. But the priority belongs to people who are near God during their life, and we estimate the rank they occupy near God after death accordingly.

[thaiboxerken]

Me? I am curious to see if atheists will agree with you because each atheist has its own definition.

I know many atheists that define the word "atheist" as a person that doesn't believe in a god or gods. Others define it as a person that believes there is no god or gods. Either way, both definitions deal with the same subject (god or gods). Both deal with the conventional definition of god or gods.

Your definition of god is totally different than most other definitions of god or gods out there. People are not claiming to worship a set of ideals or morals, as in the "god" you define. They are claiming to worship a god or gods, as in a conscious and intelligent being with superduper powers. You are playing the dishonest tactic of making up your own definition of the word "god" and then basing your arguements off of it.

Let's stick with the conventional definition of "god" or "gods". When I say I don't believe in a god or gods, it's that particular definition of god or gods that I'm talking about.

I see it all of the time, the equivocation fallacy is one of dishonesty.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Lord Kenneth I must forward you the e-mail of Claude Levi Strauss to complain to him about "Cleopatra's definition of deity..." I hope that social anthropology is a science that you aknowledge.

Claude can shove his definition of deity up his pooter. Just because an anthropologist decided to change the definition doesn't make that definition valid. Does Claude Levi Strauss's definition of deity show up in any dictionary? Do theologists agree with that definition? Do theists agree?

Social anthropology is a great science. Does the anthropology community define "deity" in the same way? Also, the majority of the people in the world are not anthropologists so that particular definition wouldn't apply anyway.

When I say that I dont' believe in a god, gods or deities, I'm not talking about anthropological science.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You must show to the Christian Ortodox who lives in Athens in 2003 that has nothing in common with the Christian Orthodox of the 18th ce. so he can't believe to the same things that the later believed.
Slavery. Women's rights. Punishing the child for the sins of the father.

I thought we already did show this.

[The Mad Linguist]

bump.

This thread was just getting good - I don't want it to die!

[Cleopatra]

"Patience, Iago, patience..."

[calladus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why do you take that as proof? Why do you take it as evidence even?? A person acting thus is simply the result of physical laws playing out. According to materialism, a persons behaviour can be wholly understood from third person facts ie the processes occurring in his brain and his local environment. No need to appeal to consciousness to explain his behaviour, and therefore consciousness cannot be inferred. Or in as much as you can infer it, why cannot one similarly infer the existence of an underlying consciousness embracing all things from the behaviour of the Universe as a whole?

Man, you gotta stay outta the Solipsism section of the library - too much of that cotton-candy ain't good for ya, and you start wondering if you are dreaming the butterfly, or the butterfly is dreaming you.

Besides, it looks as if you are opening an argument on three different fronts here:

You first suggest that the person may not be conscious, and is just acting out natural physical laws. You then suggest that a universal consciousness is controlling him (and everything else too - including me?) And lastly you suggest that nothing might exist that is outside of my own thoughts. Why don't you just meditate on one argument at a time?


As for the logic, the rationale for asking for proof of god - that is so simple that I'm sure you can grasp it. I was told by a religious person that god exists. I asked a simple question in reply, "prove it."

One cannot prove it anymore than you can prove other people exist or prove anything else regarding the world.
I should try that argument the next time someone trys to prosletyse at my door! Kinda like asking the Caterpillar how he manages to coordinate all those feet!

Maybe I can't prove anything to your satisfaction - so why should I care? You don't believe you exist? Huh - I can live with that, but YOU might not be able to. The problem with gazing into your own navel in this fashion is that you start to ignore the world that you no longer believe in. Sooner or later you get hit by a nonexistent bus.


Tell me the difference between an atheist who simply merely lacks a belief in a "God" and an agnostic.
Compare someone who activly disbelieves in a god or gods to someone who simply holds no belief in god(s) to someone who believes that no-one can know if god(s) exist or not. I may get jumped on by others for playing the dictionary game here, but I would call the first person a hard Atheist, the second a soft Atheist, and the last an Agnostic.

My non-belief is passive - I find disbelieving in god(s) to be silly - It is a meaningless question to me, a null phrase. There is no belief or disbelief to suspend.

[Cleopatra]

I am trying to catch up with the replies here, I hope that I will have finished them by tomorrow.




Yahzi

Moi:You must show to the Christian Ortodox who lives in Athens in 2003 that has nothing in common with the Christian Orthodox of the 18th ce. so he can't believe to the same things that the later believed.

Toi: Slavery. Women's rights. Punishing the child for the sins of the father.

I thought we already did show this.

You see, you have the tendency to drug conclusions about the phenomenon of the Religion as a whole by the experience of your country. Religion wasn't born in the States and this is what I tried to show to everybody here by my opening post--I have seen the same tendency in your discussions with ceo_esq but I do not intend to defend Papism by interfering no matter what.

You can't persuade someone who lives in Athens, or in Eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans in 2003 that religion has to do something with slavery because the people of eastern Mediterranean and the Balkans were liberated holding the Bible in their left hand and the gun in their right one.

I think that you ( not only you Yahzi) study Religion out of its historical context- this is what your arguments show- and you are driven to wrong conclusions the most important of which is the underestimation of the importance of Religion in History and in peoples' lives.

This doesn't matter of course but it doesn't help you very much to understand religion and of course judging by the last poll headscratcher4 posted, the smashing majority of the population not only believes in God in a "harmless" philosophical way but believes in all kind of hard core religious myths...

[Yahzi]

Cleopatra
But who cares what your religous nuts think? Ours have NUCLEAR WEAPONS! :D

Seriously, though, I had a similar conversation with one of my Scottish relations several years ago. And now there are English private schools that want to stop teaching evolution.

Christian Fundamentalism might be an American product, but it is being exported. It won't be long until it gets to Greece (unless the Islamic Fundamentalists get there first).

What we are all complaining about is not so much religion as fundamentalism. Religion is a bunch of people who act silly on weekends. Fundamentalists are people who actually think they know the Truth. That is, as you have noted, a large difference.

However: religion is dead. Traditional liberal Christianity - and indeed all liberal religion - has been killed by science. The classic metaphysical compromise - the god of the gaps - has been utterly destroyed by the relentless progress of science. The only way to save religion now is to reject science and to become a fundamentalist. The liberal position about god that you hold is self-contradictory and a violation of the rules of reason. You only have three options: a) surrender the shreds of your religion, b) carefully not think about it, like balancing on a fencepost, c) abandon reason and embrace faith without reservation.

Now I realize that we haven't done a good job of showing you that your specific liberal position is untenable. Perhaps we have been side-tracked into discussing the more important, and more dangerous, issue of fundamentalism. Many of the atheists here probably wouldn't even try to debunk something as harmless as a liberal faith, assuming that it was a matter of personal preference. It is only when you extend your beliefs to the public sphere that it matters, and this is precisly what fundamentalism does. Your god, carefully defined to have no earthly relevance, is not worth debunking.

Although I'll still try, because I'm just like that.

So, in response to your comment: I'll accept that Athens (the birthplace of Reason) has a different religion and history. However, our fundamentalist examples stand as warning signs for the danger of religion. Yours might be liberal and harmless now, but it could easily grow into a case of fundamentalism, just like a cold can turn into pneumonia. The roots of your faith are the same as the roots of fundieism. The plant is the same plant, even if yours is a cute little flower and theirs is a choking morass of tentacles.

To defend your religion, you must show not merely that your religion is not harmful, but how it cannot become harmful: how it is in principle different from fundamentalist Christianity, not merely how it is different in practice.

[The Mad Linguist]

Christian Fundamentalism might be an American product, but it is being exported.

You lot only got so many whackos in the first place 'cos we Europeans were sick of them.

Hmm... on reflection I become less convinced that this is something to shout about...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Cleopatra
But who cares what your religous nuts think? Ours have NUCLEAR WEAPONS! :D

Regardless the humorous way you mention it, it hides a lot of truth in it...

However: religion is dead. Traditional liberal Christianity - and indeed all liberal religion - has been killed by science. The classic metaphysical compromise - the god of the gaps - has been utterly destroyed by the relentless progress of science. The only way to save religion now is to reject science and to become a fundamentalist.

This part of your post brought to my memory the famous saying of Arthur Schopenhauer ( I am quoting by memory and not verbatim ) :

"Religion's light shines only in the darkness, the way the firefly flashes in the night. When the dazzling light of Science will shine brighter than anything else, the darkness that provides shelter for Religion will disappear once and for good".

Funny. In the land that the light of Sciences shines brighter than anywhere else, 95 % of the population that inhabits it believes in the "hard core" version of Religion... I wonder how Schopenhauer was so wrong about that.

I must confess that I was a bit intimidated by the tone of your post especially in the last paragraph but it will be the first thing I will respond to tomorrow morning...

[Cleopatra]

Yahzi


Christian Fundamentalism might be an American product, but it is being exported. It won't be long until it gets to Greece (unless the Islamic Fundamentalists get there first).

If it comes here and it finds a fertile soil, it will be only because traditional politics ( yes, I know what I am typing, politics) will have failed to address the real needs of people. As an Israeli I have a striking example on how people become fundamentalists. Palestinians for example were one of the few, maybe the only Arabic liberation movement that wasn't Islamic. Israel's policy and the inefficiency of the International Community to deal with the problem turned Palestinians to Islam. People started thinking that if politics didn't make it, maybe this vindictive God of theirs has the solution.

The reason why Christian Fundamentalism is an American product has to do with the History of your country. USA didn't experience Feudalism but this is an interesting topic for another thread.


However: religion is dead. Traditional liberal Christianity - and indeed all liberal religion - has been killed by science. The classic metaphysical compromise - the god of the gaps - has been utterly destroyed by the relentless progress of science. The only way to save religion now is to reject science and to become a fundamentalist. The liberal position about god that you hold is self-contradictory and a violation of the rules of reason. You only have three options: a) surrender the shreds of your religion, b) carefully not think about it, like balancing on a fencepost, c) abandon reason and embrace faith without reservation.

First of all, fideism is self-contradictory by definition and the word faith constitutes exactly what you describe as "violation of the rules of reason".

Where reason stops, this is where Faith starts from.

What you have named as liberal religion ( I accept this term, we don't need to start arguing about terms now ;) ) and what I call fideism, is not dead because it addresses four important issues that are strongly related to the human beings since the dawn of civilization: The quest for a meaning in life, freedom, solitude and the fear of death the four things that philosophers have defined as the Existential anxiety.

I am sure that you will agree with that Religious Faith and Religious practices belong to the phenomena that they are in common in every civilization that appeared on this planet since the dawn of History. Have we discovered so far a civilization without Religion? Of course not.

It seems that Religious Faith springs from the continuous effort of the human beings to reassure their Existential anxiety.

To a fideist it's obvious that God didn't create Humans but Humans were those that created God in order to find a comfort to their existential anxiety and it's not only that humans have created God but they have attributed to him as well human characteristics along with identities they wished they had.

I think that the philosopher Xenophanes (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0062%3Aid%3Dxen ophanes) , expressed this in the best possible way 2500 years ago: "If Lions could paint, their God would have their appearance".

So, in order for Science to kill Fideism and not only fideism but every form of religious practice needs to debunk the four conditions of human soul that constitute what philosophers defined as Existential anxiety and in my humble opinion Science won't achieve this by its "classical" methods one of which is the request for proofs...

As I see it, Science has two options : either to introduce a morality of its own ( but I am not sure if this contradictory by definition with the meaning of Science) or it will accept that it’s irrelevant to ask for proofs when it comes to the existence of the religious feelings.

As I fideist, I have to admit one serious thing though. I acknowledge that by choosing to control my existential anxiety with the help of faith I put to myself limits that an atheist seems that doesn't have--of course there comes the question,which atheist, well, I take you Yahzi as my example. Maybe another successful way to define an atheist would be to suggest that an atheist is human who has managed to deal with his existential anxiety without the help of God...

My grandfather, who was born at the beginning of the century, was an atheist-something unthinkable for Greece especially for the time he lived, he used to tell me that the fear of death is conversely proportionate to the amount of life that each one of us has lived ... He meant that if you haven't lived a life filled with experiences and especially with acquaintances with people, you would be terribly afraid of death and you would desperately seek for a God to comfort you.

Having said all the above, I think that I have answered to that as well:

To defend your religion, you must show not merely that your religion is not harmful, but how it cannot become harmful: how it is in principle different from fundamentalist Christianity, not merely how it is different in practice.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The reason why Christian Fundamentalism is an American product has to do with the History of your country.
This is true, but not necessarily in the way you are thinking of. One suggested answer for why America is so much more religious than Europe is that America has a free market in religion. The power of the free market is indisputable (although one can argue their are places where it shouldn't be applied). Why doesn't it make sense to assume that American free-market religion will do to European state-controlled religion exactly what American free-market economy did to the European state-controlled economy? (here I am including both the Communists and the Fascists)

So the American religious product might dominate the Greek market just because it is a better product (from the market's point of view). It doesn't necessarily require a failure on the part of local politics or even religion (although I agree those help).

You are not immune.

First of all, fideism is self-contradictory by definition and the word faith constitutes exactly what you describe as "violation of the rules of reason".
Once we allow you to violate the rules of reason, how do we stop Hitler from violating the rules of reason?

As long as you argue for your exemption from reason, you are defending everyone else's exemption.

You have not shown how your faith is principally different than the fundies.

Unless you want to argue that your faith never leads to action of any kind: that it is merely a word game you play with yourself. In which case we are back to "who cares?" You can be as unreasonable as you want in your own head: but you can't be unreasonable in your public actions, and you can't expect respect for your unreason.

Where reason stops, this is where Faith starts from.
Do you see how this gives certain people an incentive to just stop reason earlier. If we just shoot all the scientists, then faith healing works!

Have we discovered so far a civilization without Religion? Of course not.
This is not obvious. Some primitive societies were reported to not have religion. However, they're all dead now, so its hard to tell.

It seems that Religious Faith springs from the continuous effort of the human beings to reassure their Existential anxiety.
But there are other ways to assauge existential anxiety. Music, drugs, booze, games, movies, sex, sports, philosophy. Notice how predominate all of these are in modern secular societies.

I agree that humans have a transcendental temptation (as Paul Kurtz put it), but I do not agree that religion is the only way, a good way, or even an acceptable way to meet it.

As I see it, Science has two options : either to introduce a morality of its own ( but I am not sure if this contradictory by definition with the meaning of Science) or it will accept that it’s irrelevant to ask for proofs when it comes to the existence of the religious feelings.
1. Science is introducing a morality of its own. It's called sociobiology. Right now it's pretty embarrasing, but it just got started. Every time you hear somebody (like me) say that morality is merely the product of theory of mind + social existance, that is a scientific morality.

2. It's never irrelevant to ask for proof of existance. What I think you are trying to say is that we can't expect people to have rational reasons for their feelings. Sure, ok. But we can demand that people have rational reasons for their actions.

You probably wonder what this scientific morality looks like. It's not that surprising: it's just the Golden Rule.

Maybe another successful way to define an atheist would be to suggest that an atheist is human who has managed to deal with his existential anxiety without the help of God...
Except, by your own admission, God doesn't help anybody, because God doesn't really exist. So you are defining an atheist as a person who doesn't lie to himself. Well, under that definition, how can you argue against atheism?

My grandfather...
was an uncommonly wise man. According to his philosophy, your religion is really just a projection of your fears that you haven't lived enough. Maybe you need to spend less time thinking about religion, and more time enjoying life. Maybe you just need, as my grandfather would have put it, to get laid more often. :D

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Yahzi
So the American religious product might dominate the Greek market just because it is a better product (from the market's point of view). It doesn't necessarily require a failure on the part of local politics or even religion (although I agree those help).

Again this shows how you oversimplify the phaenomenon of the religion and of the various dogmas and this happens because you insist to ignore the importance of History in Religion.

Since in Europe the churches are really old, they took part in the evolution of the society with one way or another ( it doesn't matter if this was was bad or good), In Europe, churches are a part of the History of every country and since Religion addresses specific needs of people, no, every product is not good for every country.

USA missed feudalism and this means --among othe things--that it missed all the healthy conflicts that took place in Europe between the official religions and the secular state.

Once we allow you to violate the rules of reason, how do we stop Hitler from violating the rules of reason?

First of all, let'sput things in order. Hitler was stopped because he was violating interests and not reason... but I understand that your question is philosophical.

What you should care about is whether my philosophical or religious theories affect your life. If they do not I am entitled to believe what ever I wish.

You have not shown how your faith is principally different than the fundies.

Maybe you haven't seen it. Fundamentalists believe that the corpus of myths that constitute Religion is the creation of God, as I mentioned, a fideist believes that God is the creation of the human brain.

Unless you want to argue that your faith never leads to action of any kind: that it is merely a word game you play with yourself. In which case we are back to "who cares?"

As you mentioned to your previous post, you care :)

You can be as unreasonable as you want in your own head: but you can't be unreasonable in your public actions, and you can't expect respect for your unreason.

This stands for everything my dear except america's foreign affairs...

Do you see how this gives certain people an incentive to just stop reason earlier. If we just shoot all the scientists, then faith healing works!

What are you talking about? Are you playing Gorgias again Yahzi?Shoot whom?

This is not obvious. Some primitive societies were reported to not have religion. However, they're all dead now, so its hard to tell.

Well, since I have spent a lot of time reading on those things I do not recal anything of what you mention, would you like to bring me an example?

But there are other ways to assauge existential anxiety. Music, drugs, booze, games, movies, sex, sports, philosophy. Notice how predominate all of these are in modern secular societies.

I do not disagree , maybe you are aware of statistics that show what becomes of ex drug addicts, all of them join either a church or a political party. Your example proves my theory, there are needs that need to be covered.

I agree that humans have a transcendental temptation (as Paul Kurtz put it), but I do not agree that religion is the only way, a good way, or even an acceptable way to meet it.

When it comes to humans I agree that we cannot seriously talk about "the only way"...

1. Science is introducing a morality of its own. It's called sociobiology. Right now it's pretty embarrasing, but it just got started. Every time you hear somebody (like me) say that morality is merely the product of theory of mind + social existance, that is a scientific morality.

I have noticed this tendancy, in fact I am just reading a book about this, I will have more to say when I will have finished it but let me ask you something, what are you doing when you are talking about scientific morality, are you introducing a new dogma and what this new morality will address, which need, the existential anxiety? A morality needs a reason to exist.

we can demand that people have rational reasons for their actions.

Of course, there no question about that.

Except, by your own admission, God doesn't help anybody, because God doesn't really exist. So you are defining an atheist as a person who doesn't lie to himself. Well, under that definition, how can you argue against atheism?

Yahzi, I thought that we were throught with this, I do not argue the physical existence of God here I am talking about the religious feeling. Also, I do not argue against atheism.

was an uncommonly wise man. According to his philosophy, your religion is really just a projection of your fears that you haven't lived enough. Maybe you need to spend less time thinking about religion, and more time enjoying life. Maybe you just need, as my grandfather would have put it, to get laid more often. :D

This is not just an advise, this a very good wish Yahzi :) An advice that people who ask from others to have a rational reaction of their feelings, should take too ;)

[The Mad Linguist]

I'm now even more confused about Cleopatra's position.

Cleopatra, you think that God is a product of the human mind... you use Faith to assuage your existential angst... so far I follow what you're saying...

but...

If you do not believe in a God independent of the minds of religious people, what exactly do you have Faith in?

Are you using the word "Faith" differently to us? We atheists usually use the word to mean "belief in some proposition in the absence of sufficient evidence" but I have a suspicion you mean something different...

If God is created by the minds of humans, then what exactly is the nature of God's existence?

If you believe God to be no more than a notion in the human mind, in exactly what sense are you not an atheist?

In short, Cleopatra, as I've asked before, when you say "God" what exactly are you talking about?

As the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Your God, however, neither walks nor quacks in any fashion resembling any definition of "God" I have ever encountered before. That's why I'm having trouble with your position.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Mad Linguist

Are you using the word "Faith" differently to us? We atheists usually use the word to mean "belief in some proposition in the absence of sufficient evidence" but I have a suspicion you mean something different...

I am using the word exactly as "you"do.

If God is created by the minds of humans, then what exactly is the nature of God's existence?

It is the philosophical answer to human's fears and questions, to what philosophers have summed -up as existential anxiety, I am sure that this is not the first time in your life that you hear of that and also I am certain that it's not the first time that you hear that Religions since the dawn of Humanity address exactly this need.Some people take the myths that dress up this need seriously and they believe that God created man and bla bla bla, other people refuse this part but they aknowledge that Religion exists to satisfy existent needs of people.

Do you agree with the last sentence?

If you believe God to be no more than a notion in the human mind, in exactly what sense are you not an atheist?

I just do not deny the needs that religion addresses to as atheists do but as Yahzi said it seems that Science is up to creating a morality of it own, I wonder what needs this morality will address to.

In short, Cleopatra, as I've asked before, when you say "God" what exactly are you talking about?

Mad Linguist I am not sure what makes you and others think that what you have heard as a definition of God is the "classical" definition but what so ever,haven't you heard of fideism before?

If yes and since I have stated in my OP what I am a fideist why you insist on claiming that I have my own deity?

From a certain perspective it's flattering if others suggest that I introduced fideism but it's not correct, I cannot take the credit :)

Do you know that according to certain political scientists Hume was a fideist?

[drowden]

God is the easiest thing in the world to prove:

I define God as the Totality of all that is. God is therefore automatically proven.

Oh, and btw, my Church is called "The Church of the Semantical Construct". :p

We worships words.



Dan Rowden

[DialecticMaterialist]

Cleopatra if you do not believe that God exists then you are not really a theist but an atheist or at least nontheist.

Redefining God as now "An answer to help with an existential crisis" is a pretty unique mutation of the word. Atheists can thus hardly be criticized for not taking this into account when criticizing a completely different God.

Also you say God is needed but is It? Chinese civilizations got along quite well without Him. Many secularists do today. Hindus place more emphasis on Brahman then on any paticular God.

I mean in the end, what's the difference between your position and mere wishful thinking?

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Nyarlathotep

This is long I am afraid but you brought up some really interesting points that is nice to discuss about them anyway.



I cannot disagree with that but as I have been saying to others as well, can we blame these misinterpretations to the authors of the Bible or to founders of every religion?

In the thread about Pope and Rain, I mentioned ( and made arctic penguin furious again) the book of Fraser, The Golden Bough. I mentioned this book because is a classical book and a very well known one. In that book, Fraser demonstrates how we came to the religions as we know today and many of our fellow human beings embrace.

Maybe we wouldn’t be far from truth, if we redefined religion as follows: “ A corpus of ceremonies and prejudices that describe the way Humans understand Nature and the world that surrounds them on the one hand and on the other hand symbolize their conscious or unconscious fears regarding illnesses, fear of death. It seems that in a certain moment in History, some thought to use this corpus in order to manipulate the majority”

If by using this example and by avoiding the example of Love that everybody hated that much but none managed to refute, I made you see clearer what I am suggesting, then maybe you will agree that the fact that some people took advantage of the Religious feeling of common people doesn’t diminish the value and the role of this feeling in humans’ lives.

To my perception, the way to debunk those who claim that Nature must be interpreted by using our Faith and that “ corpus of ceremonies and prejudices that describe the way Humans understand Nature and the world that surrounds them on the one hand and on the other hand symbolize their conscious or unconscious fears regarding illnesses, fear of death”, is not by asking them to prove that God exists. How can you ask somebody to prove to you his prejudices and fears because this is what Religion is about and this is not me that claims that but great anthropologists that have interpreted the phenomenon.

Maybe the way is to show them that this Faith addresses their sub consciousness only. Maybe in that way, those who choose to be in touch with their sub consciousness by believing in this God will put Religion to its appropriate place and they won’t let it govern their lives and the most important; they won’t let it govern other peoples’ lives.

Now as for the rest of your post that I do not want to leave it unanswered.



I understand but apart from the personal moral codes that spring from within indeed, societies do have moral codes that members that belong to the same group must follow. Other people call these moral codes, Laws but if you think about laws there are nothing else but moral codes that come to individuals from without.

And let me close with the Love argument.

My argument that many of you took as a strawman, didn’t come as a flash to me nor it’s another “brilliant” idea of my stupid me.
If you read the Theological texts of the first 6 centuries of Christianity, the texts of the Desert Fathers that they were actually those who built the edifice of Christian Faith, you will find plenty of comparisons between love and religious faith.

One of them in particular, Anthony the Great ( later scholars question whether it was Anthony who wrote those superb texts or Athanasius the Great but this is another issue), suggested that God ( he believed in his physical existence he wasn’t a heretic like me) loves deeply His creations the human beings. On the other hand, human beings are not perfect enough to experience and give back the absolute divine love, so, what can they do? They can experience the Love of God trough their love for another human being. That love should be the unconditional, free from egoism, devoted and faithful love.

So, without wanting to appear as a sophist ( Yahzi is much better in this and this is a compliment )but just trying to show you better what I mean, if Anthony the Great could read what you have defined as love towards your wife and friends, he would assure you that you have taken the path that leads directly to God. :)

When you will meet him at the end of this path, come and tell us how it was ;)


It came to my attention on a anthropology documentary with Yanomami natives in Brazil what really defined their culture was not so much the religious ceremonies but their cosmology, what they believed to the best of their knowledge the nature of the world around them, their origins. If they practiced ceremonies as a legacy from earlier cultures, then that would often tend to be only perceived as the legacy of a cosmology from that earlier culture. Like many of our church ceremonies which many just treat as some quaint tradition from a bygone era, and we just want to cling on to it for some collective identity.

Ancient Mayans may of really felt is was necessary to sacrifice the children to appease the gods as we see it necessary to drill holes on the ground to extract the black stuff to get our machinaries of industry moving. They may see this practice of "bleeding the earth" as being extremely offensive to the gods as we find if offensive the they practice human sacrifice.

Our culture has very strong pragmatic faith in the laws of physics. Few of us no longer seriously believe that planets are shifted across the sky by supernatural beings or gods strike the wicked with lightning bolts.

Ethics and morality is also a niche that is usually filled by the legal system through frequently revised and revamped legislation to suit the cultural circumstances of the time and not the superstitious beliefs that we will be punished in the afterlife.

Many of us better educated just play lip service to ceremonies like church weddings, naming ceremonies, and rites of passage etc. But if any archeologist we to dig us up 3000 years into the future they be more interested in our cosmology and not these ceremonies to of our religions which is only a legacy from an earlier culture.

CDR

[The Mad Linguist]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I am using the word exactly as "you"do.

Then I ask again: you say you have faith but what do you have faith IN?

It can't be faith in the existence of the God of Theism (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent personal supernatural being, creator of the Universe) because we've already established that you don't believe in the God of Theism!

It is the philosophical answer to human's fears and questions, to what philosophers have summed -up as existential anxiety

OK, now we're getting somewhere! "God" is your word for a philosophical answer to existential angst.

Now, what IS that answer?

I am sure that this is not the first time in your life that you hear of that and also I am certain that it's not the first time that you hear that Religions since the dawn of Humanity address exactly this need.

You're wrong. This is precisely the first time in my entire life that I have ever heard anyone define "God" as a philosophical answer to existential angst.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of theists have said that God can function as the answer to human existential angst. But these people believe that because they also believe that he's an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent personal supernatural being, the creator of the Universe.

Let me be clearer still. Nearly all my friends believe in God. Same goes for my extended family. I life in a nation with an established state religion.

Yet you are the first person - believer or nonbeliever - I have EVER encountered who defines "God" in this fashion.

Some people take the myths that dress up this need seriously and they believe that God created man and bla bla bla, other people refuse this part but they aknowledge that Religion exists to satisfy existent needs of people.

Is a solution to existential angst a need? I don't think it is - not in the same way food, warmth, or human companionship are needs.

I don't agree that religion necessarily exists to satisfy people's existential needs. Most religions seem to exist to satisfy their gods' "need" for flattery and sacrifices, and their priests' "need" for power over the lives of others.

I don't personally think there is an answer to existential angst. (In any case, what's the question??)

I just do not deny the needs that religion addresses to as atheists do but as Yahzi said it seems that Science is up to creating a morality of it own, I wonder what needs this morality will address to.

The need that secular morality addresses is the need for a functioning, stable society set up in such a way as to minimise human suffering. This is a clearly definable need.

Mad Linguist I am not sure what makes you and others think that what you have heard as a definition of God is the "classical" definition but what so ever,haven't you heard of fideism before?

I've heard the word. No one's ever given me a definition. [engages web browser] Ah. You're a person who relies "on faith alone rather than scientific reasoning or philosophy in questions of religion". Well, I'd got that you rely on faith. But what do you have faith IN, if not a deity?

You're the first person I've encountered who's claimed to be a fideist.

I beleive that the (Theistic) definition of "God" I've heard is typical because it's one used by most of the people around me. I'm also aware of other definitions, e.g. the Pantheistic God, the Deistic God and so on. But your definition doesn't seem to coincide with any of those definitions either. (I say "seem" because you've still not fully specified your definition). It's completely novel to me.

Yet you seem to be claiming that your definition is correct. Well.... try telling that to the theists.

why you insist on claiming that I have my own deity?

I don't insist you have a God. I insist that you have a definition of the word "God" (obviously you do, because you use that word). I want to know what that definition is because it's clearly not "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent personal supernatural being, creator of the Universe", which is the most common definition.

To reiterate how we got to this point, you said that "it's a big mistake to ask for proof of God's existence". But you've said you AGREE that it's perfectly reasonable to ask for of the existence of an "omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent personal supernatural being, creator of the Universe" and to disbelieve in such a being if evidence is not forthcoming.

I pointed this out in my argument with the made-up words - that what you mean when you say "God" isn't the same as what we atheists mean when we ask for evidence from theists who claim that "God" exists. But you told me I was misrepresenting your position. So I went back and tried again. I've tried to understand your position from half a dozen different angles, but every time it ends up in a contradiction. So I'm stumped.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Again this shows how you oversimplify the phaenomenon of the religion and of the various dogmas and this happens because you insist to ignore the importance of History in Religion.
Um. No. I am well aware of the history of religion. The problem is that you are unwilling to view religion as merely another social product. You think it's somehow special and therefore above tennis shoe fasions or theatrical styles. Except, of course, you don't, as you make clear later. It's very confusing.

every product is not good for every country.
I didn't say it was good. I said it might dominate for market reasons. Those are not the same thing at all.

USA missed feudalism and this means --among othe things--that it missed all the healthy conflicts that took place in Europe between the official religions and the secular state.
Now this is a curious view. First, since our founding fathers were products of the Enlightenment, it is generally acknowledged that they learned the lessons of religion from Europe. Second, few people would define the 100 Years War and the other conflicts as "healthy" - necessary, maybe, but not quite healthy. Third, the fact that most European nations still have an official state religion implies that those healthy conflicts didn't really achieve as much as the American experiement.

What you should care about is whether my philosophical or religious theories affect your life. If they do not I am entitled to believe what ever I wish.
Exactly! But, if your theories do not affect my life (at least indirectly, via their effect on your life), then why would they matter at all? It's hard to imagine that you could truly, deeply believe something, and that it would not somehow affect your actions.

Fundamentalists believe that the corpus of myths that constitute Religion is the creation of God, as I mentioned, a fideist believes that God is the creation of the human brain.
I accept that this is a significant difference from the fundamentalist position. However, now you have to show how it is different than the atheist position!

You seem to be arguing that even though God does not exist, it is only normal and reasonable that people feel as if He does exist. While modern psychology acknowledges that people need to corrupt reality in ways that are psychologically more pleasing, this is not quite the same thing. The fundamental difference is this: one is understood to be corruption and the other is not. The problem with your position is that there are vanishingly few religious people who are willing to admit that their religion is not real.

Even people who do drugs understand that the drug state is not a reflection of reality. Even drug addicts are mentally more honest with themselves than religious people.

what are you doing when you are talking about scientific morality, are you introducing a new dogma and what this new morality will address, which need, the existential anxiety? A morality needs a reason to exist.
The scientific view of morality is not that one introduces it, but rather that one discovers it. In other words, morality already exists, and is therefore a fit subject for scientific study.

The scientific morality looks a lot like secular humanism: people should do what's good for people, and what's good for people is determined by scientific study. We know now that marriage is good for men: they live five years longer. So despite our biological urges to sleep around, being married turns out to actually make us happier. Same with ice cream: it turns out that no matter how good it tastes, eating it in moderation leads to net gain in happiness. And so on.

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Yahzi
We know now that marriage is good for men: they live five years longer. So despite our biological urges to sleep around, being married turns out to actually make us happier.
That men live five years longer isn't necessarily proof that they are happier.

Just nitpicking.