FREE TAPATALK APP

truethat · 9th January 2009, 07:40 AM

Richard Dawkins made an interesting point in The God Delusion. Even though I felt the book focused too much on religion and not God per se, there were a few times I thought he made good points. This is one of them:

Quote:

Polls suggest that approximately 95 per cent of the population of the United States believe they will survive their own death. I can’t help wondering how many people who claim such belief really, in their heart of hearts, hold it. If they were truly sincere, shouldn’t they all behave like the Abbot of Ampleforth? When Cardinal Basil Hume told him that he was dying, the abbot was delighted for him: “Congratulations! That’s brilliant news. I wish I was coming with you!” The abbot, it seems, really was a sincere believer. But it is precisely because it is so rare and unexpected that his story catches our attention, almost provokes our amusement. (Dawkins 356)

This is just one example of the lack of authenticity that is apparent among believers.

If you visit message boards you will find inevitably that the Religious Forums are usually the busiest sections. In fact many science discussions are held in religious forums because they are more active. It says something about the huge debate that is raging on between believers and non believers. You wonder why the debate continues. If you believe great, if I don't ok. Why the discussion?

I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism.

Many of us atheists have similar experiences in dealing with so called believers and come to the same conclusion as Dawkins' observation. If you REALLY believed in God, you wouldn't behave the way you do.

For example I recently had a debate regarding Gay Marriage rights with a so called believing friend of mine. While I can to some degree understand a person feeling their moral convictions had merit, whether I agreed or not, I couldn't understand the need of the Christian to try to force his personal belief on strangers whose lives had no impact on him at all. He tried to dance around the morality of the country issue, but bottom line I asked him why if he REALLY believed in the after life, that he would be so concerned about the worldly affairs. God doesn't ask Christians to create a world that reflects His views? He says that this is basically nothing and the afterlife is what its all about. Eden resumed. My friend argued that he can't support sin. That sin is sin, its all the same, not one worse than the other, but he just can't support sin.

Yet he had a pagan Christmas tree this year and bought his wife gold for Christmas. Apparently he was unaware that these two things were big NoNos to God.

When pressed it became apparent that he didn't know these things were NO NOs because (as most Atheists know) he hadn't read the Bible in such detail.

And this brings us to a very important point. The reason most Atheists that I know of became atheists is that they started to read the Bible. When they did they found it didn't "add up" to what the claim of God was. As they investigated further they realized it was a likely fraud.

What is obvious though, is that most of the masses of supposed "believers" out there, do not REALLY BELIEVE. If you really believed that this text was from God, why haven't you read it? Why haven't you committed it to memory? In fact, why haven't you learned the original language and made study of this incredible book that has been given to you by the almighty Creator of the Universe and all that is Good and Holy. He sent you a tome and you asked for another to basically get you a cliff notes to that?

If you, in your heart of hearts truly believed that this book was from God, you would have read it from cover to cover over and over again. This is one of the first things that an atheist begins to notice about believers.

So when I take my staunch stance that says "I don't believe in God" I want to take it a step further. I think you are lying when you say you do. I don't see any true conviction in your life that you think this book is a sacred text. You spend more time on the internet, watching tv, drinking, going out for fun, hanging with friends, talking on the phone, than you do reading this book and trying to understand it.

I call BS on the God belief.

Rrose Selavy · 9th January 2009, 07:58 AM

I think there is a strong element of "half belief" with montheism particularly. Like someone who doesn't consider themselves "superstitious" but avoids walking under a ladder (aside from practical reasons not to)
"just in case" and because there is still a strong irrational impulse (from upbringing usually) to do so.
Same may apply to those who fill in surveys about the "afterlife" .
Or part of the the so called "moderate"/political wing of the Theist Party rather then the fanatical/paramilitary.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 08:04 AM

I agree. I think alot of these so called believers are doing it just in superstition. However where it gets problematic, is when they try to repress the rights of others based on superstition.

My friend wants me to believe that the reason he tries to suppress the rights of Homosexuals is based on Logical understanding.

I suggested it based on personal preference as to what he chooses to focus on in the bible. Somehow this was a great insult.

But that reactiveness really proves that he's not sincere.

The debate surrounding religion needs to move away from politely trying to each have our say.

I want the Believers to demonstrate their belief, by living the life they say they are supposed to. And this is not about calling believers "hypocrites" because that nifty reply "We're not perfect, we all sin" gets them off.

However here's the bottom line. If you want your religious beliefs to be respected, then respect them yourself first. If you want me to accept that you "KNOW" that there is a God because of your belief and experiences, then demonstrate that belief. Don't just Talk the Talk, walk the walk. Otherwise I think you are lying.

Rrose Selavy · 9th January 2009, 08:25 AM

"lying" implies to me some deliberate deception but I think it's more subtle than that - they're certainly lying to themselves in a sense, Consider the number of Roman Catholics who use non approved contraception. The number of "moderate" muslims who drink alcohol etc -
Rather than the God of the scriptures etc , for practical reasons , I think they invent an easy -to-live-with personal "God" where some things don't really matter (to them) but they'll cherry pick aspects that suit them.

Dave Rogers · 9th January 2009, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

If you visit message boards you will find inevitably that the Religious Forums are usually the busiest sections. In fact many science discussions are held in religious forums because they are more active. It says something about the huge debate that is raging on between believers and non believers. You wonder why the debate continues. If you believe great, if I don't ok. Why the discussion?

I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism.

While the rest of the OP makes some good points about the half-heartedness of many believers, I've seen this argument in other forms too many times on the 9/11 CT forum to let it pass. The problem is that it's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. Clearly, declining to argue a position can be interpreted as arising from a lack of conviction; if arguing it is also interpreted as arising from a lack of conviction, then there is no behaviour attributed to conviction. There are plenty of reasons for arguing a position to which one is fully committed. These include, but are not limited to: wanting to explore one's own understanding more fully by considering the views of those who would falsify it (a good example of skepticism in action); wanting to sway the undecided, for their own benefit, out of a spirit of altruism; or simply being the sort of person who enjoys debate.

In fact, if I were a committed Christian, who truly believed not only in salvation and damnation but in helping others, then arguing with non-believers in an attempt to convert as many as possible to my religion would in fact be not simply a moral choice, but the only moral choice. Far more so than worldly works of charity, which might save the body but lose the soul.

The rest of the post makes some very good points, but the argument that "If you really believed in your position you wouldn't bother debating" is not a strong one.

Dave

truethat · 9th January 2009, 08:43 AM

Interesint point, I do concede that its a loaded word. However I think this "loadedness" is really what the debating is all about.

We all understand that everyone is hypocritical in one way or another. I think lazy people are fools but I am one of them.

However, as I said, when people are attempting to have the laws of the land reflect this supposed God belief, we need to acknowledge something important. That is the person is denying that what they want is based on personal preference.

My friend denies that he is bigoted against homosexuals, he instead does this sort of, shrugging of the shoulders saying "I'm a loving guy, and I don't judge anyone, but I can't help it, God said it....who am I to question God."

Its about assigning authority to the texts. Using the text as an authoritative source of what is right in the world. We can't deny that the bible is used to justify the oppression of homosexuals. Here and now.

But if you want me to accept the authority of this book, then why don't you as a believer? If you really believe this book is God's say, then why aren't you committed to reading it daily and going over it with a fine tooth comb? People memorize songs, comedy routines, movies and favorite poems? But the book? not so much.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 08:49 AM

Thanks Dave, I agree. I didn't mean to convey that this was the ONLY reason people debated. Actually I was addressing this point from the opposite perspective.

I think that we ATHEISTS debate these points with a believer not because we as ATHEISTS want to convince the believer, both the atheist and the believer are arguing their point of view.

However, what I was trying to convey, which apparently I didn't, is that what is really going on under the atheists surface conversation, is the title of this thread. When an atheist argues against a believer they are saying "I don't believe you that God exists" and what I think is going on is really "I don't believe that you really believe God exists"

At least this is my experience with my friend. Its not just that I don't accept what he's saying, its that deep inside, in his heart of hearts, I don't think he really accepts what he's saying either.

Monketey Ghost · 9th January 2009, 08:52 AM

Just saying quickly, this is a fascinating discussion, please continue!

I quite agree that if God truly existed and believers truly believed, then what could be more important?

Rrose Selavy · 9th January 2009, 08:54 AM

When pressed though , don't many revert to a kind of agnosticism? Maybe thats where the "if i convince you maybe I' will convince myself as well" aspect comes in.

INRM · 9th January 2009, 08:57 AM

I think there's an element of "half-belief" in there.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 09:12 AM

The reason I am starting this discussion is I'm done. Enough already with the PC BS. I think many atheists know very well what I'm talking about. There's a polite sort of acceptance that Billy really believes in God because he had a miracle happen many years ago and he KNOWS Jesus is his personal savior.

Truly, most believers are nothing more than (to reappy Hume) superstitious atheists. When we know someone is superstitious we know that they have an unreasonable belief and we don't press the issue. Especially if we know it is related to some sort of mental quirk. If a woman fell down a flight of stairs and as a result always tells people to hold on to the railing, we sort of demure to her request because why push the issue? Obviously she has her reasons.

So believers have their reasons. Most believers need God in their lives in order to cope. We as a society accept this across the board.

But in order for society to evolve we need to grow. And that falls on the shoulders of atheists to stop the debating and the PC conversations.

My conversation with my friend required me to hold my tongue or lose the friendship. I've lost the friendship with another person for basically calling it out. Many people are familiar with the frustrating conversation regarding Christian Hypocrisy. But that's the wrong angle.

I suggest that from now on, ask a believer if they believe in God. Which God? Ok you believe that the bible is a sacred text given to you by God? Instead of debating the bible simply ask them if they have memorized the bible? Do they read it every day? How many times do they read it? Point out that this is basically the ONLY text that we have from God, according to what they suggest, so it should be pretty easy to memorize it.

Then say "Well I'm sorry but I don't believe that you are really a believer because you dont' seem to follow through on your claim. I suggest that you are actually a superstitous atheist, and until you have memorized the bible, I will continue to think so.

Lets shift the paradigm.

Monketey Ghost · 9th January 2009, 09:40 AM

Atheists are far too few. All my friends believe in God, as do all my family.

I tried, feebly to stop saying things like "God bless you" and "Merry Christmas", even when typing I tried to stop capitalizing the G, but...

We run the risk of deeply offending those who believe and so turning them away from our line of thinking. Whereas, why would I be offended if religious folks can't understand my atheism? It will take time, and may never happen.

Yours in Christ, Mags

I Ratant · 9th January 2009, 09:44 AM

I have many friends who are avid bible readers. They participate in discussions on it weekly.
But to me, the basic problem with the presumption that god "wrote" the bible fails the simplest examination.
The souce(s) for all of it are obviously humans, with all the biases and fantasies that humans have invented to "prove" their version of their religion.
It's a book of fables, with some relatively common moral guidances, and other unique to the book ideas on what is and isn't right (according to the authors of the passages).
Objective examination of the story of Job for instance, should bring up the question as to the source of the story. If it truly is god, he shows himself as a monster.
It's more obviously a parable written in a bizarre effort to show how faith can be rewarded. Written by a salesman, not a deity, as that deity is obviously crazy.
The same with the story of Samuel, a self-appointed god-shouter, responsible on his own hook for the elimination of an entire society, due to ... mental problems???
The book of god reeks with these inconsistencies and contradictions between the alleged noble purposes of the creator, and yet it's full of carefully detailed obviously human failings of the deity himself.
I don't challenge my friends on these problems, they're all of a age when the Reaper is looming large in their lives, and they fear it.
When religion comes up, I don't participate.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 09:45 AM

Well the time is now. The debate has been spinning in circles. Obviously we're not going to win friends by suggesting this, and the debate doesn't have to be really attacking. But simple. Like so.

You believe in Christ??!! Really? I don't believe you........

Big Les · 9th January 2009, 10:20 AM

I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager. Mostly because they really haven't thought it through and probably don't want to in case they too come to conclusion that they don't believe in god/there probably isn't a god.

The above paragraph, incidentally, perfectly describes my position on Santa Claus as a child. I never actually believed in him, but wanted to a) for the magical feeling and b) for the free stuff.

The problem is how to test these suspicions - FMRI perhaps?

Ichneumonwasp · 9th January 2009, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by truethat

If you want your religious beliefs to be respected, then respect them yourself first.

I really like that way of expressing it. Mind if I use that in the future? That's very good.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

I have many friends who are avid bible readers. They participate in discussions on it weekly.
But to me, the basic problem with the presumption that god "wrote" the bible fails the simplest examination.
The souce(s) for all of it are obviously humans, with all the biases and fantasies that humans have invented to "prove" their version of their religion.
It's a book of fables, with some relatively common moral guidances, and other unique to the book ideas on what is and isn't right (according to the authors of the passages).
Objective examination of the story of Job for instance, should bring up the question as to the source of the story. If it truly is god, he shows himself as a monster.
It's more obviously a parable written in a bizarre effort to show how faith can be rewarded. Written by a salesman, not a deity, as that deity is obviously crazy.
The same with the story of Samuel, a self-appointed god-shouter, responsible on his own hook for the elimination of an entire society, due to ... mental problems???
The book of god reeks with these inconsistencies and contradictions between the alleged noble purposes of the creator, and yet it's full of carefully detailed obviously human failings of the deity himself.
I don't challenge my friends on these problems, they're all of a age when the Reaper is looming large in their lives, and they fear it.
When religion comes up, I don't participate.

Weekly isn't good enough though now is it? I mean we're talking about GOD. How does God get put on the back burner for UFC and LOST?

How does God get put on the back burner for chatting online? Or going bowling?

Its absurd.

I know those types of people too. Occassionally they will read the bible, lots of preferred versus, lots of focus on the gospels and proverbs. Romans and whatnot.

However, I don't believe they don't see these inconsistencies. They do see them and this is why they don't keep reading. They read a bit, questions come up OK OK OK You win...back away.........calm down.

My friend did this to me when I pointed out his wife's gold. He said "OK fine I'll go home tonite and stone her, I'll cut off my right hand"

Huge extreme emotional distancing from the logic. The truth. The truth being "wow I didn't know that...."

And that truth leading to "Why not? You want others to accept the authority of this book yet you are lying when you say you do, otherwise you'd know it backwards and forwards. If God is giving instructions in this book and you believe in God, wouldn't you read it? Why wouldn't you be curious what the creator of the universe had to say? It would be illogical not to"

But as you say, and I've said earlier, as you continue to read the book you can tell pretty quickly that its a fraud. I continue to study the bible for historical reasons. It doesn't take MUCH to really understand that the bible is a fraud. So why the denial?

Ichy you can use that quote. I'm sticking with "superstitious atheists"

Mister Agenda · 9th January 2009, 12:08 PM

I suppose when most Americans are atheists, the level of discourse around here will drop dramatically. Are we sure we want them to realize they're atheists?

I Ratant · 9th January 2009, 12:33 PM

I find no reason to confront my religious friends with the contradictions in their beliefs.
They're friends, not adversaries.
Missionaries that come to door though.. they leave very unhappy!

westprog · 9th January 2009, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

I call BS on the God belief.

I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism.

It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness.

Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God?

I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.

DeusPhasmatis · 9th January 2009, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Big Les

I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager.

No. It's a social thing. People go in for religion because it's just what you do. There isn't a decision.

Originally Posted by westprog

I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism.

It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness.

Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God?

I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.

If you're not taking the bible literally, than you don't have to take the bible-literal definition of a good Christian.

Patsy · 9th January 2009, 01:53 PM

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18

I don't keep any devils or serpents around, but as soon as one single believer is willing to drink the draino under my sink, I'll believe they actually believe the nonsense they spout themselves. And if they emerge unscathed, I'll even listen to them.

roger · 9th January 2009, 01:58 PM

I find much of the reasoning on here quite spurious.

Consider: right now there are human slaves. Genocides are going on. Mass murderers and serial killers are on the loose. Some countries are undergoing harrowing Aids epidemics. Children are dying of diarrhea for lack of basic sanitation and medicine.

I'm sure you'd agree all these things are real, happening, and vastly more important than, say, sitting on a forum posting jokes and armchair arguments. Yet here we all are (I include myself), doing that. I could go get a job at McDonald's to get some secondary money, and donate it all to various African charities. I choose to post, play with my dogs, go for walks, etc.

We all, all of us, balance our lives between extremely important outside issues and the quotidian - what am I going to have for dinner, oh, I've got to respond to this post, someone is wrong on the internet, hey, let's go to Dairy Queen for some ice cream, etc. Considering the horrors I wrote about in the first paragraph, pretty alarming, yet ultimately understandable and entirely human.

So, do we conclude that I really don't believe human slavery is wrong? That it is okay that kids die of diarrhea? Because that is the way the logic in this thread leans? Or should we conclude that humans are shortsighted, don't look too far beyond their immediate environment and clan, and focus more on today than the future? I suggest the latter.

I know plenty of people who believe in God. So far as I can tell, they are sincere in that belief. There lack of focus on heaven strikes me as no different than my lack of focus on the AIDS epidemic.

We are all tragically flawed. I guess you can view that as a way to put down everyone, or perhaps, recognize our humanity and limitations with compassion.

Darat · 9th January 2009, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Big Les

I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager. Mostly because they really haven't thought it through and probably don't want to in case they too come to conclusion that they don't believe in god/there probably isn't a god.

...snip...

(Warning: Personal opinions and generalisation galore ahead!)

I think it goes much further than that - if you ask most people who label themselves as CofE I bet most would not be aware of what most of the doctrines of the CofE actually are.

It would seem to be that religion for many people is quite a passive thing, they self-identify with it but have never considered it deeply or probably even know what it is they are meant to "be doing" according to their own label.

This is one of the reasons why, when we we get someone who is "anti-atheism" who offers that silly "Oh that's just what fundamentalist would think" I find it quite amusing, all religions are "fundamentalist" it is just that most people who follow the religion or say they follow it simply don't realize it. What the anti-atheist is really saying is "Yes but most people don't actually believe in what their religion says" without realising the irony of making such a claim, never mind how patronising that claim is.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by westprog

I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism.

It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness.

Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God?

I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with Christian hypocrisy. Its not about not following the rules of the bible.

So this isn't about my friend buying gold even though he's not supposed to. Its about him not knowing that biblically wearing gold is wrong. Does that mean he doesn't really believe in God? In my opinion YES. Because God is not just some historical figure. Its GOD!!!!! So how can a person be "meh" about what God said if he really believes?

Now as I said before. Its one thing if you have your belief system and you practice it in your own way, living your life, doing your thing. I think we all know these kinds of people in all walks of live Christian or otherwise.

However when it comes to oppressing homosexuals, this is where it turns into something else.

When I point out to my friend that his not wanting homosexuals to have marriage rights is a personal preferance, he was affronted. He suggested that no, its not that, its just this is what the bible says and as an abiding Christian he just has to go along with what God says.

I have another friend I know who was that Jesus is her savior. Due to the illness of her child she turned to Jesus and never turned back. And that's a wonderful thing for her, let her use it as she might. As I said, no one is going to deny a person their superstitions. Its only when they try to force those superstitions on other people that it even becomes an issue. So even though she's a really nice person, one of her causes is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Why?

Quote:

God has ordained marriage as between a MAN and WOMAN only. Any other type of marriage will lead to problems in our society and bring upon us the plagues of God. Children are produced in families, and the traditional family is the backbone of the World. Traditional families are forever!

So far the debate has always revolved around Christian authority. We're not having a debate about Gay Marriage rights based on a Stephen King novel? Everyone accepts that this is a story or fiction. Likewise we're not having a debate on Gay Marriage rights based on the Hammrabi Code. Because that has no authority in this country.

The bible is granted authority in this country. And so this is why we need to shift the debate from whether the bible is true, to the real truth. That if this book is an authority by which we see fit to form our laws, then those who are insisting on its authority should know it well. Those who want to use its authority to oppress SOME people, should be expected to know all the laws in it. If those who insist on biblical authoriy don't have the inclination to actually read the book, why should the rest of us be expected to consider it anything more than fiction?

I believe that what believers (or superstitious atheists) are doing is just using the authority of this book to hide behind because it helps them oppress people they just personally don't think are right.

And as far as "they are our friends and not our adversary" well I disagree. If my friend is oppressing someone then they need to be called out on it. If they can't handle being called out on it, then they should shut up about it or stop doing it. If your friends were members of the KKK would you say the same thing?

RobRoy · 9th January 2009, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

No. It's a social thing. People go in for religion because it's just what you do. There isn't a decision.

Perhaps for the majority. There are some of us, I guess a (very?) small percentage, who want to believe in something greater than themselves, who are actively concerned about what follows this life, if anything, and who hope (but don't know) for something more to follow.

My belief in or of God is irrational and based on equal parts of hope and fear. Not hope or fear of a diety's benevolence or anger, but rather of the desire for there to be more to this life. My particular faith is hardly social, and it's not, as far as I know (or have delluded myself) based on Pascal's Wager.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by RobRoy

Perhaps for the majority. There are some of us, I guess a (very?) small percentage, who want to believe in something greater than themselves, who are actively concerned about what follows this life, if anything, and who hope (but don't know) for something more to follow.

My belief in or of God is irrational and based on equal parts of hope and fear. Not hope or fear of a diety's benevolence or anger, but rather of the desire for there to be more to this life. My particular faith is hardly social, and it's not, as far as I know (or have delluded myself) based on Pascal's Wager.

Ok so answer the question. What do you believe? What is your faith as you would describe it?

DeusPhasmatis · 9th January 2009, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by roger

I know plenty of people who believe in God. So far as I can tell, they are sincere in that belief. There lack of focus on heaven strikes me as no different than my lack of focus on the AIDS epidemic.

People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false.

If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.

roger · 9th January 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false.

No, I'm quite clearly saying people value their own welfare more than others. We don't give up our lives for starving children, AIDS prevention, etc.

Quote:

If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.

That is removed from us just like the human slaves are. There ARE human slaves right now. Go search CNN, MSNBC, any of the news sites. Yet you do nothing about it. (and neither do I).

This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis

People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false.

If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.

That's a very good analogy. But there's a part that seems to be eluding people a bit. Christians suggest that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. They suggest that they KNOW God is there, that he is almighty and all powerful and that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins.

Ok

Jews and Muslims don't believe this, yet I think Jews are much more dedicated to reading the Torah. This is the kind of dedication I'm talking about. I don't readily apply this commentary to the Jews because Jews typically learn Hebrew and study the Torah regularly. You have to respect the Jews religiously because they are definitely walking the walk.

So explain about these Christians who are too busy watching movies and going to Disneyland or hanging out with their friends to be bothered to read the words of God.

roger · 9th January 2009, 02:26 PM

truethat, explain why you are so busy posting in this forum when there are human slaves?

RobRoy · 9th January 2009, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Ok so answer the question. What do you believe? What is your faith as you would describe it?

Sorry, didn't realize there was a question I needed to address.

I believe that there is a God and there is an afterlife. I do not know that these things are real, I believe that they are.

I wouldn't describe my faith beyond that. I don't subscribe to any religious institution as, after reasonable study, they all seem to focus on details rather than the larger concern. Details that, ultimately drive people apart and worse.

not daSkeptic · 9th January 2009, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by roger

This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.

I would not use the OP's argument to say that people do not believe in God. I would, however, say that at times one has to question if there is not an inconsistency between what someone professes to believe and what they actually believe.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 02:33 PM

Because I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't like people. You are missing the point. Its not about hypocrisy.

This is why this paradigm shift is important.

If you BELIEVE that GOD is there and you BELIEVE that GOD wrote the bible, why wouldn't you read it?

Why wouldn't you sit down, and open the book and start reading. I'm not talking about going to Church and hearing a sermon and looking at a part of the book. I'm talking a good old fashioned sit down and read it from cover to cover like you would any other book.

Example I wanted to know more about Obama so I bought Dreams from my Father and spent a weekend reading it.

Years ago when I converted to Islam I spend a week reading the Qu'ran from cover to cover.

You buy a Stephen King book you read it from cover to cover. You don't just pick out a few chapters to read.

Why wouldn't YOU personally want to know what God said, if you really believed that he wrote this book?

So, I don't believe you when you say you believe in God if you haven't read it. I think you are lying.

Just like I would think I'm lying if I said I'm outraged at the human slavery in the world. I'm not, that's why I can sit here on the computer goofing off.

DeusPhasmatis · 9th January 2009, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by roger

No, I'm quite clearly saying people value their own welfare more than others. We don't give up our lives for starving children, AIDS prevention, etc.

We don't give up our lives for strangers. We do a hell of a lot on behalf of ourselves, and those dear to us.

Quote:

That is removed from us just like the human slaves are.

********. Numerous religions have real, immediate and personal results of adherence. Take the saints of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance: they are given sainthood because at least one person has received a "miracle" by praying to them.

Quote:

There ARE human slaves right now. Go search CNN, MSNBC, any of the news sites. Yet you do nothing about it. (and neither do I).

I never contested immoral behavior in the world.

Quote:

This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.

People believe in a penultimate parent in the sky. This is not the same thing as honestly believing in Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as writ.

RobRoy · 9th January 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Because I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't like people. You are missing the point. Its not about hypocrisy.

This is why this paradigm shift is important.

If you BELIEVE that GOD is there and you BELIEVE that GOD wrote the bible, why wouldn't you read it?

Why wouldn't you sit down, and open the book and start reading. I'm not talking about going to Church and hearing a sermon and looking at a part of the book. I'm talking a good old fashioned sit down and read it from cover to cover like you would any other book.

Example I wanted to know more about Obama so I bought Dreams from my Father and spent a weekend reading it.

Years ago when I converted to Islam I spend a week reading the Qu'ran from cover to cover.

You buy a Stephen King book you read it from cover to cover. You don't just pick out a few chapters to read.

Why wouldn't YOU personally want to know what God said, if you really believed that he wrote this book?

So, I don't believe you when you say you believe in God if you haven't read it. I think you are lying.

Just like I would think I'm lying if I said I'm outraged at the human slavery in the world. I'm not, that's why I can sit here on the computer goofing off.

Sorry, who are you speaking to? Just want to be certain it's not me.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 02:57 PM

Talking to roger.

See Rob Roy you aren't ascribing to a sacred text. And you arent' using that sacred text to oppress people. So I wouldn't be able to judge you either way. But to a Christian who says they believe the bible is a sacred text written by God I say BS. Because then why haven't they read it and memorized the thing by now?

Ragnarok · 9th January 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

In fact, if I were a committed Christian, who truly believed not only in salvation and damnation but in helping others, then arguing with non-believers in an attempt to convert as many as possible to my religion would in fact be not simply a moral choice, but the only moral choice. Far more so than worldly works of charity, which might save the body but lose the soul.

Dave

If that was what the creator wanted, would he not have placed specific quotas in his holy record? I'd have imagined with his penchant for hierarchies and a great bonus scheme, he could have really improved the efforts of his adherents to chase up new blood.

RobRoy · 9th January 2009, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by truethat

Talking to roger.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:

See Rob Roy you aren't ascribing to a sacred text. And you arent' using that sacred text to oppress people. So I wouldn't be able to judge you either way. But to a Christian who says they believe the bible is a sacred text written by God I say BS. Because then why haven't they read it and memorized the thing by now?

Couple of things wrong with this, just from a cursory view. First, which Christians are we talking about? I'm not aware of any Christian sect which held that the Bible was "written by God". The most usual claim is that it is inspired by God, but written by humans.

Second, why the need for memorization? Does rote recall of the Bible confer more understanding than, say, daily study? Weekly study? I can recite various monologues from Shakespeare and a number of other folk, but I wouldn't say that confers the fullest understanding of what the author intended.

truethat · 9th January 2009, 03:36 PM

Rob Roy, the "memorized" part is sort of tongue and cheek. You don't need to memorize Shakespear if you have read it obviously.

My point is probably similar to saying "Shakespear is the final authority on everything. I know what he wants because he's contacted us through a messenger whose words are in this here book, which I've read a few chapters of and yeah boy, it says homosexuals are bad and some other things I've hear......."

You'd be laughed at if you hadn't even bothered to read it.

And it would totally undermine your argument that this was a sacred text.

When I say they should have it memorized I mean, rather, that THAT would be the ideal, total comprehension and understanding and put to memory in the original language. This seems absurd to some but many Jews have done this with the Torah so its not impossible.

Instead we have people who know some of the parables, and some of the gospels etc.

For example I did a presentation in a graduate course once on the story of Sara and Hagar. I was the only atheist in the class. Most of the people int he class were Christian fundies and Jews.

And

Do you know that when I presented my presentation I started off asking who knew the story of Sarah and Hagar? And er......no one did? I mean that's not an obscure story. I had to sort of sum it up for them or my presentation would have made no sense.

9th January 2009, 07:40 AM	#1
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	It's not just that I don't believe in God, I think you are LYING when you say you do Richard Dawkins made an interesting point in The God Delusion. Even though I felt the book focused too much on religion and not God per se, there were a few times I thought he made good points. This is one of them: Quote: Polls suggest that approximately 95 per cent of the population of the United States believe they will survive their own death. I can’t help wondering how many people who claim such belief really, in their heart of hearts, hold it. If they were truly sincere, shouldn’t they all behave like the Abbot of Ampleforth? When Cardinal Basil Hume told him that he was dying, the abbot was delighted for him: “Congratulations! That’s brilliant news. I wish I was coming with you!” The abbot, it seems, really was a sincere believer. But it is precisely because it is so rare and unexpected that his story catches our attention, almost provokes our amusement. (Dawkins 356) This is just one example of the lack of authenticity that is apparent among believers. If you visit message boards you will find inevitably that the Religious Forums are usually the busiest sections. In fact many science discussions are held in religious forums because they are more active. It says something about the huge debate that is raging on between believers and non believers. You wonder why the debate continues. If you believe great, if I don't ok. Why the discussion? I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism. Many of us atheists have similar experiences in dealing with so called believers and come to the same conclusion as Dawkins' observation. If you REALLY believed in God, you wouldn't behave the way you do. For example I recently had a debate regarding Gay Marriage rights with a so called believing friend of mine. While I can to some degree understand a person feeling their moral convictions had merit, whether I agreed or not, I couldn't understand the need of the Christian to try to force his personal belief on strangers whose lives had no impact on him at all. He tried to dance around the morality of the country issue, but bottom line I asked him why if he REALLY believed in the after life, that he would be so concerned about the worldly affairs. God doesn't ask Christians to create a world that reflects His views? He says that this is basically nothing and the afterlife is what its all about. Eden resumed. My friend argued that he can't support sin. That sin is sin, its all the same, not one worse than the other, but he just can't support sin. Yet he had a pagan Christmas tree this year and bought his wife gold for Christmas. Apparently he was unaware that these two things were big NoNos to God. When pressed it became apparent that he didn't know these things were NO NOs because (as most Atheists know) he hadn't read the Bible in such detail. And this brings us to a very important point. The reason most Atheists that I know of became atheists is that they started to read the Bible. When they did they found it didn't "add up" to what the claim of God was. As they investigated further they realized it was a likely fraud. What is obvious though, is that most of the masses of supposed "believers" out there, do not REALLY BELIEVE. If you really believed that this text was from God, why haven't you read it? Why haven't you committed it to memory? In fact, why haven't you learned the original language and made study of this incredible book that has been given to you by the almighty Creator of the Universe and all that is Good and Holy. He sent you a tome and you asked for another to basically get you a cliff notes to that? If you, in your heart of hearts truly believed that this book was from God, you would have read it from cover to cover over and over again. This is one of the first things that an atheist begins to notice about believers. So when I take my staunch stance that says "I don't believe in God" I want to take it a step further. I think you are lying when you say you do. I don't see any true conviction in your life that you think this book is a sacred text. You spend more time on the internet, watching tv, drinking, going out for fun, hanging with friends, talking on the phone, than you do reading this book and trying to understand it. I call BS on the God belief.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 07:58 AM	#2
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,955	I think there is a strong element of "half belief" with montheism particularly. Like someone who doesn't consider themselves "superstitious" but avoids walking under a ladder (aside from practical reasons not to) "just in case" and because there is still a strong irrational impulse (from upbringing usually) to do so. Same may apply to those who fill in surveys about the "afterlife" . Or part of the the so called "moderate"/political wing of the Theist Party rather then the fanatical/paramilitary.
	Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 9th January 2009 at 09:00 AM.

9th January 2009, 08:04 AM	#3
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	I agree. I think alot of these so called believers are doing it just in superstition. However where it gets problematic, is when they try to repress the rights of others based on superstition. My friend wants me to believe that the reason he tries to suppress the rights of Homosexuals is based on Logical understanding. I suggested it based on personal preference as to what he chooses to focus on in the bible. Somehow this was a great insult. But that reactiveness really proves that he's not sincere. The debate surrounding religion needs to move away from politely trying to each have our say. I want the Believers to demonstrate their belief, by living the life they say they are supposed to. And this is not about calling believers "hypocrites" because that nifty reply "We're not perfect, we all sin" gets them off. However here's the bottom line. If you want your religious beliefs to be respected, then respect them yourself first. If you want me to accept that you "KNOW" that there is a God because of your belief and experiences, then demonstrate that belief. Don't just Talk the Talk, walk the walk. Otherwise I think you are lying.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Last edited by truethat; 9th January 2009 at 08:07 AM.

9th January 2009, 08:25 AM	#4
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,955	"lying" implies to me some deliberate deception but I think it's more subtle than that - they're certainly lying to themselves in a sense, Consider the number of Roman Catholics who use non approved contraception. The number of "moderate" muslims who drink alcohol etc - Rather than the God of the scriptures etc , for practical reasons , I think they invent an easy -to-live-with personal "God" where some things don't really matter (to them) but they'll cherry pick aspects that suit them.
	Last edited by Rrose Selavy; 9th January 2009 at 08:33 AM.

9th January 2009, 08:42 AM	#5
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,907	Originally Posted by truethat If you visit message boards you will find inevitably that the Religious Forums are usually the busiest sections. In fact many science discussions are held in religious forums because they are more active. It says something about the huge debate that is raging on between believers and non believers. You wonder why the debate continues. If you believe great, if I don't ok. Why the discussion? I think that it is really because the discussion is not about do you or I believe. The reason the believer tries so hard to convince the non believer is basically because they are trying to convince themselves. If they can win a point or convert the non believer then they have won some personal victory over their own skepticism. While the rest of the OP makes some good points about the half-heartedness of many believers, I've seen this argument in other forms too many times on the 9/11 CT forum to let it pass. The problem is that it's a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose argument. Clearly, declining to argue a position can be interpreted as arising from a lack of conviction; if arguing it is also interpreted as arising from a lack of conviction, then there is no behaviour attributed to conviction. There are plenty of reasons for arguing a position to which one is fully committed. These include, but are not limited to: wanting to explore one's own understanding more fully by considering the views of those who would falsify it (a good example of skepticism in action); wanting to sway the undecided, for their own benefit, out of a spirit of altruism; or simply being the sort of person who enjoys debate. In fact, if I were a committed Christian, who truly believed not only in salvation and damnation but in helping others, then arguing with non-believers in an attempt to convert as many as possible to my religion would in fact be not simply a moral choice, but the only moral choice. Far more so than worldly works of charity, which might save the body but lose the soul. The rest of the post makes some very good points, but the argument that "If you really believed in your position you wouldn't bother debating" is not a strong one. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

9th January 2009, 08:43 AM	#6
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Interesint point, I do concede that its a loaded word. However I think this "loadedness" is really what the debating is all about. We all understand that everyone is hypocritical in one way or another. I think lazy people are fools but I am one of them. However, as I said, when people are attempting to have the laws of the land reflect this supposed God belief, we need to acknowledge something important. That is the person is denying that what they want is based on personal preference. My friend denies that he is bigoted against homosexuals, he instead does this sort of, shrugging of the shoulders saying "I'm a loving guy, and I don't judge anyone, but I can't help it, God said it....who am I to question God." Its about assigning authority to the texts. Using the text as an authoritative source of what is right in the world. We can't deny that the bible is used to justify the oppression of homosexuals. Here and now. But if you want me to accept the authority of this book, then why don't you as a believer? If you really believe this book is God's say, then why aren't you committed to reading it daily and going over it with a fine tooth comb? People memorize songs, comedy routines, movies and favorite poems? But the book? not so much.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 08:49 AM	#7
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Thanks Dave, I agree. I didn't mean to convey that this was the ONLY reason people debated. Actually I was addressing this point from the opposite perspective. I think that we ATHEISTS debate these points with a believer not because we as ATHEISTS want to convince the believer, both the atheist and the believer are arguing their point of view. However, what I was trying to convey, which apparently I didn't, is that what is really going on under the atheists surface conversation, is the title of this thread. When an atheist argues against a believer they are saying "I don't believe you that God exists" and what I think is going on is really "I don't believe that you really believe God exists" At least this is my experience with my friend. Its not just that I don't accept what he's saying, its that deep inside, in his heart of hearts, I don't think he really accepts what he's saying either.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Last edited by truethat; 9th January 2009 at 08:50 AM.

9th January 2009, 08:52 AM	#8
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,815	Just saying quickly, this is a fascinating discussion, please continue! I quite agree that if God truly existed and believers truly believed, then what could be more important?
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

9th January 2009, 08:54 AM	#9
Rrose Selavy Stranded in Sub-Atomica Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 2,955	When pressed though , don't many revert to a kind of agnosticism? Maybe thats where the "if i convince you maybe I' will convince myself as well" aspect comes in.

9th January 2009, 08:57 AM	#10
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490	I think there's an element of "half-belief" in there.
INRM Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 5,490

9th January 2009, 09:12 AM	#11
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	The reason I am starting this discussion is I'm done. Enough already with the PC BS. I think many atheists know very well what I'm talking about. There's a polite sort of acceptance that Billy really believes in God because he had a miracle happen many years ago and he KNOWS Jesus is his personal savior. Truly, most believers are nothing more than (to reappy Hume) superstitious atheists. When we know someone is superstitious we know that they have an unreasonable belief and we don't press the issue. Especially if we know it is related to some sort of mental quirk. If a woman fell down a flight of stairs and as a result always tells people to hold on to the railing, we sort of demure to her request because why push the issue? Obviously she has her reasons. So believers have their reasons. Most believers need God in their lives in order to cope. We as a society accept this across the board. But in order for society to evolve we need to grow. And that falls on the shoulders of atheists to stop the debating and the PC conversations. My conversation with my friend required me to hold my tongue or lose the friendship. I've lost the friendship with another person for basically calling it out. Many people are familiar with the frustrating conversation regarding Christian Hypocrisy. But that's the wrong angle. I suggest that from now on, ask a believer if they believe in God. Which God? Ok you believe that the bible is a sacred text given to you by God? Instead of debating the bible simply ask them if they have memorized the bible? Do they read it every day? How many times do they read it? Point out that this is basically the ONLY text that we have from God, according to what they suggest, so it should be pretty easy to memorize it. Then say "Well I'm sorry but I don't believe that you are really a believer because you dont' seem to follow through on your claim. I suggest that you are actually a superstitous atheist, and until you have memorized the bible, I will continue to think so. Lets shift the paradigm.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 09:40 AM	#12
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,815	Atheists are far too few. All my friends believe in God, as do all my family. I tried, feebly to stop saying things like "God bless you" and "Merry Christmas", even when typing I tried to stop capitalizing the G, but... We run the risk of deeply offending those who believe and so turning them away from our line of thinking. Whereas, why would I be offended if religious folks can't understand my atheism? It will take time, and may never happen. Yours in Christ, Mags
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

9th January 2009, 09:44 AM	#13
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I have many friends who are avid bible readers. They participate in discussions on it weekly. But to me, the basic problem with the presumption that god "wrote" the bible fails the simplest examination. The souce(s) for all of it are obviously humans, with all the biases and fantasies that humans have invented to "prove" their version of their religion. It's a book of fables, with some relatively common moral guidances, and other unique to the book ideas on what is and isn't right (according to the authors of the passages). Objective examination of the story of Job for instance, should bring up the question as to the source of the story. If it truly is god, he shows himself as a monster. It's more obviously a parable written in a bizarre effort to show how faith can be rewarded. Written by a salesman, not a deity, as that deity is obviously crazy. The same with the story of Samuel, a self-appointed god-shouter, responsible on his own hook for the elimination of an entire society, due to ... mental problems??? The book of god reeks with these inconsistencies and contradictions between the alleged noble purposes of the creator, and yet it's full of carefully detailed obviously human failings of the deity himself. I don't challenge my friends on these problems, they're all of a age when the Reaper is looming large in their lives, and they fear it. When religion comes up, I don't participate.

9th January 2009, 09:45 AM	#14
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Well the time is now. The debate has been spinning in circles. Obviously we're not going to win friends by suggesting this, and the debate doesn't have to be really attacking. But simple. Like so. You believe in Christ??!! Really? I don't believe you........
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 10:20 AM	#15
Big Les Not so much a medium as a large Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 5,004	I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager. Mostly because they really haven't thought it through and probably don't want to in case they too come to conclusion that they don't believe in god/there probably isn't a god. The above paragraph, incidentally, perfectly describes my position on Santa Claus as a child. I never actually believed in him, but wanted to a) for the magical feeling and b) for the free stuff. The problem is how to test these suspicions - FMRI perhaps?
	__________________ "Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof." -Stephen Fry The BS Historian Last edited by Big Les; 9th January 2009 at 10:22 AM.

9th January 2009, 10:24 AM	#16
Ichneumonwasp Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,221	Originally Posted by truethat If you want your religious beliefs to be respected, then respect them yourself first. I really like that way of expressing it. Mind if I use that in the future? That's very good.
Ichneumonwasp Guest Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,221

9th January 2009, 10:43 AM	#17
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by I Ratant I have many friends who are avid bible readers. They participate in discussions on it weekly. But to me, the basic problem with the presumption that god "wrote" the bible fails the simplest examination. The souce(s) for all of it are obviously humans, with all the biases and fantasies that humans have invented to "prove" their version of their religion. It's a book of fables, with some relatively common moral guidances, and other unique to the book ideas on what is and isn't right (according to the authors of the passages). Objective examination of the story of Job for instance, should bring up the question as to the source of the story. If it truly is god, he shows himself as a monster. It's more obviously a parable written in a bizarre effort to show how faith can be rewarded. Written by a salesman, not a deity, as that deity is obviously crazy. The same with the story of Samuel, a self-appointed god-shouter, responsible on his own hook for the elimination of an entire society, due to ... mental problems??? The book of god reeks with these inconsistencies and contradictions between the alleged noble purposes of the creator, and yet it's full of carefully detailed obviously human failings of the deity himself. I don't challenge my friends on these problems, they're all of a age when the Reaper is looming large in their lives, and they fear it. When religion comes up, I don't participate. Weekly isn't good enough though now is it? I mean we're talking about GOD. How does God get put on the back burner for UFC and LOST? How does God get put on the back burner for chatting online? Or going bowling? Its absurd. I know those types of people too. Occassionally they will read the bible, lots of preferred versus, lots of focus on the gospels and proverbs. Romans and whatnot. However, I don't believe they don't see these inconsistencies. They do see them and this is why they don't keep reading. They read a bit, questions come up OK OK OK You win...back away.........calm down. My friend did this to me when I pointed out his wife's gold. He said "OK fine I'll go home tonite and stone her, I'll cut off my right hand" Huge extreme emotional distancing from the logic. The truth. The truth being "wow I didn't know that...." And that truth leading to "Why not? You want others to accept the authority of this book yet you are lying when you say you do, otherwise you'd know it backwards and forwards. If God is giving instructions in this book and you believe in God, wouldn't you read it? Why wouldn't you be curious what the creator of the universe had to say? It would be illogical not to" But as you say, and I've said earlier, as you continue to read the book you can tell pretty quickly that its a fraud. I continue to study the bible for historical reasons. It doesn't take MUCH to really understand that the bible is a fraud. So why the denial? Ichy you can use that quote. I'm sticking with "superstitious atheists"
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 12:08 PM	#18
Mister Agenda Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Columbia, SC Posts: 2,635	I suppose when most Americans are atheists, the level of discourse around here will drop dramatically. Are we sure we want them to realize they're atheists?

9th January 2009, 12:33 PM	#19
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	I find no reason to confront my religious friends with the contradictions in their beliefs. They're friends, not adversaries. Missionaries that come to door though.. they leave very unhappy!

9th January 2009, 01:10 PM	#20
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	Originally Posted by truethat I call BS on the God belief. I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism. It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness. Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God? I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else.
westprog Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 8,928	__________________ Dreary whiner, who gradually outwore his welcome, before blowing it entirely.

9th January 2009, 01:46 PM	#21
DeusPhasmatis Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 293	Originally Posted by Big Les I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager. No. It's a social thing. People go in for religion because it's just what you do. There isn't a decision. Originally Posted by westprog I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism. It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness. Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God? I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else. If you're not taking the bible literally, than you don't have to take the bible-literal definition of a good Christian.
	__________________ "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." -John Maynard Keynes I'm an evangelical empiricist and rationalist.

9th January 2009, 01:53 PM	#22
Patsy Prickly Desert Denizen Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tucson, where we don't have weather, we have climate Posts: 586	"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -- Mark 16:17-18 I don't keep any devils or serpents around, but as soon as one single believer is willing to drink the draino under my sink, I'll believe they actually believe the nonsense they spout themselves. And if they emerge unscathed, I'll even listen to them.
	__________________ "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -- Charles Darwin; Introduction: The Descent of Man

9th January 2009, 01:58 PM	#23
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,062	I find much of the reasoning on here quite spurious. Consider: right now there are human slaves. Genocides are going on. Mass murderers and serial killers are on the loose. Some countries are undergoing harrowing Aids epidemics. Children are dying of diarrhea for lack of basic sanitation and medicine. I'm sure you'd agree all these things are real, happening, and vastly more important than, say, sitting on a forum posting jokes and armchair arguments. Yet here we all are (I include myself), doing that. I could go get a job at McDonald's to get some secondary money, and donate it all to various African charities. I choose to post, play with my dogs, go for walks, etc. We all, all of us, balance our lives between extremely important outside issues and the quotidian - what am I going to have for dinner, oh, I've got to respond to this post, someone is wrong on the internet, hey, let's go to Dairy Queen for some ice cream, etc. Considering the horrors I wrote about in the first paragraph, pretty alarming, yet ultimately understandable and entirely human. So, do we conclude that I really don't believe human slavery is wrong? That it is okay that kids die of diarrhea? Because that is the way the logic in this thread leans? Or should we conclude that humans are shortsighted, don't look too far beyond their immediate environment and clan, and focus more on today than the future? I suggest the latter. I know plenty of people who believe in God. So far as I can tell, they are sincere in that belief. There lack of focus on heaven strikes me as no different than my lack of focus on the AIDS epidemic. We are all tragically flawed. I guess you can view that as a way to put down everyone, or perhaps, recognize our humanity and limitations with compassion.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir Last edited by roger; 9th January 2009 at 02:01 PM.

9th January 2009, 02:03 PM	#24
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,990	Originally Posted by Big Les I have strongly suspected that many people (especially in the very secular, notionally Christian UK) do not sincerely believe in god, and go for Pascal's wager. Mostly because they really haven't thought it through and probably don't want to in case they too come to conclusion that they don't believe in god/there probably isn't a god. ...snip... (Warning: Personal opinions and generalisation galore ahead!) I think it goes much further than that - if you ask most people who label themselves as CofE I bet most would not be aware of what most of the doctrines of the CofE actually are. It would seem to be that religion for many people is quite a passive thing, they self-identify with it but have never considered it deeply or probably even know what it is they are meant to "be doing" according to their own label. This is one of the reasons why, when we we get someone who is "anti-atheism" who offers that silly "Oh that's just what fundamentalist would think" I find it quite amusing, all religions are "fundamentalist" it is just that most people who follow the religion or say they follow it simply don't realize it. What the anti-atheist is really saying is "Yes but most people don't actually believe in what their religion says" without realising the irony of making such a claim, never mind how patronising that claim is.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

9th January 2009, 02:05 PM	#25
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by westprog I find it amusing that atheists on this continue to try to frame religious belief in atheistic terms. Hence their attachment to Bible literalism. It's remarkably similar to the fundamentalists who claim that atheists believe in God really, but they are just pretending they don't out of badness. Ask an honest Christian if he thinks he's a good Christian. Most of them will, if they are truthful, admit - not really. The demands are very high. Sell all you have and give to the poor? Forgive everyone? Forget it. Does that mean that they don't believe in God? I admit, however, that I have a suspicion that many of the atheists who claim to be moral relativists actually aren't. So I'm as guilty of this kind of thing as anyone else. You're not understanding what I'm saying. This has nothing to do with Christian hypocrisy. Its not about not following the rules of the bible. So this isn't about my friend buying gold even though he's not supposed to. Its about him not knowing that biblically wearing gold is wrong. Does that mean he doesn't really believe in God? In my opinion YES. Because God is not just some historical figure. Its GOD!!!!! So how can a person be "meh" about what God said if he really believes? Now as I said before. Its one thing if you have your belief system and you practice it in your own way, living your life, doing your thing. I think we all know these kinds of people in all walks of live Christian or otherwise. However when it comes to oppressing homosexuals, this is where it turns into something else. When I point out to my friend that his not wanting homosexuals to have marriage rights is a personal preferance, he was affronted. He suggested that no, its not that, its just this is what the bible says and as an abiding Christian he just has to go along with what God says. I have another friend I know who was that Jesus is her savior. Due to the illness of her child she turned to Jesus and never turned back. And that's a wonderful thing for her, let her use it as she might. As I said, no one is going to deny a person their superstitions. Its only when they try to force those superstitions on other people that it even becomes an issue. So even though she's a really nice person, one of her causes is ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN. Why? Quote: God has ordained marriage as between a MAN and WOMAN only. Any other type of marriage will lead to problems in our society and bring upon us the plagues of God. Children are produced in families, and the traditional family is the backbone of the World. Traditional families are forever! So far the debate has always revolved around Christian authority. We're not having a debate about Gay Marriage rights based on a Stephen King novel? Everyone accepts that this is a story or fiction. Likewise we're not having a debate on Gay Marriage rights based on the Hammrabi Code. Because that has no authority in this country. The bible is granted authority in this country. And so this is why we need to shift the debate from whether the bible is true, to the real truth. That if this book is an authority by which we see fit to form our laws, then those who are insisting on its authority should know it well. Those who want to use its authority to oppress SOME people, should be expected to know all the laws in it. If those who insist on biblical authoriy don't have the inclination to actually read the book, why should the rest of us be expected to consider it anything more than fiction? I believe that what believers (or superstitious atheists) are doing is just using the authority of this book to hide behind because it helps them oppress people they just personally don't think are right. And as far as "they are our friends and not our adversary" well I disagree. If my friend is oppressing someone then they need to be called out on it. If they can't handle being called out on it, then they should shut up about it or stop doing it. If your friends were members of the KKK would you say the same thing?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Last edited by truethat; 9th January 2009 at 02:11 PM.

9th January 2009, 02:09 PM	#26
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis No. It's a social thing. People go in for religion because it's just what you do. There isn't a decision. Perhaps for the majority. There are some of us, I guess a (very?) small percentage, who want to believe in something greater than themselves, who are actively concerned about what follows this life, if anything, and who hope (but don't know) for something more to follow. My belief in or of God is irrational and based on equal parts of hope and fear. Not hope or fear of a diety's benevolence or anger, but rather of the desire for there to be more to this life. My particular faith is hardly social, and it's not, as far as I know (or have delluded myself) based on Pascal's Wager.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us.

9th January 2009, 02:13 PM	#27
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by RobRoy Perhaps for the majority. There are some of us, I guess a (very?) small percentage, who want to believe in something greater than themselves, who are actively concerned about what follows this life, if anything, and who hope (but don't know) for something more to follow. My belief in or of God is irrational and based on equal parts of hope and fear. Not hope or fear of a diety's benevolence or anger, but rather of the desire for there to be more to this life. My particular faith is hardly social, and it's not, as far as I know (or have delluded myself) based on Pascal's Wager. Ok so answer the question. What do you believe? What is your faith as you would describe it?
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Last edited by truethat; 9th January 2009 at 02:17 PM.

9th January 2009, 02:13 PM	#28
DeusPhasmatis Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 293	Originally Posted by roger I know plenty of people who believe in God. So far as I can tell, they are sincere in that belief. There lack of focus on heaven strikes me as no different than my lack of focus on the AIDS epidemic. People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false. If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food.
	__________________ "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." -John Maynard Keynes I'm an evangelical empiricist and rationalist.

9th January 2009, 02:20 PM	#29
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,062	Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false. No, I'm quite clearly saying people value their own welfare more than others. We don't give up our lives for starving children, AIDS prevention, etc. Quote: If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food. That is removed from us just like the human slaves are. There ARE human slaves right now. Go search CNN, MSNBC, any of the news sites. Yet you do nothing about it. (and neither do I). This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying.
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

9th January 2009, 02:21 PM	#30
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Originally Posted by DeusPhasmatis People don't act on behalf of strangers, in the general. This is well documented. It is especially true when said strangers are on the other side of the planet. You're suggesting that people value their own welfare no higher than the welfare of others. This is false. If the belief in God is authentic, then you have real and immediate personal problems to attend to. Not being thorough about a religion you truly believe in is like dying to food poisoning because you couldn't be bothered to thoroughly cook the food. That's a very good analogy. But there's a part that seems to be eluding people a bit. Christians suggest that they have a personal relationship with Jesus. They suggest that they KNOW God is there, that he is almighty and all powerful and that he sent his only begotten son to die for our sins. Ok Jews and Muslims don't believe this, yet I think Jews are much more dedicated to reading the Torah. This is the kind of dedication I'm talking about. I don't readily apply this commentary to the Jews because Jews typically learn Hebrew and study the Torah regularly. You have to respect the Jews religiously because they are definitely walking the walk. So explain about these Christians who are too busy watching movies and going to Disneyland or hanging out with their friends to be bothered to read the words of God.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 02:26 PM	#31
roger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2002 Location: Mountain View, CA Posts: 11,062	truethat, explain why you are so busy posting in this forum when there are human slaves?
	__________________ May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves. - John Muir

9th January 2009, 02:28 PM	#32
RobRoy Not A Mormon Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the sandbox Posts: 12,141	Originally Posted by truethat Ok so answer the question. What do you believe? What is your faith as you would describe it? Sorry, didn't realize there was a question I needed to address. I believe that there is a God and there is an afterlife. I do not know that these things are real, I believe that they are. I wouldn't describe my faith beyond that. I don't subscribe to any religious institution as, after reasonable study, they all seem to focus on details rather than the larger concern. Details that, ultimately drive people apart and worse.
	__________________ Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. – whatthebutlersaw Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim. All your base are belong to us.

9th January 2009, 02:29 PM	#33
not daSkeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,919	Originally Posted by roger This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying. I would not use the OP's argument to say that people do not believe in God. I would, however, say that at times one has to question if there is not an inconsistency between what someone professes to believe and what they actually believe.
	__________________ Skepticism, good. Organized skepticism, bad. Formerly daSkeptic.

9th January 2009, 02:33 PM	#34
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005	Because I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't like people. You are missing the point. Its not about hypocrisy. This is why this paradigm shift is important. If you BELIEVE that GOD is there and you BELIEVE that GOD wrote the bible, why wouldn't you read it? Why wouldn't you sit down, and open the book and start reading. I'm not talking about going to Church and hearing a sermon and looking at a part of the book. I'm talking a good old fashioned sit down and read it from cover to cover like you would any other book. Example I wanted to know more about Obama so I bought Dreams from my Father and spent a weekend reading it. Years ago when I converted to Islam I spend a week reading the Qu'ran from cover to cover. You buy a Stephen King book you read it from cover to cover. You don't just pick out a few chapters to read. Why wouldn't YOU personally want to know what God said, if you really believed that he wrote this book? So, I don't believe you when you say you believe in God if you haven't read it. I think you are lying. Just like I would think I'm lying if I said I'm outraged at the human slavery in the world. I'm not, that's why I can sit here on the computer goofing off.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 9,005

9th January 2009, 02:36 PM	#35
DeusPhasmatis Critical Thinker Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 293	Originally Posted by roger No, I'm quite clearly saying people value their own welfare more than others. We don't give up our lives for starving children, AIDS prevention, etc. We don't give up our lives for strangers. We do a hell of a lot on behalf of ourselves, and those dear to us. Quote: That is removed from us just like the human slaves are. ********. Numerous religions have real, immediate and personal results of adherence. Take the saints of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance: they are given sainthood because at least one person has received a "miracle" by praying to them. Quote: There ARE human slaves right now. Go search CNN, MSNBC, any of the news sites. Yet you do nothing about it. (and neither do I). I never contested immoral behavior in the world. Quote: This thread's argument is demonstrably wrong. People do believe in God. I used to, though I don't now. I'm not lying. People believe in a penultimate parent in the sky. This is not the same thing as honestly believing in Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as writ.
	__________________ "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking." -John Maynard Keynes I'm an evangelical empiricist and rationalist. Last edited by DeusPhasmatis; 9th January 2009 at 02:41 PM.