View Full Version : God isn't real
"No one can prove an unrestricted negative" is the reply usually given to those who claim that science can prove that God does not exist. An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.
The principle that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, however, is itself an unrestricted negative. It says, in effect, that there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives. But, if there are no proofs of unrestricted negatives, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. And if no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, then it must be logically possible to prove an unrestricted negative. So the claim that no one can prove a universal negative is self-refuting-if it's true, it's false. What I intend to show here is not only that unrestricted negatives can be proven, but that a number of them have been proven.
Parmenides realized over 2,500 years ago that anything that involves a logical contradiction cannot exist. We know that there are no married bachelors, no square circles, and no largest number because these notions are self-contradictory. They violate the most fundamental law of logic-the law of noncontradiction-which says that nothing can both have a property and lack it at the same time. So one way to prove a universal negative is to show that the notion of a thing is inconsistent.
To prove that God does not exist, then, one only has to demonstrate that the concept of God is inconsistent. Traditional theism defines God as a supreme being-a being than which none greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm would have it. We know, however, that there is no supreme number because such a notion involves a logical contradiction. Every number is such that the number 1 can be added to it. If there were a supreme number, it would be such that the number 1 can and cannot be added to it, and that's impossible. Many believe that the notion of a supreme being is just as incoherent as the notion of a supreme number.
Consider, for example, the claim that god is all-good and thus both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. If he is perfectly just, he makes sure that everyone gets exactly what's coming to them. If he is perfectly merciful, he let's everyone off. But he can't do both. So the notion of a supreme being may be internally inconsistent.
This is just one of many inconsistencies that have been found in the traditional concept of God. For a more complete review of them, see Theodore Drange, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" in Philo (Fall/Winter 1998). Theists, of course, will claim that, properly understood, there is no contradiction. What if they're right? What if it's logically possible for the God of traditional theism to exist? Does that mean that one cannot prove that he does not exist? No, for in order to prove that something does not exist, one need not show that it is logically impossible. One need only show is that it is epistemically unnecessary-that it is not required to explain anything. Science has proven the non-existence of many things in this way, such as phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan. Scientific proofs, unlike logical proofs, do not establish their conclusions beyond any possibility of doubt. But they are proofs nonetheless, for they establish their conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt and that is all that is needed to justify them.
Phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, and the planet Vulcan are theoretical entities that were postulated in order to explain various phenomena. Phlogiston was postulated to explain heat, the luminiferous ether was postulated to explain the propagation of light waves through empty space, and Vulcan was postulated to explain the perturbations in the orbit of Mercury. Science has shown, however, that these phenomena can be explained without invoking these entities. By demonstrating that these entities are not needed to explain anything, science has proven that they do not exist.
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.3
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.4
The goodness of an explanation is determined by how much understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding produced by an explanation is determined by how well it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation systematizes and unifies our knowledge can be measured by various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity (the number of assumptions made), scope (the types of phenomena explained), conservatism (fit with existing theory), and fruitfulness (ability to make successful novel predictions).
Supernatural explanations are inherently inferior to natural ones because they do not meet the criteria of adequacy as well. For example, they are usually less simple because they assume the existence of at least one additional type of entity. They usually have less scope because they don't explain how the phenomena in question are produced and thus they raise more questions than they answer. They are usually less conservative because they imply that certain natural laws have been violated. And they are usually less fruitful because they don't make any novel predictions. That is why scientists avoid them.
The realization that the traditional God of theism is not needed to explain anything-that there is nothing for him to do-has led a number of theologians to call for the rejection of this notion of god. In Why Believe in God? Michael Donald Goulder argues that the only intellectually respectable position on the god question is atheism.5 In Why Christianity Must Change or Die, Reverend Spong, former Episcopal Bishop of New Jersey, argues that the traditional theistic conception of God must be replaced by one grounded in human relationships and concerns.6 Both agree with Stephen J. Gould that religion should not be in the business of trying to explain the world.7
What if there was no plausible natural explanation for some phenomena? Would that justify the claim that god caused it? No, for our inability to provide a natural explanation may simply be due to our ignorance of the operative natural forces. Many phenomena that were once attributed to supernatural beings such as earthquakes, volcanoes, and disease can now be explained in purely natural terms. As St. Augustine realized, apparent miracles are not contrary to nature but contrary to our knowledge of nature.8
Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove.
And you lifted this from where?
Sir Toose
01-04-02, 05:44 PM
Man, that was quite a well conceived, albeit lengthy discourse. Allow me to apologize, firstly, for not taking it on point by point. I have not the energy or the desire to do so but I expect TWT will. Here's what I have to say. God is an idea rooted in faith, not logic. I don't care what scientist A,B,C,or D can prove or disprove because I'm not wholly governed by logic, no machine am I. I still believe that what encompasses life and the human experience can only be described as magic. What depths of love, art, etc the human heart is capable of cannot be proven or disproven by any of those scientists. If I say "I love you" to someone the scientist can't prove one way or the other if it's true or not. He can't even clearly define what I mean but the heart knows... it's magic, plain and simple. Science is a wonderful thing but it's also responsible for many of the fallacies of man.
So, God resides in the heart and soul and spirit. Landscapes forever untouched by science.
If you doubt my love, prove me wrong :)
spudracer
01-04-02, 06:12 PM
I'll make it simple..
Some don't believe in things they dont see. If that's the case, then are you saying you don't believe in air?
My suggestion to you, tyler, is that you check out the Religion thread:
http://www.movieforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=1436
Sir Toose
01-04-02, 06:24 PM
Well...air is comprised of molecules that can be seen but your point is a valid one. Science is frequently overstepping it's boundaries. We cannot see the bottom of the sea, we have no equipment that goes down that far. We know not our heavenly boundaries... only that space continues further than we can measure. Taking this into consideration science dares to take on God? Science is wonderful, don't get me wrong. I owe my formerly broken body to it many times over. But can science repair a broken soul? Broken faith? A broken heart (not in the literal sense)... no it can't. Only faith and love can do this. Things science simply will never understand.
thanks. I hear what you're saying, and I understand aswell. However I disagree that things are magical, so much as just intense emotions. Ever gotten chills of adrenaline when you kissed someone, saw you fav band live, got in a fight or anything? Well those are simply your mind feeling what your body has supplied. Adrenaline. Or just deep emotion. Not sayin your wrong or anything. I just like to look at things on a realistic level. This is a tough thing to do. And it's nice to believe in things like God to bring us through stuff. And it would be nice to believe that there's a guy giving away free sports cars out in the front of your house. That don't nessesarily make it so. What I posted above was mainly an objective argument against the existence of God. Next I'll through up a more subjective argument.
Sir Toose
01-04-02, 06:43 PM
The simple fact that your cells are capable of generating that adrenaline to make you feel that way is exactly what I'm talking about. We're not scientific experiments, we're living, breathing, feeling entities. Science can't explain this. Also, I personally don't use God as a crutch to get me through things. I just believe in the magic of life. You can spend your life analyzing the possibilities or you can open your heart and enjoy it. I'm not saying you're wrong either... this is what I choose to believe and experience. My heart proves it to me every day and then some... it's a lot warmer and truer than holding onto scientific theory.
BTW, keep the sports car... I'll keep the light in my heart :)
I still think that nothing is magic. Magic: believed to have super natural power or natural forces. I think that everything is the cause of something. Magic (for me) is too falsely explanative a word. To say that something's magic, is not to explain it, but simply an excuse for not having an explanation. Science can't explain why we do exactly what we do but it tries. It does not provide a false explanation just because there is not one found.
And I believe that spending your life examining, and thinking is enjoying it. As apposed to closing your eyes and smiling. :D
And what you believe may be warm, but not necessarily true. You just want to believe it is(not sayin' your wrong). To have an excuse not to think about what may be the deep dark, depressing truth. Better than scientific theory? That's for you to decide. But may I suggest that your decision be an idea, not a belief? Beliefs are far to permanent and sure. But it sounds like you've got some great ideas. It's great that we can discuss such an issue. Interesting stuff.
BTW keep your light heart… I'll keep my pursuit of truth, and sense of reality.
Originally posted by spudracer
I'll make it simple..
Some don't believe in things they dont see. If that's the case, then are you saying you don't believe in air?
My suggestion to you, tyler, is that you check out the Religion thread:
http://www.movieforums.net/showthread.php?threadid=1436
No I don't believe in "air". I believe in gases, which are "air". And I can see CO2 when it's cold and I breath. I can feel the "air" when it blows through a fan, or blows in the wind. And I believe in the matter form of gas because it's scientifically proven. Bad example sir. I doubt you fully read my post.
And my suggestion to you is that you realize this is a thread about GOD not existing. Not plainly religion.
The Silver Bullet
01-04-02, 08:02 PM
And these guys will say that they feel God.
I myself, do not, and cannot no matter how hard I may try.
But these guys....
CerealPort
01-04-02, 08:19 PM
I do believe there is a superior being out there in the universe controlling and monitoring us.
Wait a second.....
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I think we all know in the back of our minds god doesnt exist and there is no afterlife or heaven or any of these fun special things that happen to us. We are here for no reason or meaning so dont try to make sense of the world. It is like it is and is not controlled by any bigger force than nature. A day will come in which no more churches, and no more religion exists. A day in which we run our lives with realistic thoughts and explain things in a realistic ways. Religion is like cheating on the test of life. You take and copy all the answers from other people. These being the wrong answers from People of the past who werent as knowledged as we are today. Technologically we will advance, but not mentally until we get this idea of religion out of our heads.
Thank You
The Silver Bullet
01-04-02, 08:55 PM
As I've said before: I think what makes religion so important, and why I myself am religious, is not because of a figure [GOD] but because of the basic principles, morals and decency they preach.
Your argument is logical, but proves nothing. Your logical explaination only holds true for physical manifestations, not thoughts or unmanifested entities, which god could be, no way of proving it.
Your argument of logic can be turned against you quiet easily. The existence of a god, or gods, is not impossible(it could be so, logically wouldnt be so, but it COULD be so.), and thus comes this cycle:
If nothing is impossible, then it is impossible to be impossible, thus making something impossible. Contradicting itself in the long run. This statement holds true, but only holds true for phyisical manifestations, not mental or ideological. I think we all know (or assume, or think, or whatever you want to call it) that god is not physical, or we could look above and see him. So since he isn't a phyisical manifestation, then logical contradictions like the ones you have presented do not hold true, in the sense that you presented them.
Now many people on the board no I don't believe in God, and if you didn't before you do now, but your argument is all fluff, in the end holds no true 'fact' to it.
CerealPort
01-05-02, 12:57 AM
As I've said before: I think what makes religion so important, and why I myself am religious, is not because of the basic principles, morals and decency they preach.
ok if it is NOT because of the basic principles, morals and decency they preach then what makes religion so important?
The idea of God was spawned in a time when scientific theory was non existent. God or Gods were developed in the heads of Man as a way of explaining all that was a mystery. Life has always, and will always be confusing. And even the most intellectually secure, can lose site of the truth in place for what they desire to be the truth. And who would not desire the existence of an all knowing superior being. In short, if you believe in God and praise him, you receive an eternal “life”(which cannot exist without death) that is perfect in everyway. When life does not add up, you can push it all out of your head with the words “It’s god’s will”. You are here for a purpose, and God has a plan for you (which fulfills mankind’s greatest search, which is for meaning.) And you get to be a part of the biggest club there is. 95% of the world’s population believes in a supreme being. However 95% of the world’s population believed that the world was flat at one time as well. And it was just a matter of time before science caught up with this ignorance of man. And even though science has done the same with the theory of God, people will always fear and desire. Therefore “God” and religion will always be around.
And many of you are so helplessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.
God is in theory a male. But I ask, why would god have a gender? Does God procreate? God is considered male because his creators were male. Men where the holders of all power and authority in the time where Gods where prophesized. And by who? Men. All prophecies of God where delivered by men. So go figure the God they represented was a guy as well. They theory of God’s gender is a ridicules one.
God, in (Christian) theory created man in his divine image. And since God was created by man, who better to have him be behind? It’s very convenient. We are the superior form of life on this planet intellectually. We are not the largest nor the fastest, nor the strongest nor the most ecologically balanced. In fact, God’s perfect creatures are and have destroyed many species, and the perfect world on which we live. We are not a miracle, we are a curse. We destroy, and consume, and then relocate and do it all over again. There is another organism that carries the same habit. A virus. We are no different. Just bigger, and wear cloths. We have no more a soul than a tree or a cat.
And why should we? We are no more special.
Hell in theory is a place where you burn in agony forever. Think about that for a second. Forever. You will be in complete agony and anguish hating every moment and it will never end. That’s a scary thought. Compare that to living forever in complete happiness, with God in Heaven. Maybe it’s just me but I’d prefere heaven. The thought of possible “Hell” is such an intimidating one that, it can scare many into worshiping God. If so than it’s not a belief, it’s precaution. I find that many believe in God just in case. If God is really as great and merciful as he is said to be why might he send a morally good Budist or Jew to such a horrible place. What if Adolf Hitler read the Bible, and praised Christ everyday of his life? Would he go to heaven? If God is as allknowing as said to be such a process for fate determination would not take place. What would happen to an unbabtised baby is it were to die from birth complications. Would God send a baby to burn forever? Simple questions like these are danced around by the Catholic church. They refuse to take a position on anything.
Homosexuality in theory is wrong and intrinsically evil. This is yet another example of the puritan idealism that still remains in our Church. Hating a homosexual for being what they are, is just as bad as hating a black man for his skin tone. A position like this not only makes the Catholic church hypocritical, but a hate group. Like it or not the church is an indirect hate group, and until they once again revise their status on something like this, that’s how they shall remain.
God seems to have made contact with people less and less as science developed. Where is God these days? Did he split? Did he make a new civalisations? No. He simply never existed at all. God is an imaginary crutch. He gives people closure. A false answer is better than no answer at all. Many won’t admit it but they agree. Deep down, we all want meaning to our lives, we just have to trick ourselves into believing we’ve found one.
.
In theory God always seemed to inhabit(or have created) earth. This is also a false convenience. How could god have created the earth in 7 days, if a day is based on how long it takes the earth to rotate completely? And when god said let there be light, what language did he speak that in? And who was he speaking to. And if god wanted light, he must have known what it was. But how could he have known if it did not exist? God for being supreme, and all powerful, sure seems awfully interested in this little concoction of his. Witch is quite pathetic compared to other planets in our solar system alone. I’m sure any God would have made something much larger for his master work, and the home of his perfect precious creatures.
Why do you believe in God? If no imidiate answer comes to mind, your reason may be conformity. (I stress “may”) Many children grow up being spoon fed the bible. They go to church, and everyone around them believes in “God”. This creates an adiquite bass to keep us in a cage of conformity until we’re old and don’t even bother to ask questions because it has become to deeply a part of our lives. It is my idea that your teen years are your only years for true enlightenment.
So is ignorance bliss? Is wishful thinking ok as long as it makes you happy? Well in my opinion; no. I would rather get dragged into a gas chamber knowing it’s a gas chamber, then enter thinking it’s a shower. I wish to face the truth, and not make up answers I have not yet found. I may be the odd man out, but I will be my own man. I wish to stand up and say: No I’m not going to walk trough life in ignorant happiness. If your leg is wounded, by all means pick up that crutch and shuffle your way home. I will walk on my legs, wounded or not. I may stumble or fall, but I’ll pick my self and continue. And I may be home late, but I my journey there will be one of dignity
spudracer
01-05-02, 01:10 AM
How do you think you came to be?
Gases didn't create you, life created you. Life creates life. Rocks didn't bombard each other, gases didn't escape, and an explosion never happened.
mecurdius
01-05-02, 01:10 AM
i belive in god because of comfort. I gives me something to hope for after death. also because my parents have told me to belive in him.
Originally posted by spudracer
Gases didn't create you, life created you. Life creates life. Rocks didn't bombard each other, gases didn't escape, and an explosion never happened.
Well then you might as well not believe in gravity.
I'd just like to say well done tyler!
spudracer
01-05-02, 01:19 AM
What created gravity? So when you see a bill with In God We Trust printed on the back you throw it away because you don't believe in such nonsense?
Lets take a look at it your way then?
What created gravity? God created gravity. What created God? nothing, he was always there.
If he was always there, why can't gravity of always been there?
Originally posted by spudracer
How do you think you came to be?
Gases didn't create you, life created you. Life creates life. Rocks didn't bombard each other, gases didn't escape, and an explosion never happened.
I was born because my parents had sexual intercourse.
No gases didn't create me. And yes life did create me.
um...WTF is your point? If you are getting at the big bang theory being false that's fine. But you can't prove it, so you "think it didn't happen. Just like I think god doesn't exist. I really fale to catch your drift here. "Rocks didn't bombard each other, gases didn't escape"......um what does that have to do with God's existence? Seriously I've posted two essays. The least you can do is spend some time, and write something decent to prove your point.
Mecurdius: You are being sarcastic and attempting to mock me....right?
Thanks to toose and cereal port for throwing out some decent well developed ideas.
spudracer
01-05-02, 01:33 AM
Well, it's really not hard to believe in something you've never seen. You can't very well prove the Big Bang Theory either. There will always be a hole in what you think is truth. God wasn't created out of boredom or lack of entertainment. This was way back when before anything existed.
You then may ask, well who created God. How should I know. Like mecurdius said, God is a comfort zone. If you have nothing to look forward to after death, of course you won't think that your destination is already pre-chosen. You think you just die, and that's that. Well, it's a rude awakening for those of you who chose not to believe in a God or of a God, or a Heaven or Hell.
Originally posted by spudracer
Well, it's a rude awakening for those of you who chose not to believe in a God or of a God, or a Heaven or Hell.
No actually it will be a smooth kind of dieing action. What's after that you nor I know. We can have our ideas. But when certain people don't realize that there ideas are just there ideas, that's when I lose abit of respect. Dude you sound like my religion teacher.
And thanks by the way to OG-.
And sorry mecurdious, didn't mean to dis what you posted.
The Silver Bullet
01-05-02, 02:23 AM
My comment from before was missing out the thing that made it make SENSE. Therefore, you can go and recheck it if you want.
This thread seems so totally unnesicarry. Can't we PLEASE just go back to the religion thread and argue?
Sir Toose
01-05-02, 11:10 AM
Guys
I'm not going to argue this with you. I've been on your side of the fence... now I'm not. There are just too many miracles that happen dialy that no one can explain. Call it coincidence, call it whatever you want to call it. Me? I spent years studying physics, quantum mechanics, mathematics, hell I make a living in computer science and I have realized over the years that the for every one lesson you TRULY learn it spurns ten more questions. Tyler, please don't accuse me of choosing to sit back and not think. I'm sure I'm much older than you are and I'm simply saying I've done my thinking on this subject. I have proven to myself all I need to prove. You don't like my use of the word "magic," I noticed as well. I'm not talking about card tricks and Harry Potter here. I'm talking about a deep appreciation for life. A life whose beginnings science will never explain. I totally understand the concepts of a God being developed because scientific explanations were unavailable. Makes sense. But realize that while science is amazing it still has NOT explained what the spark of life exactly is. Science cannot duplicate or understand this. I do not see God as a white robed, white bearded figure with his arms open up in the sky. To me, God is what is in your heart. I have simply chosen to stop asking why it is that I have these feelings and to just be open to it.
BTW... you said
BTW keep your light heart… I'll keep my pursuit of truth, and sense of reality.
How can you be so sure that what you are pursuing is the the truth... and that the science that you put all of your faith in isn't wrong?
Also, you mentioned that it's easy to believe in God and just not think. I propose that it's it's easier to believe in science as sometimes it does provide tangible proof. To believe in God is to have faith in something you cannot see and touch...
Peace, I'm out.
A day will come in which no more churches, and no more religion exists. A day in which we run our lives with realistic thoughts and explain things in a realistic ways.
Yeah, nice call. Oh wait, I forgot: Christianity has been around as long as everyone can remember. I don't agree that, right or wrong, it'll fade.
Your argument is logical, but proves nothing. Your logical explaination only holds true for physical manifestations, not thoughts or unmanifested entities, which god could be, no way of proving it.
Exactly. There is no conclusive proof one way or the other. It's rather naive to assume that we can necessarily prove or dissprove such a thing on our own here. Wanna talk about realism? Face up to it: you have no clue as to whether or not God exists, because if he does, He's God, and the physical and conceptual rules of this universe don't necessarily apply.
The idea of God was spawned in a time when scientific theory was non existent.
And now science abounds...and well over 90% of all people still believe in SOME kind of Higher Power. Here's just one of the reasons why: science is constantly screwing up and then fixing itself. It's trial and error, which means at any given moment science as a whole is supporting incorrect notions...we just don't know it yet.
But I ask, why would god have a gender?
He doesn't. WE have a gender. If there were only men, there would be no such thing as gender. God was here first, and as such, had no gender. He then created Man in his image, and women thereafter. You're looking at it backwards.
And who would not desire the existence of an all knowing superior being.
Ha! You think it's nice and easy to believe such a thing? I believe it, and I'm constantly struggling with sin. It's very difficult. You, on the other hand, are bound to no such thing. As far as you are concerned, right and wrong do not exist: the only thing that you need to worry about you, and what happens to you. Believing in God is no easier than not believ in God. That seems just as convienent to me, just in a different way.
In fact, God’s perfect creatures are and have destroyed many species, and the perfect world on which we live. We are not a miracle, we are a curse. We destroy, and consume, and then relocate and do it all over again. There is another organism that carries the same habit. A virus. We are no different. Just bigger, and wear cloths. We have no more a soul than a tree or a cat.
Nice Matrix-esque rant.
Perfect world? You think our world is perfect, eh? And yet you think this PERFECT world came about through, what, a random explosion? Sounds more convienent than the existence of a God, IMO. FYI: Christianity doesn't claim we are God's perfect creatures. Where did you get that from? Being made in His image does not make us perfect. The Bible rants on and on about us having all kinds of problems we need to deal with.
I'll give you a differenece between humans and viruses: a virus consumes to live. That's just the way it is. It isn't even capable of thinking about what it is doing. We, on the other hand, debate over it. Many of us try to point out the mistakes we as a race, or species, or nation are making as a whole. In short: many of us are TRYING to be better...to improve.
What if Adolf Hitler read the Bible, and praised Christ everyday of his life? Would he go to heaven? If God is as allknowing as said to be such a process for fate determination would not take place. What would happen to an unbabtised baby is it were to die from birth complications. Would God send a baby to burn forever? Simple questions like these are danced around by the Catholic church. They refuse to take a position on anything.
I'm getting the vibe here that you associate the Catholic Church with God directly, or with all forms of religion. I don't answer to the Catholic Church...and if their shortcomings and beliefs are your basis for these opinions, you'd better re-think things, because there's no good reason to believe they know what God thinks. I will not be bound to them...they are men. Flawed, just as the rest of us are.
Homosexuality in theory is wrong and intrinsically evil. This is yet another example of the puritan idealism that still remains in our Church. Hating a homosexual for being what they are, is just as bad as hating a black man for his skin tone.
I'd say it's more akin to hating an alcoholic for what they are: flawed. They may be born with it, but that doesn't make it good, or right.
A position like this not only makes the Catholic church hypocritical, but a hate group. Like it or not the church is an indirect hate group, and until they once again revise their status on something like this, that’s how they shall remain.
First, see my above paragraph on the connection of the Catholic Church with God and religion. Aside from that, it's not hypocritical. Is it hypocritical to tell your child not to lie? After all, surely you have lied, and probably will do so again. Hypocriscy is doing such things, but not realizing it, or admitting to it, or accounting for it, or making any attempt to fight it.
How could god have created the earth in 7 days, if a day is based on how long it takes the earth to rotate completely? And when god said let there be light, what language did he speak that in? And who was he speaking to.
I doubt you're dumb enough to expect an answer from that. It's probably meant symbolically.
It is my idea that your teen years are your only years for true enlightenment.
It is my idea that anyone who thinks that true enlightenment stops when you turn 20 is just setting themselves up for ignorance. If you value truth so much, there's no reason to ever stop enlightening yourself, and no good reason whatsoever to believe that your teenage years are the best to figure things out. They may be some of the worst: you're inexperienced, usually rebellious, your fluctuating emotions may get in the way, and your body isn't finished growing yet.
Now, enough of this: if you do not believe in God, Tyler, tell me what you do believe in. How did this world come to be? How did we come to be? How did all the things we know come to be? Ponder this, however: if you believe in no Higher Power, the emotion called "love" that you know is fake. It doesn't exist. It might as well be a chemistry experiment. Furthermore, right and wrong cannot exist...meaning that rape and murder are not wrong; just unacceptable to most. Are you preparded to accept such things?
Are you also prepared to believe (if you are an evolutionist) that we are one of at LEAST thousands of humanoid mutants and similar creatures who lived on this earth and died out over time? Scratch that, make it millions. Furthermore, you'd have to, reasonably, believe that a species superior to us lived here some time ago and "made it" farther than we did...and that we, as a species, will die out over time, too.
And yes, listen to Toose: disagree all you want, but it's beyond ignorant to imply that people who believe in God do not think. I write computer code, and my father's (if I do say so myself), a fine economist of sorts. Albert Einstein believed in God. Logic and God are not exclusive. They do no conflict.
What does conflict, however, is going on and on about how you value truth and science, without, it seems, coming to the realization that placing your faith in MAN (the flawed man that you went on for at least a couple paragraphs about as being a screwup of sorts), and what we call science, means placing your faith (yes, faith...we all have faith, no matter what you say) in something that is all about trying something, screwing up, and then trying something else. As a result, if you follow science, plenty of what you believe will either be incorrect, or a half-truth...but you'll die before you have the benefit of learning this.
The Silver Bullet
01-05-02, 08:23 PM
He's right.
Who's he? Me or Tyler? :confused:
The Silver Bullet
01-05-02, 11:09 PM
Lol. You.
I wasn't going to elaborate on everything you just said.
I would have argued otherwise.
Oh, well, thank you. :) I'm sure this argument is FAR from over, though. I'm sure many essay-posts are yet to come, from both sides. :yup:
spudracer
01-05-02, 11:16 PM
This debate will never die. Even if it does on this site, those who think this outside of the site will forever keep this debate alive. :)
Originally posted by TWTCommish
I'd say it's more akin to hating an alcoholic for what they are: flawed. They may be born with it, but that doesn't make it good, or right.
I doubt you're dumb enough to expect an answer from that. It's probably meant symbolically.
Now, enough of this: if you do not believe in God, Tyler, tell me what you do believe in. How did this world come to be? How did we come to be? How did all the things we know come to be? Ponder this, however: if you believe in no Higher Power, the emotion called "love" that you know is fake. It doesn't exist. It might as well be a chemistry experiment. Furthermore, right and wrong cannot exist...meaning that rape and murder are not wrong; just unacceptable to most. Are you preparded to accept such things?
Are you also prepared to believe (if you are an evolutionist) that we are one of at LEAST thousands of humanoid mutants and similar creatures who lived on this earth and died out over time? Scratch that, make it millions. Furthermore, you'd have to, reasonably, believe that a species superior to us lived here some time ago and "made it" farther than we did...and that we, as a species, will die out over time, too.
And yes, listen to Toose: disagree all you want, but it's beyond ignorant to imply that people who believe in God do not think. I write computer code, and my father's (if I do say so myself), a fine economist of sorts. Albert Einstein believed in God. Logic and God are not exclusive. They do no conflict.
What does conflict, however, is going on and on about how you value truth and science, without, it seems, coming to the realization that placing your faith in MAN (the flawed man that you went on for at least a couple paragraphs about as being a screwup of sorts), and what we call science, means placing your faith (yes, faith...we all have faith, no matter what you say) in something that is all about trying something, screwing up, and then trying something else. As a result, if you follow science, plenty of what you believe will either be incorrect, or a half-truth...but you'll die before you have the benefit of learning this.
Sir you are really out to get me. And you think homosexuals are flawed? So then you're better than somone because they're inclinations are diferent from the majority's. What if we're the flawed ones? Gay people aren't flawed anymore than you or I. So tell that to the rest of the clan.
Dumd, by the way means that you can not speak.
What do I believe in? Well...nothing. I have alot of ideas. But that's all they are. I will not get to sure of anything to call it a belief. Because nothing is that certain. I however like to base my ideas, on what is proven. And what is probable. I don't know how we or this world came to be. But saying that God did it isn't explaining anything. It's simply giving an excuse for not having an explanation. Love, is as Al pacino put it "over-rated. Bio-chemicaly no different than eating large amounts of chocolate." It's a good thing, but only an emotion.
Nothing is right or wrong, or good or evil. Just interpratated either way. To the rapist it's not evil, or wrong. To me it is. And yes I'm prepared to except this.
I do not "believe" that there was a more advanced species than us to roam the planet, because there is no evidence of such a thing. But yes we will die out. And make a dandy index fossil!
People who believe in God are not stupid, and I never said that.
Listen, don't try to back me into a corner on what I think. I think most everyone is upholding there ideas or beliefs nicely. And think that maybe you should respect mine, post your own, and get of my back.
The Silver Bullet
01-06-02, 01:36 AM
Dumb is spelt like that.
Before I go and quote you several times, replying to each block (don't mind me...it's just the way I do things, as anyone else here can vouch for), I'd like to say this: I'm not "on your back." If you speak firmly in an argument, I'm going to do the same. Don't mistake it as hatred, or some personal grudge. This is just me stating my case as firmly as you do yours.
Sir you are really out to get me. And you think homosexuals are flawed? So then you're better than somone because they're inclinations are diferent from the majority's. What if we're the flawed ones? Gay people aren't flawed anymore than you or I. So tell that to the rest of the clan.
I never said I was better than them, I said I thought they were flawed. We all are...for various reason. IMO, homosexuality is a sin...a vice. An erosive act. It doesn't make homosexuals bad people anymore than a person who eats too much is a bad person. It's just an imperfection. Is it worse than some others? I don't know, I'm not God. I never said I was better than anyone, and even if I had, it wouldn't be because they were in the minority. Intelligent people are in the minority, after all. I also don't know what clan you're referring to.
Dumd, by the way means that you can not speak.
What, we're getting all technical now?
What do I believe in? Well...nothing. I have alot of ideas. But that's all they are. I will not get to sure of anything to call it a belief. Because nothing is that certain. I however like to base my ideas, on what is proven. And what is probable. I don't know how we or this world came to be. But saying that God did it isn't explaining anything. It's simply giving an excuse for not having an explanation. Love, is as Al pacino put it "over-rated. Bio-chemicaly no different than eating large amounts of chocolate." It's a good thing, but only an emotion.
Since we're being technical, I think the phrase is "eating large quantities of chocolate." But I digress: sure, love is, bio-chemically, quite similar, I believe. I think love exists on another, less tangible level, however. Just as you don't claim to know how we got here, neither do I. I don't claim to KNOW. I BELIEVE. I will not state it as undeniable fact, but I will say, until the day I die, that common sense dictates a creator.
Saying God created the world is not a cop-out answer. You say you don't know how we got here, yet you do say how we DIDN'T. How can you know. Either you do have beliefs on the subject of creation, or, like you said, you really don't have any, because there is no conclusive proof. In some of your other posts here, however, you talk as if you do indeed have a belief: the belief that, however we got here, it WASN'T from any God.
Saying that God did it, if He did, is definitely explaining it. The only reason you say that it's not explaining anything is because, to you, it isn't.
Nothing is right or wrong, or good or evil. Just interpratated either way. To the rapist it's not evil, or wrong. To me it is. And yes I'm prepared to except this.
It's "accept," and I'm not sure whether to be glad, or mildly horrified at the fact that you accept that. Part of me is glad you're at least willing to face that. The other part is sad that you, and some others, believe themselves to live in a world where things like rape and genocide are not TRULY wrong.
I do not "believe" that there was a more advanced species than us to roam the planet, because there is no evidence of such a thing. But yes we will die out. And make a dandy index fossil!
Ok, then I suppose you do not believe in macro-evolution?
People who believe in God are not stupid, and I never said that.
You implied that following God and following logic and reason conflict with each other...which is really just a nice way of saying that people who believe in God are fooling themselves, and only believe in Him because they're not thinking about the situation correctly.
Listen, don't try to back me into a corner on what I think. I think most everyone is upholding there ideas or beliefs nicely. And think that maybe you should respect mine, post your own, and get of my back.
The only thing I'm trying to do is make my point against some of the things you're saying. However I can do this without being rude or wasting large amounts of time, I will. I have a basic respect for all views, meaning that I'm not going to press an argument on someone who doesn't want to argue about it...but, seeing as how you started this thread, and have done quite a lot of typing already on the subject, I think it's safe to say you've invited debate; now you have it. :)
Question for you: what would you think if you were stranded on a desert island (sorry, I'm in this frame of mine...just saw from of "Cast Away") and, while exploring it, you found, say, 10 logs laid on the ground in what was a big, unmistakable circle (albeit a crude one)?
CerealPort
01-06-02, 07:19 AM
Question for you: what would you think if you were stranded on a desert island (sorry, I'm in this frame of mine...just saw from of "Cast Away") and, while exploring it, you found, say, 10 logs laid on the ground in what was a big, unmistakable circle (albeit a crude one)?
I am sorry, since we are all being technical I believe it is frame of mind ;)
And if I were asked that question the answer would most obviously be that some idiot got bored and felt like making a circle of logs!!!
What would you think TWT? That god made it as a sign for a person that might have gotten stranded there and might have happened to found it, that is of no apparent significance?
I r 1337, phear my 1337N355
The Silver Bullet
01-06-02, 07:34 AM
Just to keep on releiving the tension a bit, but maybe not so:
Are you crazy people just going to let Tyler's spelling of dumb with two d's slide?! I cannot believe this!
:D
mecurdius
01-06-02, 07:40 AM
what whats wrong w/ typing dumd, maybe it his L337 sty13 yO!:o
CerealPort
01-06-02, 07:52 AM
Ya know I was thinking.... and I think that we got god mixed up with Santa. I mean think about it. They both know if we are bad or good and both decide if we are happy ( presents or heaven ) or sad ( Coal or Hell ) Which makes sense because Coal is used to keep fire burning ( IN HELL! ).
(1337 flawless argument)
Don't **** with my 1337N355!
Originally posted by CerealPort
[B]I am sorry, since we are all being technical I believe it is frame of mind ;)
Ok, and, to remain technical, "might have gotten stranded there and might have happened to found it" is grammatically incorrect. :)
And if I were asked that question the answer would most obviously be that some idiot got bored and felt like making a circle of logs!!!
What would you think TWT? That god made it as a sign for a person that might have gotten stranded there and might have happened to found it, that is of no apparent significance?
No, I would not think that God put it there. I have to ask you, though: why would you assume that someone arranged them that way? What makes you think it wouldn't just be coincidence?
As for the Santa thing: we got Santa mixed up with God, not the other way around. Jesus (or the concept of Jesus, I suppose, to some of you) has been around far longer than St. Nick. Christmas IS a religious holiday after all; maybe it mutated a bit into a more secularized version, where good and bad lead to only presents and coal. It's God, only dumded down (misspelling intentional. :D).
OK FINE! If god is an explanation than allow me to make yet another explanation. One day bill the bunny rabbit had to sneeze. He sneezed so fuc*ing hard that he created outer space. Then somewhere in the deepest recesses of his snot, there was earth. Bill said look what I made! and he decided to make cats and bunny rabbits the superior beings. And they were so, until he demoted humans and made technology the new superior race. "LOOK!" said bill the bunny "Those stupid humans can't recognize that they suck compared to technology!" Bill the bunny had a good laugh at how humans were the lords of all in there own minds. He also found it humorous how they could prate on and on, about what they thought, not realizing that they were so damn small and stupid, and totally ignorant, that they may be wrong. Bill the bunny sat up late many nights listening to the banter of the ridicules humans. He found it humorous that everything they did not know, they made up, then believed. He laughed at how they destroyed everything around themselves, and called themselves "God's superior creation". I wonder if they mean me when they say god" Bill thought. No" I'm a bunny, and they kill eat and stuff my kind on earth. The only thing that could possibly have made them is something as "great" as them. "Oh you humans! You are so fuc*ing stupid! Can't you just die or something? " " I mean seriously! You are alive, but that doesn’t mean I made a plan for all 6 billion of you asholes! I only did that for the bunnies and cats. You just play a small role in there destinies”. But the humans were so loud bantering about ****, that they never heard Bill's questions and comments. And so the humans continued to live out there trite ,meaningless existence until they died off. And when they did Bill had a good chuckle remembering the humans and all of there ****. Oh thank Bunny! He said "Now the rest of the earth can finally relax!" Then Bill flushed his tissue.
Short and sweet: saying that it's not really an explanation heavily implies a lack of logic behind it. Not a far cry from saying that Christians aren't thinking. That was a tremendous waste of time, and you know it. This is the second straight post you've ignored half of the arguments I've made, man.
spudracer
01-06-02, 04:51 PM
:laugh:
However false you may be Tyler, you make me laugh. A big bunny....HAHAHAHA
Originally posted by TWTCommish
Short and sweet: saying that it's not really an explanation heavily implies a lack of logic behind it. Not a far cry from saying that Christians aren't thinking. That was a tremendous waste of time, and you know it. This is the second straight post you've ignored half of the arguments I've made, man.
Think what you will sir. I am not saying that Christians aren't thinking. I simply think they and the others who believe in God, are taking the easy way out. It's not "hard" to keap your faith! If you really have faith than you believe you have a never ending redemption waiting for your ***! It's nice but that doesn't make it true! The idea imperialists that made up **** like heaven and hell, did so to keep you in line. Hell is so damn scary, and heaven so nice that you can't help but conform. God is a superior being. He or she or it therefore must have vision and control over all that we can not. Life is hard, and really confusing. And thinking a God not only understands but loves you, is a very comforting thought. Admit it. Faith in God is a helpful nice thing. But not something I and others wish to believe in. Because just as strongly as you think that God does exist, we think that he doesn’t. That is what I think. And I do not wish to scrutinize your every word and retort upon them.
And in response to the person who(and there father) are very smart and believe in God, that's fine. And I'm aware that Einstein believed as well. But **** Einstein he's over rated anyway. Ya know some folks that are Atheists? Scientists. 90% of em to be exact. Smart folks go both ways. However the weak go only one.
But if you wish me to reply directly to you:
Yes, saying God did it, is a Cop out answer, and is just as legitimate a my Bunny theory, witch I'm sure you only comprehended on a surface level.
No I do not say how we didn't get here, I simply dis-agree with the idea of a creator. I'm not saying I'm write. And I do believe spudracer called my story, and the big bang theory false, yet you do not correct him. Why, because he's on your side of the argument.
And no buddy, God don't explain ****, not for me nor for you. You may like to believe it so you have a conclusion, but the story of creation explains nothing. And if it does, my story should as well. Hell, from now on, whatever I don't know, I will make up a story for. If you want to explain things based on nothing but a story that carries no more provable truth that my bunny story, than go ahead.
And once again, my perspective is sh*ted on because it doesn't comply with your infallible judgment. You and I think murder, and rape are bad things, but some do not. And if the majority thought otherwise, than we would be the bad ones. Seriously, Fu*k your written in stone judgment. Fu*k it.
And what the hell is this circle of logs ****? Um I guess I might think there's someone else on the island. What the fu*k is your point?
What's more likely ? That an all powerful being created us and our earth? Or that we created him, so we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone? And yes that is from contact.
Life is hard, and really confusing. And thinking a God not only understands but loves you, is a very comforting thought. Admit it. Faith in God is a helpful nice thing.
I'll readily admit it. I only hope you'll admit, though, that believing it's all a bunch of bull is comforting, too: because there's no consequences for your actions in the end. If you can lie, cheat, and steal on earth and get away with it, there's nothing else to worry about. Fighting sin doesn't matter...no rules to follow except the ones of the law...and those you can sometimes get around.
In some ways, believing in God is easier, but in others, it is MUCH harder. There is no clear-cut answer on which is easier; it depends on who you are.
And in response to the person who(and there father) are very smart and believe in God, that's fine. And I'm aware that Einstein believed as well. But **** Einstein he's over rated anyway. Ya know some folks that are Atheists? Scientists. 90% of em to be exact. Smart folks go both ways. However the weak go only one.
Got a source on that 90% number? And how broadly are you defining the word "scientist"? Yes, of course, Einstein is overrated.
But if you wish me to reply directly to you:
Yes, saying God did it, is a Cop out answer, and is just as legitimate a my Bunny theory, witch I'm sure you only comprehended on a surface level.
Feel free to elaborate. Fact of the matter is that you have no idea what I did or did not pick up on, but it's irrelevant anyway, because your entire post was a waste of time.
No I do not say how we didn't get here, I simply dis-agree with the idea of a creator. I'm not saying I'm write. And I do believe spudracer called my story, and the big bang theory false, yet you do not correct him. Why, because he's on your side of the argument.
I do not correct him, because I think he's correct. Why would I correct him if I think he's got it right? :confused:
And once again, my perspective is shited on because it doesn't comply with your infallible judgment. You and I think murder, and rape are bad things, but some do not. And if the majority thought otherwise, than we would be the bad ones. Seriously, Fu*k your written in stone judgment. Fu*k it.
You sure are lashing out here. Seems like you have some personal problems with religion. That's just my opinion based on your incredible harshness displayed here, though.
Your perspective is sh*ted on? What do you call what you're doing in concerns to my beliefs, then, eh Tyler? "F*ck it." Oh yeah, that's very nice. Face it: you're talking trash about my beliefs, and complaining when I argue with it. I never said I was infallible. Just as The Bible never calls us God's perfect creation. Do you think you can say things like that and not get called out on it?
This is the third straight post you've ignored the majority of my points. I guess you think that if you say something wrong, and I correct you, it's fine to just forget it, huh?
And what the hell is this circle of logs ****? Um I guess I might think there's someone else on the island. What the fu*k is your point?
You're mighty impatient, aren't you? You don't know why I'm aksing it, so your first reaction is to lash out. :rolleyes: Why would you think there's someone else on the island? Oh, BTW: you never answered me: do you believe in evolution, or not?
What's more likely ? That an all powerful being created us and our earth? Or that we created him, so we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone? And yes that is from contact.
Occam's Razor is bull, my friend. It's all in how you phrase it. Case in point: what's more likely? That the complexities of this world and all the amazing life in it (think of the human retena) came about through random explosions and billions of years of chaos and trial-and-error, or that the reason it functions so precisely in so many ways is because it was built to by something higher?
Furthermore, do you think it's more likely that there's no higher power whatsoever, or that there's something beyond us that we don't understand, seeing as how you think we're highly flawed anyway?
CerealPort
01-06-02, 07:11 PM
The Santa thing was a joke maybe I should have made it a bit more clear :P As for the log thing, when I think of logs I think of it being a straight cut, like someone used a chainsaw.
Originally posted by CerealPort
The Santa thing was a joke maybe I should have made it a bit more clear :P As for the log thing, when I think of logs I think of it being a straight cut, like someone used a chainsaw.
Well, the specifics of the logs don't matter too much. They could be old and beat up looking, and not smooth or anything. I just want to know why you would think that seeing them arranged in a circle of sorts (as circular as straight sticks can get really) would have you assuming that someone else put them there?
sadesdrk
01-06-02, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Toose
Man, that was quite a well conceived, albeit lengthy discourse. Allow me to apologize, firstly, for not taking it on point by point. I have not the energy or the desire to do so but I expect TWT will. Here's what I have to say. God is an idea rooted in faith, not logic. I don't care what scientist A,B,C,or D can prove or disprove because I'm not wholly governed by logic, no machine am I. I still believe that what encompasses life and the human experience can only be described as magic. What depths of love, art, etc the human heart is capable of cannot be proven or disproven by any of those scientists. If I say "I love you" to someone the scientist can't prove one way or the other if it's true or not. He can't even clearly define what I mean but the heart knows... it's magic, plain and simple. Science is a wonderful thing but it's also responsible for many of the fallacies of man.
So, God resides in the heart and soul and spirit. Landscapes forever untouched by science.
If you doubt my love, prove me wrong :) As always, well spoken, Toose...and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
Sir Toose
01-07-02, 07:59 AM
You guys go on and argue science and theology. You'll be doing it for the rest of your lives. Me? well I'm taking the lovely Sadie by the arm and riding off into the sunset... where science can't reach us... but don't worry, we'll figure it out ... ;D
And I shall ride of into the clouded sunset, with Miss reality.
She may not always be nice...but at least she's honest with me.
Sir Toose
01-07-02, 06:43 PM
There you go assuming your take is the real one. At least make room for opposing viewpoints or your world is going to be quite narrow.
Yeah, indeed. And don't get into arguments if you're going to ignore half the points you're presented with. ;D
sadesdrk
01-07-02, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by tyler
And I shall ride of into the clouded sunset, with Miss reality.
She may not always be nice...but at least she's honest with me. I don't want any part of your reality.:D
Ah, Tyler shows his true colors. Thanks, Tyler...I feel as firm in my beliefs now as ever. :)
haha. I win you lose. I am smarter than you.
spudracer
01-07-02, 11:43 PM
Well....*waves hand to show uncertainty* :D
for the millionth time, you make no sense. I win again. smart me.
Originally posted by tyler
for the millionth time, you make no sense. I win again. smart me.
:nope: :laugh:
Sir Toose
01-08-02, 08:35 AM
Now I feel like I wasted my efforts... time never regained, talking to a brick wall.
Yes, exactly. It looked like Tyler was open to discussion at first. Instead he came in, posted some essay that I must doubt he wrote all himself just for this thread, and failed to back up his views at all for the most part. What's the deal, man? I thought people who believe in God are supposed to be the emotional ones who don't use logic? :laugh:
sadesdrk
01-08-02, 07:18 PM
:laugh: Ah well...so goes it. Wonder if he'll ever come back.:confused:
I win. And am far smarter than you. You eat poo.
Any more nonsense like that and I'll have to either ban you, or perhaps just delete the post in question. If that's all you have to contribute to this discussion, you should leave.
In case anyone wants to know, Tyler acted like a bigger a** than usual here, so I've banned him. His user title reflects this, and he's been denied all permission to the board. I also send him an email letting him know how truly sad it is that what started as an actual discussion degraded into a place for him to spew childish insults laced with curse words to somehow make up for the incredible, gaping holes in his arguments that he refused to address.
The Silver Bullet
01-10-02, 12:50 AM
Oh be quiet, Chris. You're so dumd. You obviously eat poo.
;)
henry hill
01-10-02, 08:17 AM
:)
henry hill
01-24-02, 09:45 AM
By acknowledging the notion of gods or rulers we have shackled ourselves to the burden of worship and so been lumped with two sole options: obedience (and if the will we obey is other than our own, this is only a polite word for slavery) or rebellion.
Activity or Passivity.
To obey a wiser, more powerful force is slavery? Hardly. I am no slave. At this very moment, if I choose to, I can renounce my religion and everything in it. I choose to follow it, because it is the correct path, but God will let me believe in what I want. Yes, worship is a burden in some ways...I rejoice in it at times, and sometimes I'd rather just sleep in on Sundays. The fact that I follow this in SPITE of the difficulties it presents ought to tell you something about it's validity.
henry hill
01-24-02, 12:03 PM
Wow god has become such a distant concept.
My background is very religious (sister and parents)
I dabbled in religion, tried to be to please my parents... I guess it all boils down to personality and attitude and for some people they just cannot accept worship.
Or you could say some <ahem> people feel the world is such a disgusting place that they wouldn't thank anyone for being born/created.
Most people who rebel against God and accuse Him of being some sort of phantom designed to control people did indeed grow up in a religious background. Famous Atheists like Charles Darwin or Bertrand Russell were also raised as Christians...so it's hardly a surprise that you were as well. I think a lot of these people tend to associate God with their parents...who often restrict and punish them in the name of God (this is very much so in Darwin's case)...so, when they rebel against their parents, they rebel against the God they represent to them, too.
henry hill
01-24-02, 12:31 PM
I really don't want to argue about religion because I respect religious people (I respect my family and their choices).
But it's the things that are stated in religion that I can't grasp, not the idea of a being who we should worship...
Sir Toose
01-24-02, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by henry hill
Or you could say some <ahem> people feel the world is such a disgusting place that they wouldn't thank anyone for being born/created.
These are much the same statements that you made while supporting the use of drugs. Perhaps you should explore the causes of why you are so unhappy with life. Life is temporary, life is short and life is a journey. I would hate to see you waste your energy by sitting back and despising it when you could be figuring out what it would take to make it worthwhile for you. I believe we are all here for a purpose, regardless of whether or not we are aware of what it is. Life is for exploring yourself and learning about who you are. Negativity blocks the process and will make you all the more miserable.
I'm not preaching to you. Just a casual observer offering an opinion.... and you have asked, if I'm reading clearly :)
henry hill
01-24-02, 01:01 PM
I'm not unhappy, I'm dissatisfied. Uhm. No hold on. I'm diagnosed with Seasonal affective disorder, it's winter, I get really down, I don’t even notice how low I am until I feel better (in the better weather) and notice what I’ve written. Starts off with insomnia, leads to immense frustration, constant aggression etc. etc. I actually end up spending half my summer apologising for winter behaviour - it's quite amusing.
Sir Toose
01-24-02, 01:20 PM
Or you could say some <ahem> people feel the world is such a disgusting place that they wouldn't thank anyone for being born/created.
Well, the statement above as well as a few others indicate a condition that's beyond dis-satisfied. Unless you just throw stuff like this out there and I don't know it cause I don't know you well enough.
henry hill
01-24-02, 01:34 PM
Well S.A.D is basically depression during winter, primarily december, january, february. Expect this the time to be when I talk paranoid ****e, excessive profanity, anxiety, extreme mood swings and constant sleeping problems and other general symptoms of depression. Also expect: Anti-social behaviour, going out of my way not to be with people then feel lonely and worthless by myself. The saddest thing is you don't even know you're doing it until a conversation like this one kicks in. pathetic or what.
It's all directly related to sleep, I was up till recent on temazepam which is great, but I've built up a tolerance to it and my GP is scared of me becoming addicted. Instead I now smoke weed to help me relax and sleep.
During the summer I tend to completely change, completely social hypersomniac, tend to lose weight (which I gain during the winter) etc.
oh yeah, this does happen every year...
The Silver Bullet
01-24-02, 07:54 PM
Hence the drug conversation, it seems.
henry hill
01-25-02, 07:12 AM
No conversation is because I think drugs are good for me, they help me through, yet everyone is always talking about how bad drugs are so I came to find what others people's opinions are and to see whether they could accept another perspective that for some people they work...
The Silver Bullet
01-25-02, 08:53 AM
So be it.
I'd be interested to see what happens in the end.
But of course, we'll leave that for the drugs thread.
;)
Sullivan
01-25-02, 09:29 PM
Agnosticism rocks.
Originally posted by Sullivan
Agnosticism rocks.
Nah-uh.
Written By Grantley Morris
By definition, no one knows what lies outside their tiny circle of knowledge. To claim you know there is no God is to claim you have exhaustively searched every part of every universe and dimension with an infallibly accurate method of detecting every non-physical entity that could possibly exist. The claim that God has taken the initiative and chosen to reveal himself to some people is not nearly as unbelievable.
Don’t be like a blind person trying to convince himself that because he has never seen, everyone else claiming to see must be mistaken. In the realm beyond your present experience amazing things could dwell - even a God poised to shatter your insensibility to him.
Fez Wizardo
03-05-02, 08:12 PM
i hate this thread - no matter where i go people just cannot seem to accept that not everyone think's the same as them.
So you don't think god is real. well good for you what's the whole point in this thread? To preach your revelations? ffs the whole reason why people hated religion was because it was forced upon them...f'it nothing to do with me.
That's not true. Some people hate religious because they're too proud to accept something larger than themselves, or too reckless to follow any set standard like that. Some, even, hate it because they hate their own fathers (Darwin comes to mind). There are many reasons why people hate religion...the fact that some people had it forced on them (pretty rare these days, IMO...I've never heard of it around here or seen it, at least) is just one reason.
Fez Wizardo
03-05-02, 08:29 PM
im too religiousley uneducated i'm only aware of the history which i was taught over 10 years ago...
my only point in terms of this thread was why do people see it necessity to taunt each other...
Well, I agree...but I don't know what you mean about history. I hope it's not that stereotypical "Salem witch trials...blah blah blah...crusades...blah blah blah...earth is flat...blah blah blah" stuff. You wouldn't believe how often that comes up.
But yes, the taunting is unnecessary. Personally, I think that any time an Atheist resorts to something of the sort, they're only hurting their case. Ditto for any Christian. Anger is their last refuge...once logic and reason have failed them.
firegod
03-05-02, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
But yes, the taunting is unnecessary. Personally, I think that any time an Atheist resorts to something of the sort, they're only hurting their case. Ditto for any Christian. Anger is their last refuge...once logic and reason have failed them.
I agree. Personally, I think most of Tyler's posts made atheists look like idiots. I intend to discuss religion here, but I can guarantee you I won't start acting like a baby just because a theist (commish) starts asking me intelligent questions. By the way, I didn't see a single question attempting to discredit atheism here that I would have a difficult time answering or explaining. Tyler "sounded" very good at first, but quickly degenerated into someone who seemed to have the temperment of a bull and the intelligence of a small child.
Sexy Celebrity
03-05-02, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by firegod
Tyler "sounded" very good at first, but quickly degenerated into someone who seemed to have the temperment of a bull and the intelligence of a small child.
I just read through this thread and I agree. Especially with comments like:
Originally posted by tylerI win. And am far smarter than you. You eat poo
I don't know what tyler's getting out of this big thread for himself in the first place. To convert everyone into atheists? Why does he care? It's so "Christian" to throw your NON-religion out in people's faces all the time. :rolleyes:
I understand the logic in his atheists beliefs. I think a lot of atheists are amusing and very nice, but is tyler? ehh... I don't know him in real life, but I assume he's a little annoyingly arrogant. Seems like he loves his atheism so much that he thinks he wants to be rude and get away with anything. Why not, if he doesn't have to worry about being scolded by God in the end?
Luckily, TWT's God of the Movie Forums and he can cast away anyone he wants. You go god of the movie forums! ;)
:laugh: Yes, it is quite nice to have the power to smite troublemakers. I feel the same way; I've never understood why an atheist can be MAD at a God that doesn't exist. I suppose you could say they're only mad at the establishment...but I don't think so.
firegod
03-05-02, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
:laugh: Yes, it is quite nice to have the power to smite troublemakers. I feel the same way; I've never understood why an atheist can be MAD at a God that doesn't exist. I suppose you could say they're only mad at the establishment...but I don't think so.
Most of us are simply disappointed in humanity. That causes some of us to get angry; fortunately, it doesn't cause me to get angry.
Sexy Celebrity
03-05-02, 10:10 PM
They could find the establishment to be stupid, but why be mad? Afterall, so many factors in the world shape who you are and what you believe. All of the atheists I know of grew up in a family that practiced some kind of religion, and later they turned their back on it and stopped believing in religions.
Atheism is attractive... it looks like rebellion, but to a true atheist, they're not rebelling. Tyler seemed like he wanted to rebel more than anything. He should have stayed quiet until someone else brought up religion. I think it's more attractive to be quiet until the issue is brought up... not really attractive in that it gets you chicks, but that more people will actually listen to you.
Why has this board kept going? .:rolleyes:
It should have been closed with my final post IMO
firegod
03-06-02, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
That's not true. Some people hate religious because they're too proud to accept something larger than themselves, or too reckless to follow any set standard like that. Some, even, hate it because they hate their own fathers (Darwin comes to mind). There are many reasons why people hate religion...the fact that some people had it forced on them (pretty rare these days, IMO...I've never heard of it around here or seen it, at least) is just one reason.
I had missed this post before. Most of the atheists I know dislike religion because they feel it is very harmful; not because they hate their fathers, or any of the other reasons you claim they do.
As far as religion being forced on people, it still is, bigtime. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a parent sing a religious song to his/her little infant. Do those babies have much of a chance to think for themselves and use critical thinking to come up with their own major ideas about religion? Of course not. And I'd say the major reason atheists are in the minority is exactly because most people have religion forced on them. Most of these people don't feel like their religion has been forced on them, but for most people, atheists and theists alike, it has.
I had missed this post before. Most of the atheists I know dislike religion because they feel it is very harmful; not because they hate their fathers, or any of the other reasons you claim they do.
Well, keep in mind I'm not claiming that your friends, or any atheists you know, are necessarily products of those things...but some atheists are, undoubtedly. IMO, most are what they are for less than legitimate reasons, but I don't claim to have any proof of it.
One thing I must ask, though, is why an atheist would care if someone else's beliefs were harmful? I've never understood what an atheist is fighting for. Why fight for anything other than their own comfort and survival?
As far as religion being forced on people, it still is, bigtime. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a parent sing religious songs to their little infants. Do those babies have much of a chance to think for themselves and use critical thinking to come up with their own major ideas about religion? Of course not. And I'd say the major reason atheists are in the minority is exactly because most people have religion forced on them. Most of these people don't feel like their religion has been forced on them, but for most people, atheists and theists alike, it has.
I completely disagree; I think that's a very unapplicable analogy. Are children who are taught not to lie having morals forced on them? No, because children need to be taught, and parents, naturally, teach their children what they believe to be true. That's perfectly reasonable.
I'm not denying that some people are still forcing religion on others...but I don't think that falls under it in the least, really. I think the entire thing is overblown. I've been in discussions like this where someone would snap for some reason and tell me not to "force my beliefs on them." It's come to mean any kind of advice, teaching, discussion or debate of any sort, it seems...I think it's terribly misused.
firegod
03-06-02, 02:05 AM
One thing I must ask, though, is why an atheist would care if someone else's beliefs were harmful? I've never understood what an atheist is fighting for. Why fight for anything other than their own comfort and survival?
I care because I care about the planet. It bothers me that so many people have gone to war over religion, that so many people have been murdered, tortured, persecuted etc. because they didn't have the "right" religious beliefs. It bothers me that people, who simply haven't bought into one of the thousands of religious belief systems people have believed in, are thought of as evil, amoral, and/or foolish by the majority of people in this world.
I completely disagree; I think that's a very unapplicable analogy.
I didn't make an analogy. I gave one of many direct ways that people are "brainwashed" into believing or "taught" to believe a certain religion. Religion is largely geographical. If you were born in the United States, you are likely to be Christian, ESPECIALLY if you live in certain areas of the country, like most small towns in Ohio, for example. If you live in Afghanistan, you are likely to be Islamic; France, Christian (dominantly Roman Catholic); Japan, Buddhist; etc. Babies tend to learn their religion from the people who raise them, and they tend to grow into adults with those very beliefs, whether those beliefs make sense or not.
Are children who are taught not to lie having morals forced on them?
Yes.
No, because children need to be taught, and parents, naturally, teach their children what they believe to be true.
Whether they should be taught the moral or not, the moral is being forced on them.
That's perfectly reasonable.
It is perfectly reasonable, but the children are being forced. I would force my children to believe that it is wrong to run out into the street, because there is a very logical and proven reason to. As they grow older, they start to understand the reasons and start to think for themselves with regard to their own safety, no longer needing such a strong grip from their parents. With religion, the "teaching" or "brainwashing" is usually delivered with MUCH more strength and persistence than all non-religious teachings. It also continues in a pretty strong way, throughout people's adult lives, never allowing most people to believe that they can use critical thinking to form their own religious ideas. Most people; not all.
I'm not denying that some people are still forcing religion on others...but I don't think that falls under it in the least, really. I think the entire thing is overblown. I've been in discussions like this where someone would snap for some reason and tell me not to "force my beliefs on them." It's come to mean any kind of advice, teaching, discussion or debate of any sort, it seems...I think it's terribly misused.
Hmm. Let me clarify my stance on that, then. I don't think I have seen you brainwash anyone. I don't think I have ever brainwashed anyone. However, when I see a man in a grocery store singing to his baby about how Jesus loves her, I do think he is brainwashing his little child. I know that there is very little chance that the child will grow up to be a non-Christian, just like I know that there is very little chance for a person to grow up to be a non-Hindu when she is sung Hindu songs as a baby.
I respect your beliefs, but experience has convinced me that religious force-feeding is not only still around, but is commonplace.
I care because I care about the planet. It bothers me that so many people have gone to war over religion, that so many people have been murdered, tortured, persecuted etc. because they didn't have the "right" religious beliefs. It bothers me that people, who simply haven't bought into one of the thousands of religious belief systems people have believed in, are thought of as evil, amoral, and/or foolish by the majority of people in this world.
That's not quite what I meant. Those things bother me as well...but they bother me because I believe in right and wrong...I believe in God. In absolute morals. If you believe there are no absolute morals, and we're all nothing more than cells and chemical reactions, why should any of it matter to you? Why should love be so special if we know it's nothing more than chemicals reacting to one another?
I didn't make an analogy. I gave one of many direct ways that people are "brainwashed" into believing or "taught" to believe a certain religion. Religion is largely geographical. If you were born in the United States, you are likely to be Christian, ESPECIALLY if you live in certain areas of the country, like most small towns in Ohio, for example. If you live in Afghanistan, you are likely to be Islamic; France, Christian (dominantly Roman Catholic); Japan, Buddhist; etc. Babies tend to learn their religion from the people who raise them, and they tend to grow into adults with those very beliefs, whether those beliefs make sense or not.
Well, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the world believes in a "good God," as we use the term. For all we know whether they decide to call Him Jesus or Allah may make no difference at all. Sure, a child brought up in a religious family is more likely to become religious (though I'm sure you realize how many atheists were raised in religious households)...for me, though, this is similar to a child having a better chance at success because they were raised in wealth. I would not say they tend to grow into them regardless. Children naturally rebel against their parents...I don't think most people raised in religious households believe what they believe simply because they were taught.
Whether they should be taught the moral or not, the moral is being forced on them.
Well, what you've been saying implies fault, I believe, and if there is no other way, then I don't know if it can be called fault from that perspective. I don't think it's being forced on them at all anymore than their curfew is forced on them. They are beliefs their parents encourage and instruct that they are 100% free to rebel against if and when they want. I'm sorry, but I don't believe most people are so sheeplike as to not truly question things they were raised under. Most young adults and teenagers question EVERYTHING...I see religion as little to no exception.
It is perfectly reasonable, but the children are being forced. I would force my children to believe that it is wrong to run out into the street, because there is a very logical and proven reason to. As they grow older, they start to understand the reasons and start to think for themselves with regard to their own safety, no longer needing such a strong grip from their parents. With religion, the "teaching" or "brainwashing" is usually delivered with MUCH more strength and persistence than all non-religious teachings. It also continues in a pretty strong way, throughout people's adult lives, never allowing most people to believe that they can use critical thinking to form their own religious ideas. Most people; not all.
You could say the same about morals, couldn't you?
Hmm. Let me clarify my stance on that, then. I don't think I have seen you brainwash anyone. I don't think I have ever brainwashed anyone. However, when I see a man in a grocery store singing to his baby about how Jesus loves her, I do think he is brainwashing his little child. I know that there is very little chance that the child will grow up to be a non-Christian, just like I know that there is very little chance for a person to grow up to be a non-Hindu when she is sung Hindu songs as a baby.
So, does that bother you? Would it be just as bad if the same person were telling the child to tell the truth and be kind? You consider parents telling their children to be tolerant, patient people, for example, to be brainwashing?
I respect your beliefs, but experience has convinced me that religious force-feeding is not only still around, but is commonplace.
Well, again, you say it with implications of negativity...but what alternative is there? Children are, at times, impressionable. The parents can either try to impress what they strongly believe to be true upon their children, or they can let someone else do it. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, I don't imagine you let them learn all sorts of life-forming concepts from other kids in the neighbordhood or strangers of some sort...but rather, from you...from their parents. If you don't have any yet, I imagine this is exactly how you will raise them. Is that brainwashing?
Fact of the matter is, I think, you can teach a child things and still teach them to think for themselves. Have a little faith...if a person is so helpless as to believe what they're taught growing up and never truly question it, then they were either going to be branded with that, or with something else outside of the parent's control...as such, I can find no fault with that method of parenting.
firegod
03-06-02, 03:30 AM
That's not quite what I meant. Those things bother me as well...but they bother me because I believe in right and wrong...I believe in God. In absolute morals. If you believe there are no absolute morals, and we're all nothing more than cells and chemical reactions, why should any of it matter to you? Why should love be so special if we know it's nothing more than chemicals reacting to one another?
I don't claim to know the exact formula for why I care, or how I get all of my morals, but I do claim to know some of it. I get my morals from experience and logic, and my morals are made up of compassion, fairness, love of truth, the ability to reason and the ability to be open-minded.
Guess what? Most theists get most of their morals the same way. Do you think the average bible believer thinks that obeying the sabbath is more important than not commiting rape? How about not lying about your neighbor, or not molesting children? If your religious texts do not say anything about not molesting children, why do you not do it? Because your experience teaches you not to. It is the same thing for atheists. We get many of our morals the same way you get many of yours.
Well, keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of the world believes in a "good God," as we use the term. For all we know whether they decide to call Him Jesus or Allah may make no difference at all. Sure, a child brought up in a religious family is more likely to become religious (though I'm sure you realize how many atheists were raised in religious households)...for me, though, this is similar to a child having a better chance at success because they were raised in wealth. I would not say they tend to grow into them regardless. Children naturally rebel against their parents...I don't think most people raised in religious households believe what they believe simply because they were taught.
Most people don't believe every single little thing about religion that their parents do, but most people believe most of what their parents teach them. For example, a Christian parent might believe the old testement when it teaches her that eating shellfish is an abomination, but she might not feel so strongly about it that she makes sure her son has the same belief. However, she will make sure that he believes that Jesus is his savior, and it will be very difficult for him to ever not believe it.
Well, what you've been saying implies fault, I believe, and if there is no other way, then I don't know if it can be called fault from that perspective. I don't think it's being forced on them at all anymore than their curfew is forced on them. They are beliefs their parents encourage and instruct that they are 100% free to rebel against if and when they want. I'm sorry, but I don't believe most people are so sheeplike as to not truly question things they were raised under. Most young adults and teenagers question EVERYTHING...I see religion as little to no exception.
When it comes to those who have simply been given the information, I agree. But when someone is sung religious songs every day from the day they were born, I'd bet at least 30 to 1 that the baby will grow up believeing in whatever religion the songs were based on. The teenager won't likely rebel against that religion. Some people TRY to very strongly "teach" or "brainwash" their children into believeing the same things they believe in, do a bad job, and their kids rebel. That rebellion isn't very likely to happen if they do it "right."
You could say the same about morals, couldn't you?
I'm not sure what you mean? Could you elaborate?
So, does that bother you?
Yes. It bothers me when children are forced to believe in a religion without having much of a chance to use critical thinking to form their own views.
Would it be just as bad if the same person were telling the child to tell the truth and be kind? You consider parents telling their children to be tolerant, patient people, for example, to be brainwashing?
I wouldn't consider simply telling a child those things to be brainwashing. But if they were forced on them to such a strong degree that they couldn't come to their own conlusions, I would consider it brainwashing, although not nearly as detestable as religious brainwashing.
Well, again, you say it with implications of negativity...but what alternative is there? Children are, at times, impressionable. The parents can either try to impress what they strongly believe to be true upon their children, or they can let someone else do it. I don't know if you have children, but if you do, I don't imagine you let them learn all sorts of life-forming concepts from other kids in the neighbordhood or strangers of some sort...but rather, from you...from their parents. If you don't have any yet, I imagine this is exactly how you will raise them. Is that brainwashing?
I will teach my children enough to try to protect them from danger, but I will not force things on them so much that they can't think for themsleves later on. With most religious people, they don't give their children that kind of a chance to think for themselves with regard to religion. They pound the beliefs into the minds of their kids, and don't let up until they are adults who share the same religious beliefs.
Fact of the matter is, I think, you can teach a child things and still teach them to think for themselves.
Absolutely.
Have a little faith...if a person is so helpless as to believe what they're taught growing up and never truly question it, then they were either going to be branded with that, or with something else outside of the parent's control...as such, I can find no fault with that method of parenting.
Again, not just taught; so strongly taught that it would be incredibly difficult for them to develope their own opinion on it later on. I call that brainwashing. I think you underestimate the power you can have over children if you efficiently brainwash them. Simply teaching them things is not what I am talking about. I was taught things as a kid, but those things were pushed on me only strong enough to protect me; not so strong that I couldn't critically analyze them when I was older. For example, I know that I can cross the street now. :)
The Silver Bullet
03-06-02, 03:43 AM
Yes. It bothers me when children are forced to believe in a religion without having much of a chance to use critical thinking to form their own views.
I agree with that.
I don't agree with children being baptised when they don't have a say in whether they join the religion or not. I think it's wrong.
Sir Toose
03-06-02, 09:22 AM
You guys are arguing the semantics of different religious practices not for or against the existence of God. I have still yet to see an argument that makes me a non-believer. The fact is, there is no proof. Give me all the scientific mumbo jumbo you've heard and can puke back out at me and I will tell you that's not proof any more than faith is proof. Give me the scientific formula that proves there is no god or give me the freedom to believe what I believe. It all boils down to one of two dimensions of faith. You have faith in God, or you have faith in science... neither one is provable. Don't tread on me... I won't tread on you.
Fez Wizardo
03-06-02, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Toose
You have faith in God, or you have faith in science... neither one is provable. Don't tread on me... I won't tread on you.
Amen :D
(or you have no faith in anything)
firegod
03-06-02, 09:58 AM
Have I tread on you? I can tell you that theists tread on me all the time. When people find out I am (*gasp!*) an atheist, I am often called immoral, amoral, evil, just because I haven't bought the idea that there is this invisible man in the sky. But I don't see how I have tread on you.
By the way, I don't have faith in science, or anything for that matter, if you are referring to the kind of faith that requires no logic or evidence. Insinuating that believing in science is the same thing as believing in a religion is a ridiculous stretch. I have asked several theistic scientists whether they have faith in science and whether they have faith in their religion.. The first answer is always no, while the second is always yes. Religion requires faith, not science.
You ask me to prove something to you. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I tell you that leprechauns exist, and you tell me you don't believe in them, do you have the burden of proof? Is our burden of proof about the same? Or is the burden of proof on me? Obviously, the burden of proof is on me; I am the one making the claim that lepechauns exist, while all you are doing is recognizing that you don't believe in them, because you have no reason to. Same thing with atheists. I am sorry that the existence of atheists bothers you so much.
Sir Toose
03-06-02, 10:16 AM
First of all I don't know who the hell you are, and second of all I never said "Firegod, you must prove yourself to me." I could give a rat's a$$ what you believe and I never said you tread on me. I said don't tread on me in general and I won't tread on you in general. You are taking the stance that I meant you specifically... I did not, and I have no idea why you would think I meant you specifically. Both perspectives are inconclusive in arena of the existence of God. Both perspectives require faith, one in science, one in God. I make no claim and I require no proof from you. I KNOW what I believe, you can believe whatever you wish. It's a free country and you can be an atheist if you want to. Knock yourself out.
I don't claim to know the exact formula for why I care, or how I get all of my morals, but I do claim to know some of it. I get my morals from experience and logic, and my morals are made up of compassion, fairness, love of truth, the ability to reason and the ability to be open-minded.
Guess what? Most theists get most of their morals the same way. Do you think the average bible believer thinks that obeying the sabbath is more important than not commiting rape? How about not lying about your neighbor, or not molesting children? If your religious texts do not say anything about not molesting children, why do you not do it? Because your experience teaches you not to. It is the same thing for atheists. We get many of our morals the same way you get many of yours.
We're still not quite on the same page here: I'm not asking you how you've come up with the morals you follow. I know how you have: regardless of religion, you have a conscience. If you ask me, the fact that we all wish for some form of good...that badness is almost always spoiled goodness in some way, and that mankind has had similar BASE morals throughout history is a sign of God...
...but aside from that, here's what I've been really trying to ask: what's the point? Why do you bother with morals? If there is no God, right and wrong are illusions...concepts made of nothing more than fog. Nothing solid. And yet I'd be willing to bet that you're a significantly moral person by most person's standards, and will teach your children to be the same way. But WHY? Do you take love seriously? Do you realize if there's nothing Higher out there, love is just a chemical reaction?
Fact of the matter is that virtually all Atheists still have morals...still believe in right and wrong...which doesn't really make much sense. If an Atheist is honest with themselves, I see no reason why they should care about anything but themselves. I see no reason they should have any other goals than self-gratification, because allegedly we'll all be worm food eventually.
Most people don't believe every single little thing about religion that their parents do, but most people believe most of what their parents teach them. For example, a Christian parent might believe the old testement when it teaches her that eating shellfish is an abomination, but she might not feel so strongly about it that she makes sure her son has the same belief. However, she will make sure that he believes that Jesus is his savior, and it will be very difficult for him to ever not believe it.
And yet you say you were raised in a religious family, isn't that right? I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. How many families have you seen closely enough to truly know that it is anywhere near "commonplace" (your word) for parents to "brainwash" their children with these things?
When it comes to those who have simply been given the information, I agree. But when someone is sung religious songs every day from the day they were born, I'd bet at least 30 to 1 that the baby will grow up believeing in whatever religion the songs were based on. The teenager won't likely rebel against that religion. Some people TRY to very strongly "teach" or "brainwash" their children into believeing the same things they believe in, do a bad job, and their kids rebel. That rebellion isn't very likely to happen if they do it "right."
I'd have to revert to my previous paragraph on this one. Let me tell you, though: my dad encouraged me to read Bertrand Russell, and he would never do anything but encourage me to read educational arguments from Atheists and such. I think you're mistaking a parent being firm in their faith and wanting their child to follow it for brainwashing. Like I said; by that logic, every child is going to be brainwashed, basically.
I'm not sure what you mean? Could you elaborate?
I was saying that raising a child with any morals is the same thing...but ignore it...it ties into some of the stuff below...
I wouldn't consider simply telling a child those things to be brainwashing. But if they were forced on them to such a strong degree that they couldn't come to their own conlusions, I would consider it brainwashing, although not nearly as detestable as religious brainwashing.
Well, the first thing I'll say is that I don't see any reason to assume a child raised religiously cannot come to their own conclusions. This is all VERY subjective...degrees of pressure and forcing and all that.
Secondly, I'd say that there's no reason for the religious "version" of this "brainwashing" to be seen as "detestable." What exactly do you find so loathsome about it?
I will teach my children enough to try to protect them from danger, but I will not force things on them so much that they can't think for themsleves later on. With most religious people, they don't give their children that kind of a chance to think for themselves with regard to religion. They pound the beliefs into the minds of their kids, and don't let up until they are adults who share the same religious beliefs.
How do you know this? I've spent time around many religious families (I'm part of two very large ones, too), and I don't see this much at all. I see children being raised in strong morals...children who are an asset to society, and who are told it is good to read The Bible. What exactly constitutes "forcing"? Telling them they have to read The Bible? Is it brainwashing to insist a child read Shakespeare, then? Or anything, for that matter? Or is the problem not with the raising of the child, but with the religious aspect of the raising? Because I have to doubt you've got much problem with the same level of encouragement for morals and such, and the reading of other things.
Again, not just taught; so strongly taught that it would be incredibly difficult for them to develope their own opinion on it later on. I call that brainwashing. I think you underestimate the power you can have over children if you efficiently brainwash them. Simply teaching them things is not what I am talking about. I was taught things as a kid, but those things were pushed on me only strong enough to protect me; not so strong that I couldn't critically analyze them when I was older. For example, I
know that I can cross the street now. :)
I don't underestimate it at all...if a parent decides to mess their kid up, more often than not they can. I realize that. But if the parent's goal is simply to teach them about God and teach them to Worship Him (which is basically the goal of most religious parents), I don't think that can be considered "efficient" brainwashing...it's got to be deliberate, IMO, to be efficient.
Furthermore, most Christians these days (unfortunately) are overly timid...it's an upsetting trend...but it makes for wussy parents who are probably even less likely to force these kinds of things on their kids.
Have I tread on you? I can tell you that theists tread on me all the time. When people find out I am (*gasp!*) an atheist, I am often called immoral, amoral, evil, just because I haven't bought the idea that there is this invisible man in the sky. But I don't see how I have tread on you.
Well, I hope you recognize those people as unrepresentative of the majority of Christians. I don't know where all the Atheists I talk to find these whacked out Christians, because I've never met them, or talked to them.
Invisible man? I suppose you think it childish and naive, to a degree (I won't take offense)? Well, to me, it's much more naive to assume that physical sight is the only kind we have...that it's only real if we can see it or detect it like that. I appeal to the undeniable Moral Law inside each of us as a small hint at something beyond.
By the way, I don't have faith in science, or anything for that matter, if you are referring to the kind of faith that requires no logic or evidence. Insinuating that believing in science is the same thing as believing in a religion is a ridiculous stretch. I have asked several theistic scientists whether they have faith in science and whether they have faith in their religion.. The first answer is always no, while the second is always yes. Religion requires faith, not science.
Well, you really ought to define the word "science." Faith means you believe without knowing. Scientists are ALL about trial and error...most revolutions and discoveries are just that because they disprove or discredt other things formerly held as true. So, therefore, when you choose to believe these things, you're most definitely having faith in them...having faith because you believe they're true, even though that same system could be discrediting them at any moment.
It's simple: your faith goes in God, in intelligent design, etc...or it goes in Man...be it science, the pleasures of the flesh, or just yourself.
You ask me to prove something to you. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. If I tell you that leprechauns exist, and you tell me you don't believe in them, do you have the burden of proof? Is our burden of proof about the same? Or is the burden of proof on me? Obviously, the burden of proof is on me; I am the one making the claim that lepechauns exist, while all you are doing is recognizing that you don't believe in them, because you have no reason to. Same thing with atheists. I am sorry that the existence of atheists bothers you so much.
Well, the idea there seems to be that anyone making a claim has some sort of burden of proof to contend with. But is this applicable when the overwhelming majority of people throughout history have believed something, and the minority is trying to discredit them? I wouldn't liken religion to unicorns or leprechauns...the fact that religion is around, and in some forms very unchanged, and that some of these ideals have been around longer than we can even know says something.
Fez Wizardo
03-06-02, 10:31 AM
Toose - I like your style. :yup:
I second anything you say (but substituting belief with <no faith>)
firegod
03-06-02, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Toose
First of all I don't know who the hell you are, and second of all I never said "Firegod, you must prove yourself to me." I could give a rat's a$$ what you believe and I never said you tread on me. I said don't tread on me in general and I won't tread on you in general. You are taking the stance that I meant you specifically... I did not, and I have no idea why you would think I meant you specifically. Both perspectives are inconclusive in arena of the existence of God. Both perspectives require faith, one in science, one in God. I make no claim and I require no proof from you. I KNOW what I believe, you can believe whatever you wish. It's a free country and you can be an atheist if you want to. Knock yourself out.
Thank you for saying that I can believe what I want, but I don't need faith to not have a belief in your deity or any other. I also don't need faith to believe some scientific principles. I hope I didn't upset you. That was not my intention.
firegod
03-06-02, 03:43 PM
We're still not quite on the same page here: I'm not asking you how you've come up with the morals you follow. I know how you have: regardless of religion, you have a conscience. If you ask me, the fact that we all wish for some form of good...that badness is almost always spoiled goodness in some way, and that mankind has had similar BASE morals throughout history is a sign of God...
...but aside from that, here's what I've been really trying to ask: what's the point? Why do you bother with morals?
You partially answered your own questions yourself. I have a conscience. Both that, and my explanation as to HOW I have morals are also answers to WHY I have morals. My experience has taught me how I want to be treated and how I want to treat others. However, as I have explained, I don't have all of the answers. I don't know exactly why I have a lot of compassion, love of truth, etc., but I do know that many very religious people do not have those qualities.
If there is no God, right and wrong are illusions...concepts made of nothing more than fog. Nothing solid.
This is definately an opinion many atheists would completely disagree with. Many atheists believe very strongly in right and wrong. You may think they have no basis for that, just like they may think that religion is no legitimate basis for believing in right and wrong. Myself, I believe that right and wrong is opinion. I feel strongly about some of my opinions, and you feel strongly about some of yours. Not too hard to understand. Society agrees to a large extent on some ideas of right and wrong. Murder is bad, helping people is good, so on. But we are also split on some issues, like abortion. Many people feel it is always wrong to have an abortion, while many people don't. If a god is giving us all the same base morals, and badness is almost always spoiled goodness, then is one almost always on the wrong, spoiled path, just because they disagree with a moral belief you get from your god?
And yet I'd be willing to bet that you're a significantly moral person by most person's standards, and will teach your children to be the same way. But WHY? Do you take love seriously? Do you realize if there's nothing Higher out there, love is just a chemical reaction?
Do I take love seriously? Yes. Do I realize love is just a chemical reation? That might be an oversimplification. Our brains are very complex, and while I do not fully understand how they work, I do believe that love has nothing to do with magic or the supernatural. I don't see why that means that I shouldn't value it or take it seriously.
Fact of the matter is that virtually all Atheists still have morals...still believe in right and wrong...which doesn't really make much sense.
Sure it does. I have morals and have opinion about right and wrong for similar reasons that you do. Your belief in your religion explains why you have certain morals, but what about morals you have that are not in your religion? WHY would you bother with those? Once you can understand that, I think you should be able to understand WHY I bother with having morals.
If an Atheist is honest with themselves, I see no reason why they should care about anything but themselves. I see no reason they should have any other goals than self-gratification, because allegedly we'll all be worm food eventually.
Yes, I think we will be worm food (that is, those of us who will be buried), but I fail to see why that means I shouldn't care. Do you really think you wouldn't care just because you didn't believe in a god? I hope that isn't true. And what if you believed in the wrong one? If your god is real, then aren't the Jewish god, Islamic god, Hindo gods, Native American gods all fictional? What is the difference between not having a belief in any of them, and having a belief in the wrong one(s), from the perspective of whether you should have morals or not? I get what you are saying. You are saying that my morals come from your god. I respect that opinion; I just happen to disagree with it, as would many theists who believe in a deity or deities other than the one you believe in.
And yet you say you were raised in a religious family, isn't that right?
I didn't say that. Neither of my parents seem to have a strong belief in religion. My mother seems to be a secular Christian, while my father seems to believe in something, but he doesn't know what. He isn't Christian, Jewish or a member of any other religion, but to avoid confrontation (that's why I think he does it), he calls himself a Protestant, something I very much disagree with him doing. I went to Sunday school when I was about 7, but I asked so many questions the teachers found disruptive, that they asked my parents if I could please no longer attend. :) I didn't know what atheism was, but since I didn't have a belief in any gods, I contend that I was an atheist even then. I started calling myself one at around the age of 14.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. How many families have you seen closely enough to truly know that it is anywhere near "commonplace" (your word) for parents to "brainwash" their children with these things?
Plenty. I go by not only what I have witnessed, which is plentiful, but also by what theists have told me. What I consider religious brainwashing is definately commonplace.
I'd have to revert to my previous paragraph on this one. Let me tell you, though: my dad encouraged me to read Bertrand Russell, and he would never do anything but encourage me to read educational arguments from Atheists and such. I think you're mistaking a parent being firm in their faith and wanting their child to follow it for brainwashing. Like I said; by that logic, every child is going to be brainwashed, basically.
You are incorrect. Find one sentence where I say all religious people, or all people who are taught religion are brainwashed? From what you tell me, I assume that you weren't brainwashed, because your father encouraged you to read alternate beliefs and opinions. Many theistic parents don't do that, and instead cram a religion down their kids' throats, not allowing them to grow into people who can easily critically examine religion for themselves. Not only do I think you were probably not brainwashed, I have TONS of admiration for your father for giving you other perspectives to read. In fact, I wish my parents had encouraged me to read Betrand Russell. :)
I was saying that raising a child with any morals is the same thing...but ignore it...it ties into some of the stuff below...
Well, the first thing I'll say is that I don't see any reason to assume a child raised religiously cannot come to their own conclusions.
I never said that.
This is all VERY subjective...degrees of pressure and forcing and all that.
Agreed. Subjective and tricky. How do you know how much to force a child when it is something you think will help them? It's very tough.
Secondly, I'd say that there's no reason for the religious "version" of this "brainwashing" to be seen as "detestable." What exactly do you find so loathsome about it?
Well, as someone who believes that religious stories are fairy tales, and that religion has done much more harm than good on this planet, I naturally find religious brainwashing to be much more dangerous and foolish than brainwashing that merely teaches tolerance and patience.
How do you know this? I've spent time around many religious families (I'm part of two very large ones, too), and I don't see this much at all. I see children being raised in strong morals...children who are an asset to society, and who are told it is good to read The Bible. What exactly constitutes "forcing"? Telling them they have to read The Bible? Is it brainwashing to insist a child read Shakespeare, then? Or anything, for that matter? Or is the problem not with the raising of the child, but with the religious aspect of the raising? Because I have to doubt you've got much problem with the same level of encouragement for morals and such, and the reading of other things.
If a baby was forced to grow into someone who believed everything Shakespeare insisted, then yes, I would call that brainwashing. Presenting a kid with a bible is not brainwashing. However, I certainly would like the kid to be presented with lots of different perspectives, as it seems you were.
I don't underestimate it at all...if a parent decides to mess their kid up, more often than not they can. I realize that. But if the parent's goal is simply to teach them about God and teach them to Worship Him (which is basically the goal of most religious parents), I don't think that can be considered "efficient" brainwashing...it's got to be deliberate, IMO, to be efficient.
It doesn't have to be considered brainwashing by the parent to be efficient brainwashing. It could just be someone who feels everyone needs to think the same way he does about religion, so he feels completely justified in forcing it on his children. I happen to believe that it is not justified.
Furthermore, most Christians these days (unfortunately) are overly timid...it's an upsetting trend...but it makes for wussy parents who are probably even less likely to force these kinds of things on their kids.
Some of it might be wussiness (is that a word??); some of it might be open-mindedness.
Well, I hope you recognize those people as unrepresentative of the majority of Christians. I don't know where all the Atheists I talk to find these whacked out Christians, because I've never met them, or talked to them.
Invisible man? I suppose you think it childish and naive, to a degree (I won't take offense)? Well, to me, it's much more naive to assume that physical sight is the only kind we have...that it's only real if we can see it or detect it like that. I appeal to the undeniable Moral Law inside each of us as a small hint at something beyond.
Well, you really ought to define the word "science." Faith means you believe without knowing. Scientists are ALL about trial and error...most revolutions and discoveries are just that because they disprove or discredt other things formerly held as true. So, therefore, when you choose to believe these things, you're most definitely having faith in them...having faith because you believe they're true, even though that same system could be discrediting them at any moment.
Going by that definintion, sure. I do believe without knowing for a fact. But that is not a very good definition of faith, in my opinion. Here's one from a dictionary: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Going by that definition, I have faith in nothing.
It's simple: your faith goes in God, in intelligent design, etc...or it goes in Man...be it science, the pleasures of the flesh, or just yourself.
Nope. I have no faith in anything, science included. I have a belief that certain scientific principles are correct. Many theists do as well. Do they have faith in science? That would go against your "either or" assertion. How does my belief in science differ from many theists' belief in science?
Well, the idea there seems to be that anyone making a claim has some sort of burden of proof to contend with. But is this applicable when the overwhelming majority of people throughout history have believed something, and the minority is trying to discredit them?
Galileo was in the vast minority, and he was right when he tried to prove something that would discredit what the majority believed then and in history. He would not have been being logical if he tried to prove everyone wrong with no evidence. I do not try to prove that gods don't exist; I simply don't believe in them.
I wouldn't liken religion to unicorns or leprechauns...the fact that religion is around, and in some forms very unchanged, and that some of these ideals have been around longer than we can even know says something.
The belief that the sun revolves around Earth lasted a very long time. Many things that have been believed in for centuries (some even for millinnia) are being proven wrong today. What does it say? It says that poeple are often wrong. Does longevity prove a belief correct? So was early Chrisitanity less right than religions that had been around for several hundreds of years? I have two more questions. 1. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. 2. If you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, and don't believe in other deities, aren't you dismissing them just like I am dismissing yours? Shouldn't your lack of belief in Native American deities be just as puzzling to them as my lack of belief in your deity is to you? Ok, three more questions... sue me. :)
You partially answered your own questions yourself. I have a conscience. Both that, and my explanation as to HOW I have morals are also answers to WHY I have morals. My experience has taught me how I want to be treated and how I want to treat others. However, as I have explained, I don't have all of the answers. I don't know exactly why I have a lot of compassion, love of truth, etc., but I do know that many very religious people do not have those qualities.
Well, sure there are plenty of them...but this isn't a moral contest. Yes, your description explains why you would have them...or, more accurately, why you would have the urge to have them...but not why you SHOULD. Not why it makes sense to submit to these instincts.
This is definately an opinion many atheists would completely disagree with. Many atheists believe very strongly in right and wrong. You may think they have no basis for that, just like they may think that religion is no legitimate basis for believing in right and wrong. Myself, I believe that right and wrong is opinion. I feel strongly about some of my opinions, and you feel strongly about some of yours. Not too hard to understand. Society agrees to a large extent on some ideas of right and wrong. Murder is bad, helping people is good, so on. But we are also split on some issues, like abortion. Many people feel it is always wrong to have an abortion, while many people don't. If a god is giving us all the same base morals, and badness is almost always spoiled goodness, then is one almost always on the wrong, spoiled path, just because they disagree with a moral belief you get from your god?
Well, regarding right and wrong; this is not opinion. It's deductive logic...if there is no Creator. No Rulemaker, as it were, then right and wrong have no set meaning. If there is, that at least becomes plausible...possible. Any Atheist that believes in a TRUE right and wrong has got their ideas all mixed up.
True, we are split on many issues...but notice how there is an undeniable common ground? Your example was abortion: the debate over abortion is not whether or not it's okay to kill children, but rather, as to whether or not it's children we are killing. We all have a common goodness...a common set of morals. It's undeniable, and it has basically ALWAYS been around. This, to me, is a big flashing red light. Even Atheists will appeal to people's kindness and goodness and reason.
As for your last question: I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking about a person? When I said that badness is only spoiled goodness, I was trying to convey (with great help from Lewis) the fact that even evil people are evil because they want some form of good -- barring mental disorder or something of the sort. A murderer will kill someone because, say, they believe it is justice...or they think it will give them peace, etc. People are slothful because they want to relax and rest...and resting is a good thing.
Do I take love seriously? Yes. Do I realize love is just a chemical reation? That might be an oversimplification. Our brains are very complex, and while I do not fully understand how they work, I do believe that love has nothing to do with magic or the supernatural. I don't see why that means that I shouldn't value it or take it seriously.
Well, I certainly feel it cheapens it, don't you? It is an illusion, apparently designed to make us an species adept at survival on this planet. I think love on Earth is chemical, with a hint of something more. It is merely a taste of what true Love can be like.
Sure it does. I have morals and have opinion about right and wrong for similar reasons that you do. Your belief in your religion explains why you have certain morals, but what about morals you have that are not in your religion? WHY would you bother with those? Once you can understand that, I think you should be able to understand WHY I bother with having morals.
I cannot think of any moral rule I have that The Bible does not teach. But let's assume for a moment that I do. I'm not arguing against you WANTING to be moral. That makes sense...it's built into you, be it through evolution or God. I'm arguing that, now that you're AWARE of why you have those instincts, you can make the judgement that they do not make sense for you to have personally, as an individual.
Yes, I think we will be worm food (that is, those of us who will be buried), but I fail to see why that means I shouldn't care. Do you really think you wouldn't care just because you didn't believe in a god? I hope that isn't true. And what if you believed in the wrong one? If your god is real, then aren't the Jewish god, Islamic god, Hindo gods, Native American gods all fictional? What is the difference between not having a belief in any of them, and having a belief in the wrong one(s), from the perspective of whether you should have morals or not? I get what you are saying. You are saying that my morals come from your god. I respect that opinion; I just happen to disagree with it, as would many theists who believe in a deity or deities other than the one you believe in.
I don't know quite how I'd feel if I didn't believe in God. The closest I've come is just forgetting about God. I've never been an Atheist in the sense that I've simply decided that He isn't there. Only times of laxness.
If I were an Atheist, though, well, I'd probably still feel compelled by a Moral Law...by guilt, and other such things. But I from my standpoint right now, I'd only be influenced by those BECAUSE they indicated the existence of God. No, I would not be a horrible awful person if I were an Atheist...because the Moral Law is too engrained in me...I see it too obviously. So, in that sense, I couldn't be an Atheist without going back on the things I have deduced to be true. So, you might as well ask me how I'd feel if my IQ were 50 points lower: I have no idea. You don't always know what you're missing if you've never had it...but once you have it, you can't accurately or reasonable go back to that other place in the same way ever again.
The thing about those other religions is that the concept is basically the same. You know, it would not shock me if all religious people that believed in some sort of God that is greater than us, and against whom we are lowly and sinful, were saved. For all I know Judaism and Islam may very well be saved because of that. I don't claim to know. But no, I do not think being moral alone is the same at all. In fact, I don't know if you can be truly moral. It seems many think of being moral as kind behavior towards others...that inner feelings and flaws are irrelevant to morality. But again, that assumes that there is no such thing as a crime or sin against God. In that sense, I don't think an unsaved person is truly Moral...as they've turned their back on the very Being who gave them the ability to turn in the first place.
I didn't say that. Neither of my parents seem to have a strong belief in religion. My mother seems to be a secular Christian, while my father seems to believe in something, but he doesn't know what. He isn't Christian, Jewish or a member of any other religion, but to avoid confrontation (that's why I think he does it), he calls himself a Protestant, something I very much disagree with him doing. I went to Sunday school when I was about 7, but I asked so many questions the teachers found disruptive, that they asked my parents if I could please no longer attend. :) I didn't know what atheism was, but since I didn't have a belief in any gods, I contend that I was an atheist even then. I started calling myself one at around the age of 14.
Well, It's a shame that you were introduced to people who appeared to not completely know what they were doing...if they'd answered your questions well, perhaps you'd feel differently today. I find MANY people turn to Atheist, or Agnosticism because of a lack of answers from a Priest, a Church, or some such thing. I think that's all secondary...all that truly matters is The Bible and the basic logic behind it. Whether or not some Sunday School teacher can tell you why a merciful God would "send" people to Hell is irrelevant in comparison, IMO.
You are incorrect. Find one sentence where I say all religious people, or all people who are taught religion are brainwashed? From what you tell me, I assume that you weren't brainwashed, because your father encouraged you to read alternate beliefs and opinions. Many theistic parents don't do that, and instead cram a religion down their kids' throats, not allowing them to grow into people who can easily critically examine religion for themselves. Not only do I think you were probably not brainwashed, I have TONS of admiration for your father for giving you other perspectives to read. In fact, I wish my parents had encouraged me to read Betrand Russell. :)
Well, I'm not claiming you said that. I'm saying that I don't buy the definition of "brainwashing," because, if it is to be used that way, I don't think it's avoidable. I don't think you can really teach a child and avoid "making" them believe it. I think raising them as if it were true is just fine; if they don't question it, they're not the types of people who question things anyway, and were going to latch on to whatever they ran into...and the parents cannot really be faulted for that.
Well, as someone who believes that religious stories are fairy tales, and that religion has done much more harm than good on this planet, I naturally find religious brainwashing to be much more dangerous and foolish than brainwashing that merely teaches tolerance and patience.
Yes, I thought so. Well, I certainly cannot argue with that.
If a baby was forced to grow into someone who believed everything Shakespeare insisted, then yes, I would call that brainwashing. Presenting a kid with a bible is not brainwashing. However, I certainly would like the kid to be presented with lots of different perspectives, as it seems you were.
Well, I have been very Blessed. ;D Where do you draw the line, personally? Would giving a child The Bible and telling them that it's true be considered brainwashing?
It doesn't have to be considered brainwashing by the parent to be efficient brainwashing. It could just be someone who feels everyone needs to think the same way he does about religion, so he feels completely justified in forcing it on his children. I happen to believe that it is not justified.
Well, you're right, that sort of thing is not justified. I think it can be just as bad, however, to provide your child with no STRONG, SOLID guidance. I would hesitate to say that a family pushing religion strongly is any worse than the sort of family that is always giving the kid tons of freedom and doesn't push really any ideals for the most part, always letting him "find himself" or herself, etc...I really cannot say which extreme is worse (from a secular standpoint, I mean).
Some of it might be wussiness (is that a word??); some of it might be open-mindedness.
I dunno if it's a word, but it ought to be. :yup: True, it could be open-mindedness...but usually it's obvious, I think. I know the type, and I'm sure you do, too: "Fred, we don't want to interfere...we don't want to come down on you...we don't want to be judgmental...but we found 12 kilos of cocaine in your pants." :laugh: That sort of thing. Parents who are too free and loose with children. Children are ignorant...they are born that way. That means two things: be careful what you teach them, and be careful what other people teach them. They're going to start learning SOMETHING from SOMEONE, regardless. Too many parents, I think, try to be friends with their children...and don't take that the wrong way. I men, they try to be literally like their friends. But as I'm sure we'll all agree, in the long run, the child will appreciate it more if you keep them in line.
Nope. I have no faith in anything, science included. I have a belief that certain scientific principles are correct. Many theists do as well. Do they have faith in science? That would go against your "either or" assertion. How does my belief in science differ from many theists' belief in science?
I did not mean to imply that you must believe one or the other. As a matter of fact, I don't think that way at all; I suppose I assumed you did...which was my mistake, apparently. :o I wholeheartedly agree: the two are not exclusive. It is the "religion is about Faith, science is about logic and reason" sentiment that I'm upset with. The "religious people think with their emotions" stuff...that's what irks me. I don't know if you happen to think that way (even mildly)...but I honestly do not believe that it is a matter of having Faith, or not having Faith. I think anyone who claims they do not have Faith must not really believe in anything.
Galileo was in the vast minority, and he was right when he tried to prove something that would discredit what the majority believed then and in history. He would not have been being logical if he tried to prove everyone wrong with no evidence. I do not try to prove that gods don't exist; I simply don't believe in them.
Actually, that's not entirely true. I believe it was 80 years before Galileo's now infamous writings that another philoshoper (I wish I could remember his name...) came to the same conclusion: that the Earth was round. The Church didn't put up any fuss, and from what I understand, it was not shocking for some to even agree. Galileo, however, in addition to claiming that the world was round, published a book making fun of The Pope (he was receiving a salary of sorts from The Church at the time)...for which he was persecuted. Spit in the face of his boss, basically. So, unless I've been misinformed, Galileo was not necessarily outcast and horribly outnumbered over those beliefs.
But I'll take the question in the spirit I think it was meant: that being in the minority proves nothing, ultimately. I concur...but it is worth noting, especially when talking about religion and morality, and the consistency and longevity involved.
The belief that Earth revolves around the sun lasted a very long time. Many things that have been believed in for centuries (some even for millinnia) are being proven wrong today. What does it say? It says that poeple are often wrong. Does longevity prove a belief correct? So was early Chrisitanity less right than religions that had been around for several hundreds of years? I have two more questions. 1. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist. 2. If you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, and don't believe in other deities, aren't you dismissing them just like I am dismissing yours? Shouldn't your lack of belief in Native American deities be just as puzzling to them as my lack of belief in your deity is to you? Ok, three more questions... sue me. :)
No problem; questions are good. :yup: I'll take them each seperately:
Does longevity prove a belief correct? So was early Chrisitanity less right than religions that had been around for several hundreds of years?
No, it was no less accurate/correct. It's just a little more evident now that it was correct, IMO. I do think that if something like a common Moral Law is evident throughout basically all of mankind, though, it DOES mean something.
1. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.
I can't. It's virtually impossible, as far as I know, to prove that anything DOESN'T exist, because no human is capable of being in all places at all times. Let me guess; your intention is to liken this to God?
2. If you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, and don't believe in other deities, aren't you dismissing them just like I am dismissing yours? Shouldn't your lack of belief in Native American deities be just as puzzling to them as my lack of belief in your deity is to you?
No, because I dismiss one theory of what God is, while you dismiss the concept of God altogether. That's a very important distinction.
firegod
03-06-02, 04:51 PM
I can't make a lengthy reply right now. Maybe tonight or tomorrow.
Okay then. Believe me, I can relate. This stuff is a huuuuge waste of time. :laugh:
Sir Toose
03-06-02, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by firegod
Thank you for saying that I can believe what I want, but I don't need faith to not have a belief in your deity or any other. I also don't need faith to believe some scientific principles. I hope I didn't upset you. That was not my intention.
I'm not upset. I still maintain that you need faith to believe in anything unless all scientific and theological theory makes complete sense to you and you are familiar with all of the principles. Anything less than that and you are putting your faith in others that know more than you do.
firegod
03-06-02, 06:14 PM
Assuming I believe everything someone says just because she is a scientist. I don't
Sir Toose
03-06-02, 07:10 PM
Do you ever believe things that people say based on that person's merits? For example... if you knew nothing about computers and you were at lunch with Bill Gates and he told you that computers were not that complex, they just respond to multiple series of 0's and 1's would you believe him because he's Bill Gates and he knows about computers?
If you have a plumber come to your house to fix something and he tells you he needs part A, B, and C to get the job done do you ask him for the history of all he knows and why he knows it or do you pay him and have faith that he knows what he's doing?
How about a doctor? A surgeon? If he tells you that you will die unless they remove the tumor do you let him do it? (I know, you'll get a second opinion), Do you have faith that you will wake up again? You can'tknow what the doctor knows but you'll be likely to believe him based on his merits.
This is what I mean by faith. Maybe we have an issue on word use here so that represents my definition.
Same thing with God. I do not know all that a man of the cloth knows. Do I listen when he tries to tell me things? You bet... If I respect the man I put faith in him.
YOu guys have been saying the most preposterous things.
I've started anew thread (http://www.movieforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1931) cause this one just looks like a complete mess of opinions.
firegod
03-07-02, 11:56 AM
I'm going to respond to a smaller percentage of your responses than I have been, mostly because I want more time to read and write messages about movies.
Well, sure there are plenty of them...but this isn't a moral contest. Yes, your description explains why you would have them...or, more accurately, why you would have the urge to have them...but not why you SHOULD. Not why it makes sense to submit to these instincts.
I'm not sure I see much of a difference. I SHOULD because it makes sense to.
Well, regarding right and wrong; this is not opinion. It's deductive logic...if there is no Creator. No Rulemaker, as it were, then right and wrong have no set meaning. If there is, that at least becomes plausible...possible. Any Atheist that believes in a TRUE right and wrong has got their ideas all mixed up.
I don't really disagree, but from my perspective, the morals of both theists and atheists are merely opinion. I actually tend to have more respect for the morals of the average atheist than I do for the average theist. While most theists value the morals that make sense to me more than morals I view as less important (like some of the ten commandments), there are still far too many who don't. Should not coveting your nieghbor's property really be in the top ten? How about not working on the sabbath? If you scream "Jesus Christ!!" when you stub your toe, have you done more wrong than if you burn down a house?
True, we are split on many issues...but notice how there is an undeniable common ground? Your example was abortion: the debate over abortion is not whether or not it's okay to kill children, but rather, as to whether or not it's children we are killing. We all have a common goodness...a common set of morals. It's undeniable, and it has basically ALWAYS been around. This, to me, is a big flashing red light. Even Atheists will appeal to people's kindness and goodness and reason.
While it is true that we tend to have many of the same morals, some societies have had morals that would make both you and me sick to our stomachs (cannibalistic societies come to mind). I'm sure you would think that they merely lost their way and strayed from God's path, but I think they just learned things differently, and developed different morals and customs. Much of it might have been from having different religious beliefs than you and I.
Well, I certainly feel it cheapens it, don't you? It is an illusion, apparently designed to make us an species adept at survival on this planet. I think love on Earth is chemical, with a hint of something more. It is merely a taste of what true Love can be like.
Of course it cheapens it. Love seems to be worth a lot more when you believe it is somehow mystical; most things do.
I cannot think of any moral rule I have that The Bible does not teach. But let's assume for a moment that I do. I'm not arguing against you WANTING to be moral. That makes sense...it's built into you, be it through evolution or God. I'm arguing that, now that you're AWARE of why you have those instincts, you can make the judgement that they do not make sense for you to have personally, as an individual.
For the most part, I can. I tend to disagree with morals that don't make sense to me. But simply believing that a moral is not good for me personally is not necessarily enough for me to not have value in it. For example, if murdering people would benefit me personally, I still wouldn't do it, because I care about the world more than I care about myself, and I care about the principle of not intentionally hurting people or taking away their rights. That is WHY I wouldn't do it, as well as why I SHOULDN'T do it.
The thing about those other religions is that the concept is basically the same.
Hinduism has very little in common with Christianity, as do most polytheistic religions. I believe that religions often have similar values because nature has given most humans similar emotions and instincts.
Well, I'm not claiming you said that. I'm saying that I don't buy the definition of "brainwashing," because, if it is to be used that way, I don't think it's avoidable. I don't think you can really teach a child and avoid "making" them believe it. I think raising them as if it were true is just fine; if they don't question it, they're not the types of people who question things anyway, and were going to latch on to whatever they ran into...and the parents cannot really be faulted for that.
I disagree. I was saying that brainwashing is when you push it so hard that they won't have much of a chance to change their mind later on. For example, my kids will be taught that crossing the street by themselves is wrong until I feel it is safe for them to do so. An example of religious brainwashing would be if a mother sung Christian songs to a baby, teaching him to think Jesus Christ is the savior, and continued that teaching relentlessly, not giving him a chance to think anything else. If he doesn't question it, that doesn't mean he wouldn't question anything he ran into. If I were taught about Christ in that way, I'd probably be a Chistian. If I were taught about Kinich Ahau, Chaac, Yum Cimisa and Kukulcan in that way, I'd probably be a member of the Mayan religion.
Well, I have been very Blessed. ;D Where do you draw the line, personally? Would giving a child The Bible and telling them that it's true be considered brainwashing?
Only to a very small extent. It would also depend on how often and how insistently the parent claimed the bible is true and how old the child is. I think we are getting a little bogged down with the word brainwash. I have absolutely no problem using the word teach.
I dunno if it's a word, but it ought to be. :yup: True, it could be open-mindedness...but usually it's obvious, I think. I know the type, and I'm sure you do, too: "Fred, we don't want to interfere...we don't want to come down on you...we don't want to be judgmental...but we found 12 kilos of cocaine in your pants." :laugh: That sort of thing. Parents who are too free and loose with children. Children are ignorant...they are born that way. That means two things: be careful what you teach them, and be careful what other people teach them. They're going to start learning SOMETHING from SOMEONE, regardless. Too many parents, I think, try to be friends with their children...and don't take that the wrong way. I men, they try to be literally like their friends. But as I'm sure we'll all agree, in the long run, the child will appreciate it more if you keep them in line.
I agree.
I did not mean to imply that you must believe one or the other. As a matter of fact, I don't think that way at all; I suppose I assumed you did...which was my mistake, apparently. :o I wholeheartedly agree: the two are not exclusive. It is the "religion is about Faith, science is about logic and reason" sentiment that I'm upset with. The "religious people think with their emotions" stuff...that's what irks me. I don't know if you happen to think that way (even mildly)...but I honestly do not believe that it is a matter of having Faith, or not having Faith. I think anyone who claims they do not have Faith must not really believe in anything.
It depends on your definition of believing in anything. No, I don't believe in anything spiritual.
Actually, that's not entirely true. I believe it was 80 years before Galileo's now infamous writings that another philoshoper (I wish I could remember his name...) came to the same conclusion: that the Earth was round.
I was mostly talking about his assertion that Earth revolved around the sun, instead of the other way around, the latter being what most everyone thought back then.
The Church didn't put up any fuss, and from what I understand, it was not shocking for some to even agree. Galileo, however, in addition to claiming that the world was round, published a book making fun of The Pope (he was receiving a salary of sorts from The Church at the time)...for which he was persecuted. Spit in the face of his boss, basically. So, unless I've been misinformed, Galileo was not necessarily outcast and horribly outnumbered over those beliefs.
Actually, this was the time of the Spanish Inquisition, and Galileo was an outcast. The first time he was persecuted, he denounced his belief that Earth revolved around the sun, and the church left him alone. Almost twenty years later, he came out with his book called Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems : Ptolemaic and Copernican, and was again persecuted. He denounced his knowledge once again, and chose to be imprisoned in his own home for the remainder of his life, so that he wouldn't be burned at the stake for church heresy.
But I'll take the question in the spirit I think it was meant: that being in the minority proves nothing, ultimately. I concur...but it is worth noting, especially when talking about religion and morality, and the consistency and longevity involved.
It is worth noting. However, I happen to believe that Christianity has been so successful because its followers have done a great job of teaching people to believe what they believe, and have been very effective in warring with those countries that don't agree (especially in medieval times). I believe that the overall belief in gods has been so popular for so long, mostly because people are afraid of death and want to live forever. Most gods offer this.
I can't. It's virtually impossible, as far as I know, to prove that anything DOESN'T exist, because no human is capable of being in all places at all times. Let me guess; your intention is to liken this to God?
Of course. :) I probably shouldn't have addressed this to you; instead, I should have addressed it to those who insist I need to prove that a god doesn't exist in order to legitimately have a lack of belief in that god. We cannot prove that unicorns don't exist for the same reason we can't prove gods don't exist.
No, because I dismiss one theory of what God is, while you dismiss the concept of God altogether. That's a very important distinction.
I don't believe in the concept because I don't see a good reason to. The fact of the matter is that if there are gods, I am wrong, and if there is such a thing as Kinich Ahau, then you are wrong. I don't see any significant difference. I just happen to believe in one less god than you do. :)
firegod
03-07-02, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Toose
Do you ever believe things that people say based on that person's merits? For example... if you knew nothing about computers and you were at lunch with Bill Gates and he told you that computers were not that complex, they just respond to multiple series of 0's and 1's would you believe him because he's Bill Gates and he knows about computers?
If you have a plumber come to your house to fix something and he tells you he needs part A, B, and C to get the job done do you ask him for the history of all he knows and why he knows it or do you pay him and have faith that he knows what he's doing?
How about a doctor? A surgeon? If he tells you that you will die unless they remove the tumor do you let him do it? (I know, you'll get a second opinion), Do you have faith that you will wake up again? You can'tknow what the doctor knows but you'll be likely to believe him based on his merits.
This is what I mean by faith. Maybe we have an issue on word use here so that represents my definition.
Same thing with God. I do not know all that a man of the cloth knows. Do I listen when he tries to tell me things? You bet... If I respect the man I put faith in him.
Yes, we seem to be using different definitions. Using your definition, I would have some faith in Bill Gates, a plummer or a doctor when it comes to their respective fields of expertise. I would have good reason to believe that they know what they are doing. I would have similar faith in many clergy people that they know a lot about their religion, but that doesn't mean I would have faith that they are right. To me, their religious beliefs have no more merit than other things I happen to believe were made up by humans.
Sir Toose
03-07-02, 09:24 PM
I say we shake hands and move on.
leben Sie und lassen Sie Phasen
firegod
03-08-02, 12:24 AM
Ok. I hope that means move on in a good way, and not "good bye."
I'm going to respond to a smaller percentage of your responses than I have been, mostly because I want more time to read and write messages about movies.
I completely understand. :)
I'm not sure I see much of a difference. I SHOULD because it makes sense to.
Makes sense how? Because your instincts tell you it's good?
I don't really disagree, but from my perspective, the morals of both theists and atheists are merely opinion. I actually tend to have more respect for the morals of the average atheist than I do for the average theist. While most theists value the morals that make sense to me more than morals I view as less important (like some of the ten commandments), there are still far too many who don't. Should not coveting your nieghbor's property really be in the top ten? How about not working on the sabbath? If you scream "Jesus Christ!!" when you stub your toe, have you done more wrong than if you burn down a house?
No, of course not...and the Ten Commandments are not in contradiction with any of those potential problems you mentioned there. They're not in any specific order as far as I know. Burning down someone's house is, IMO, equivalent to theft.
Anyway, that's my basic point: whatever our own morals are, they're basically worthless if we are to act under the assumption that there is no God. You can't TELL me slavery is wrong. You can't TELL me rape and murder of the innocent is wrong. Yet I think we all KNOW they are wrong inside. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that it is merely a coincidence that BASE morals throughout history have been roughly the same. Despite horrible acts of violence or intolerance throughout history, the majority of people held similar views even then, and even those horrible acts stemmed from the desire for some sort of good.
While it is true that we tend to have many of the same morals, some societies have had morals that would make both you and me sick to our stomachs (cannibalistic societies come to mind). I'm sure you would think that they merely lost their way and strayed from God's path, but I think they just learned things differently, and developed different morals and customs. Much of it might have been from having different religious beliefs than you and I.
Well, perhaps I'm being ignorant, but I don't believe any significantly sized society has ever had completely backwards morals from our own. From what I've read, they all share some significant, noteworthy things in common. A common good.
Of course it cheapens it. Love seems to be worth a lot more when you believe it is somehow mystical; most things do.
I don't think it's particularly tricky or mystical. I think it's just a taste of the real thing, which we haven't yet had the pleasure of drinking fully. I do have to pause, though, sometimes, and remind myself of the kind of outlook an atheist must have. Love is made up of chemicals, right .vs. wrong are as much opinion as vanilla .vs. chocolate, there've been millions of humanoid races that have started to grow, and died out eventually, and there's absolutely nothing beyond our current state of existence. Do you honestly believe all of these things?
For the most part, I can. I tend to disagree with morals that don't make sense to me. But simply believing that a moral is not good for me personally is not necessarily enough for me to not have value in it. For example, if murdering people would benefit me personally, I still wouldn't do it, because I care about the world more than I care about myself, and I care about the principle of not intentionally hurting people or taking away their rights. That is WHY I wouldn't do it, as well as why I SHOLDN'T do it.
I don't know that you do care about the world more than you care about yourself. Please do not take offense at that, because I don't think I do either. In some ways I may choose the world to benefit over me...but in many more ways I choose myself. I dedicate my labor and efforts to my own benefit far more often than I do for the benefit of anyone or anything else, as I imagine you do, too.
Hinduism has very little in common with Christianity, as do most polytheistic religions. I believe that religions often have similar values because nature has given most humans similar emotions and instincts.
Well, I wasn't referring to Hinduism, but rather Islam and Judaism. With Islam and Christianity, you're looking at something like, what, 60-65% of the world's current population? And those are only devout worshippers...not people who believe in a Deity of some sort.
Why would humans, do you think, conceive the idea of a God in the first place? Why are we, according to you, built to WANT a Creator?
I disagree. I was saying that brainwashing is when you push it so hard that they won't have much of a chance to change their mind later on. For example, my kids will be taught that crossing the street by themselves is wrong until I feel it is safe for them to do so. An example of religious brainwashing would be if a mother sung Christian songs to a baby, teaching him to think Jesus Christ is the savior, and continued that teaching relentlessly, not giving him a chance to think anything else. If he doesn't question it, that doesn't mean he wouldn't question anything he ran into. If I were taught about Christ in that way, I'd probably be a Chistian. If I were taught about Kinich Ahau, Chaac, Yum Cimisa and Kukulcan in that way, I'd probably be a member of the Mayan religion.
I have a problem with part of that. You start into your example, stating that it consists, to start, with a mother signing Christian songs to a child, and teaching him about Jesus. And then you sayd "and continued that teaching relentlessly" -- this is where I get confused. What does that consist of? What is teaching relentlessly? When does teaching become forcing? Because, surely, raising a child with a belief in God is not brainwashing. The issue is one of degree.
It depends on your definition of believing in anything. No, I don't believe in anything spiritual.
My context for believing in this sense is actually believing it to be true. A very plain meaning of the word, really. If you are to require anything near proof, you're not going to have grounds to believe in much of anything. I am consistenly amazed at how many things people will accept on Faith or probability, while all the while demanding concrete evidence out Christianity (I do think it provides strong evidence, but that's another matter).
It is worth noting. However, I happen to believe that Christianity has been so successful because its followers have done a great job of teaching people to believe what they believe, and have been very effective in warring with those countries that don't agree (especially in medieval times). I happen to belief that the overall belief in gods has been so popular for so long mostly because people are afraid of death and want to live forever. Most gods offer this.
That works on one level...people do indeed find comfort in the concept of life after death. At the same time, though, if they really knew, in the back of their heads somewhere, that it wasn't true (which seems likely, if we're assuming that it's just a matter of searching for comfort), why wouldn't more people truly live that way? Seems like quite the hoax otherwise...to the point at which the overwhelming (and I DO mean overwhelming) majority of people throughout history have been fooled by it?
Furthermore, couldn't it just as easily be said that there are comparable downsides to believing in Jesus, for example? You've got rules to follow...you've got an undeniable, unavoidable right and wrong...no gray areas on the majority of those moral issues. Living a pious life is HARD. To the point at which the Holiest of people are disturbingly sinful. If we're really just animals being led around by instincts, I see no reason for it to be more likely for us to want to believe in God for comfort than I do for us to want to NOT believe in God so that we don't have to bother ourselves with all the troubles and difficulties it presents.
I don't believe in the concept because I don't see a good reason to. The fact of the matter is that if there are gods, I am wrong, and if there is such a thing as Kinich Ahau, than you are wrong. I don't see any significant difference. I just happen to believe in one less god than you do. :)
That's a very clever way of phrasing it, but I don't agree. It is not a matter of believing in one less God, because we're not keeping a theological score here. As it just so happens, I believe in one God, which means that you, by believing in "one less," believe in NONE. So, what I don't believe is that the other Gods I've heard about are the actual God. You, in addition to believe that they are at fault, believe the entire concept of God is at fault.
firegod
03-08-02, 10:56 PM
Makes sense how? Because your instincts tell you it's good?
No. Certain things make sense to me. Take hurting people. I have compassion and a conscience. I may not completely understand why I have those things, but I understand that I don't want to hurt someone, and if I did, it would make me feel horrible. I don't want to hurt people, so I don't. Yes, some people may want to do something that hurts people, and not care whether someone gets hurt or not, but we have laws to try to keep those kinds of things from happening. I don't feel I need to have a religion to justify my morals, nor do I think you have even slightly proven your case that I have morals because some deity gave them to me.
No, of course not...and the Ten Commandments are not in contradiction with any of those potential problems you mentioned there. They're not in any specific order as far as I know. Burning down someone's house is, IMO, equivalent to theft.
I think there is a contradiction if you think certain sins are worse than the ones you claim are the top ten. Ok, if burning someone's house down is equivalent to theft, then what about torture or rape? They are not mentioned in the ten commandments, but using God's name in vain is. What is more wrong? Strapping somoene to a chair and torturing them by slowly giving them third degree burns, or yelling "God damnit!" when you almost get into a car wreck? I think it is obvious that the ten commandments is not a top ten list that makes sense.
Anyway, that's my basic point: whatever our own morals are, they're basically worthless if we are to act under the assumption that there is no God. You can't TELL me slavery is wrong. You can't TELL me rape and murder of the innocent is wrong. Yet I think we all KNOW they are wrong inside. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that it is merely a coincidence that BASE morals throughout history have been roughly the same. Despite horrible acts of violence or intolerance throughout history, the majority of people held similar views even then, and even those horrible acts stemmed from the desire for some sort of good.
I don't think morals throughout history have been as similar as you seem to think. However, to the extent that they are similar, I think it mostly comes from almost all humans having similar natural emotions and instincts. Different experiences have caused societies to think a little differently, creating different morals, but many of the morals remained common ground among all or almost all societies because of human nature.
You can even see some morals in other animals. For example, some apes will share things with each other, showing generosity. Some animals even love. When a dog cries because his father died, what is that?
I don't think it's particularly tricky or mystical. I think it's just a taste of the real thing, which we haven't yet had the pleasure of drinking fully. I do have to pause, though, sometimes, and remind myself of the kind of outlook an atheist must have. Love is made up of chemicals, right .vs. wrong are as much opinion as vanilla .vs. chocolate, there've been millions of humanoid races that have started to grow, and died out eventually, and there's absolutely nothing beyond our current state of existence. Do you honestly believe all of these things?
I don't have much to add to what I've already said about love. I think that brains are complicated and I don't claim to completely understand how love works. I believe right and wrong is opinion, but I can't compare that kind of opinion with vanilla vs. chocolate. While I think that there have probably been, and probably still are, other intelligent races out there, I don't have a good idea of how many, nor do I have an opinion on how many of them are/were humanoid. Is there absolutely nothing beyond our current state of existence? I would have to say no. But is there such a thing as a soul which lives forever? I would also have to say no.
I don't know that you do care about the world more than you care about yourself. Please do not take offense at that, because I don't think I do either. In some ways I may choose the world to benefit over me...but in many more ways I choose myself. I dedicate my labor and efforts to my own benefit far more often than I do for the benefit of anyone or anything else, as I imagine you do, too.
No offense taken. Certainly I put myself ahead of the world to a certain extent, because I am the one who is responsible for me. But if I were to weigh my overall well-being against the overall well-being of the planet, the scales would tilt in the direction of the planet. I hope that I am the kind of person who would be brave enough to sacrifice his life to save others. I honestly don't know if I am, but I would hope so.
Why would humans, do you think, conceive the idea of a God in the first place? Why are we, according to you, built to WANT a Creator?
I believe that prehumans didn't understand certain natural things like lightning, storms, hurricanes, etc., and were fightened of them. They saw that the sun kept them warm and did other miraculous things, and they started to worship the sun as a god. I think that is how religion started. As I indicated before, I believe that the fear of death is the biggest reason why the general belief in gods has continued so strongly for millions of years. There are other big reasons that include: greed; power hunger; wanting to understand EVERYTHING, or follow somoene or something that does; choosing to go along to get along; and wanting to be a part of a big family type group, to make each other feel better about themselves.
I have a problem with part of that. You start into your example, stating that it consists, to start, with a mother signing Christian songs to a child, and teaching him about Jesus. And then you sayd "and continued that teaching relentlessly" -- this is where I get confused. What does that consist of? What is teaching relentlessly? When does teaching become forcing? Because, surely, raising a child with a belief in God is not brainwashing. The issue is one of degree.
This subject is bogging down our debate, as is your apparent obsession with atheist morals. I simply feel that it is wrong to teach something subjective like religion so relentlessly that the child is basically forced to have those opinions, and none that contradict them. Some parents do that, while others merely give their opinions that their religion is right, and they don't force that opinion on their children very much (that was what happened with me when I was a child). And there are even those out there who don't try yto influence their kids at all, but give them all kinds of religious texts (as well as non-religious texts on religion), and let their kids decide on their own what they want to have faith in, if anything. That last one is my favorite way of teaching kids about religion.
My context for believing in this sense is actually believing it to be true. A very plain meaning of the word, really. If you are to require anything near proof, you're not going to have grounds to believe in much of anything. I am consistenly amazed at how many things people will accept on Faith or probability, while all the while demanding concrete evidence out Christianity (I do think it provides strong evidence, but that's another matter).
Well, I believe things in degrees, of course, just as you do. If a stranger tells me that she heard the weather was going to be nice today, I will probably believe her to a certain extent, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was lying or mistaken. Am I really sitting here, or am hooked up to some Matrix-like computer? I would say that I am about 99.9999% or so sure that I am really sitting here. I can't be totally 100% sure about anything, but I think it is a huge stretch to say I can't believe in things. I believe I am sitting here, I believe I am debating a Christian, I believe at least billions of things.
At the same time, though, if they really knew, in the back of their heads somewhere, that it wasn't true (which seems likely, if we're assuming that it's just a matter of searching for comfort), why wouldn't more people truly live that way?
You lost me here. Truly live what way?
Seems like quite the hoax otherwise...to the point at which the overwhelming (and I DO mean overwhelming) majority of people throughout history have been fooled by it?
Seems like quite a hoax to me too.
If we're really just animals being led around by instincts,
I never said that, and I don't believe it. I believe that humans are much different than other animals, and that we are the only animal that can use our intellilect to control or even disregard our instincts (even though many of us don't control those instincts very well at all). Instincts explain certain things about how our societies have developed, though, and they explain why we still do certain things today.
That's a very clever way of phrasing it, but I don't agree. It is not a matter of believing in one less God, because we're not keeping a theological score here. As it just so happens, I believe in one God, which means that you, by believing in "one less," believe in NONE. So, what I don't believe is that the other Gods I've heard about are the actual God. You, in addition to believe that they are at fault, believe the entire concept of God is at fault.
I mostly agree. I think I was trying to be cute more than making a legitimate point about our lack of beliefs being the same. While I think they are similar, it's not quite the same thing. I don't have a belief in gods because those beliefs make no sense to me, while your lack of beliefs directly has a lot to do with your having a belief in your god.
sadesdrk
03-08-02, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Toose
You guys are arguing the semantics of different religious practices not for or against the existence of God. I have still yet to see an argument that makes me a non-believer. Mmmmm...I never have to really say anything. I'll just keep quoting Matt.:D
firegod
03-08-02, 11:11 PM
I have still yet to see an argument that makes me a believer. I need a reason to believe that something does exist, not the other way around.
Why don't you then need a solid reason as to how things can be as sickingly complex as they are on their own? Why don't you need a solid explanation as to the common Moral Law that unites us? And why am I too lazy to response to your other post in full right now? :D
sadesdrk
03-08-02, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
And why am I too lazy to response to your other post in full right now? :D You don't have time. I'm almost ready.:D
firegod
03-08-02, 11:26 PM
Needing a reason to believe that something exists is much different than needing an explanation for things that I don't understand. I accept that there are things I don't understand; I will try like hell to understand them, but I don't need to believe in a religion just so that I can claim to understand it when I will have no proof to support that claim whatsoever.
firegod
03-08-02, 11:27 PM
By the way, how do I get one of those rotating quotes thingies? Pretty cool.
firegod
03-08-02, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by TWTCommish
Why don't you then need a solid reason as to how things can be as sickingly complex as they are on their own? Why don't you need a solid explanation as to the common Moral Law that unites us? And why am I too lazy to response to your other post in full right now? :D
I think I understand why our moral laws are similar in different societies. Similar natural emotions and instincts make us devolop similar morals.
Sir Toose
03-09-02, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by firegod
Ok. I hope that means move on in a good way, and not "good bye."
My heritage is German, my grandmother used this phrase on my brother and I when we fought or were being intolerant...
"leben Sie und lassen Sie Phasen" means literally, Live and let live" or be respectful of the opinions of others.
firegod
03-09-02, 02:12 PM
I respect your opinions. Just so you know, I haven't felt insulted by anything you have said, and I hope the reverse is true. Whether you want to continue to discuss religion with me or not, either way is ok with me.
sadesdrk
03-09-02, 06:53 PM
I was having a discussion with my grandma this morning, we were talking about God and she was telling me that it didn't matter what faith you come from, be it Jewish, Catholic, Buddist, whatever, all roads lead to God.
I had to disagree with her.
The faiths she mentioned are so universaly different in their doctrine, that it isn't possible for what she said to be true. God is not a contridiction. He isn't going to represent something to "these" people and then something entirely different to,"those" people. That just doesn't ring true to me.
When she talks about her theroies on God or Heaven, or Hell, she's basically going on her own made-up belief system...going on only the idea she has formed in her own mind. How can that be the answer? Is she sitting there, telling me, that she has the answers to the universe? All I have to do to meet God on the other side and dwell in His presence, is formulate some idea of who he is and what He stands for? According to me?
No way.
I'm not buying it.
I'd rather put my faith in the God of the Bilble. A book that has stood the test of time and is God breathed; not some fabrication of man.
I completely agree. God, to me, is REAL. He is more real than anything we've ever known...by far. That's a Lewisian idea: that we're just shadows...faded and ghostlike in comparison with REAL people...with REAL things like God and Heaven...
..and something that real is absolute...is true. Is unmoving and unflappable. God is not flexible. He does not negotiate. If He did, He wouldn't really be God. If God could bend to various views, and God was whatever we each saw Him to be, then what would be the point of believing in Him? We all worship something, in a way. Some of us worship our selves. Others worship sex, or drugs, or alcohol, or just all-around hedonism. Some worship their own reputation, or money...and ALL of us worship some of these things now and then. If merely believing in SOMETHING and labeling it "GOD" in big fat letters makes us a believer, then everyone is a believer without even trying to be.
I don't know if some of those other religions are still technically consistent with Jesus. Maybe they are...I'm not too comfortable saying so one way or the other.
Instead of quoting Scripture which apparantly you disagree with, I'll just say this.
Christianity is the only faith that deals with mankind's ultimate problem, sin.
All other religions are human's attempt to reach a holy God.
But that is impossible as we will die unless we have absolutely no sin.
Anyways, to say all religions lead to God would make Jesus a complete liar.
Sullivan
03-09-02, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by B&W
All other religions are human's attempt to reach a holy God.
Obviously you're not too well acquainted with "all other religions".
Originally posted by B&W
All other religions are human's attempt to reach a holy God.
Obviously you're not too well acquainted with "all other religions".
When i said that it was very generalised i agree.
But nearly all other religions, are an attempt to get to a place like heaven.
I'm just trying to say what is unique about Christianity. That we serve a Saviour God not just a god.
People have yet to answer me on this though.
How do other Religions take into account the problem of Sin?
No. Certain things make sense to me. Take hurting people. I have compassion and a conscience. I may not completely understand why I have those things, but I understand that I don't want to hurt someone, and if I did, it would make me feel horrible. I don't want to hurt people, so I don't. Yes, some people may want to do something that hurts people, and not care whether someone gets hurt or not, but we have laws to try to keep those kinds of things from happening. I don't feel I need to have a religion to justify my morals, nor do I think you have even slightly proven your case that I have morals because some deity gave them to me.
What I'm trying to say is that you have morals, yet logically, they do you little good. It is in your own interest to defy some of them, isn't it? But you don't. Why? Chemicals? Are you a slave to your instincts? Real morals and atheism do not mix. Atheism is all about a big, fat, gray world. The two go hand in hand.
I think there is a contradiction if you think certain sins are worse than the ones you claim are the top ten. Ok, if burning someone's house down is equivalent to theft, then what about torture or rape? They are not mentioned in the ten commandments, but using God's name in vain is. What is more wrong? Strapping somoene to a chair and torturing them by slowly giving them third degree burns, or yelling "God damnit!" when you almost get into a car wreck? I think it is obvious that the ten commandments is not a top ten list that makes sense.
Not true; why is the person torturing? More information is needed. There is no contradiction whatsoever: I think some sins are worse, but I don't KNOW. You can't put a tag on suffering or evil, so I can't say which is worse with much certainty. I can only guess. IMO, the torture is worse than taking the Lord's name in vain. Some of the Commandments cover a LOT of ground, though.
I don't think morals throughout history have been as similar as you seem to think. However, to the extent that they are similar, I think it mostly comes from almost all humans having similar natural emotions and instincts. Different experiences have caused societies to think a little differently, creating different morals, but many of the morals remained common ground among all or almost all societies because of human nature.
You can even see some morals in other animals. For example, some apes will share things with each other, showing generosity. Some animals even love. When a dog cries because his father died, what is that?
What is that? Well, in my opinion, it's because even animals have emotions...though I've never seen or heard of a dog crying over such a thing. I am glad you mentioned dogs, though: I love the way Lewis likens us to them. We are dogs, and Christ is our master. It works on more levels than is immedietly evident. As such, we dogs can go at each other's throat and mess up constantly, and, as you well know, bite the hand that feeds us...but in the end, we're only fighting the thing that gives us the power to fight in the first place.
I think they are more similar than most people believe. They just think something about some caveman or Egyptian being cruel, and figure that we're light years apart...but I don't believe that's the case at all. I see an undeniable conscience of sorts throughout history. Lewis was dedicated, from what I understand, to research of this sort, and said that the results pointed towards many base morals that were agreed upon throughout history, in much the same way you, despite not believing in any real right or wrong or absolute truth, as it were, will appeal to a person's common sense...not just because you know they probably have some, but because it is deeply engrained in you.
You appeal to a person's goodness every day of your entire life, I'd imagine, even. Constantly...undeniably. You appeal to the sense of fair play we all have. Do you believe this is all only a product of our society? You could not appeal to the same sort of reasonable nature of people hundreds or thousands of years ago?
I don't have much to add to what I've already said about love. I think that brains are complicated and I don't claim to completely understand how love works. I believe right and wrong is opinion, but I can't compare that kind of opinion with vanilla vs. chocolate. While I think that there have probably been, and probably still are, other intelligent races out there, I don't have a good idea of how many, nor do I have an opinion on how many of them are/were humanoid. Is there absolutely nothing beyond our current state of existence? I would have to say no. But is there such a thing as a soul which lives forever? I would also have to say no.
Well, I don't know that it lives forever. Perhaps unreptenant souls will merely be destroyed. I really don't know...but I do doubt that hell is really the literal lake of fire and torture people think of. I think it's much more subtle than that.
I agree that we don't know much of what there is to know out there. To me, that's a sign of intelligence. Of how vast it all is. I've yet to understand how a person can see this level of complexity and conclude that no creature was behind it. If you came across a pile of sticks arranged in a crude circle somewhere, certainly you would assume someone arranged them that way...you wouldn't assume it happened by change...and the life and planet we see now are infinitely more complex and precise and advanced than a pile of sticks.
I think there might be other intelligent races out there as well, BTW.
No offense taken. Certainly I put myself ahead of the world to a certain extent, because I am the one who is responsible for me. But if I were to weigh my overall well-being against the overall well-being of the planet, the scales would tilt in the direction of the planet. I hope that I am the kind of person who would be brave enough to sacrifice his life to save others. I honestly don't know if I am, but I would hope so.
I would hope so as well...but why would you sacrifice your life for many people who can do you no good? If it's not really right or wrong or good or bad to do any of it, why? Is it another instance of being a slave to your instincts?
I believe that prehumans didn't understand certain natural things like lightning, storms, hurricanes, etc., and were fightened of them. They saw that the sun kept them warm and did other miraculous things, and they started to worship the sun as a god. I think that is how religion started. As I indicated before, I believe that the fear of death is the biggest reason why the general belief in gods has continued so strongly for millions of years. There are other big reasons that include: greed; power hunger; wanting to understand EVERYTHING, or follow somoene or something that does; choosing to go along to get along; and wanting to be a part of a big family type group, to make each other feel better about themselves.
Well, there are a few problems with that. For one, Christianity does not offer answers to everything. Not even close! Anyone who says it does is misrepresenting things.
But seriously: why would early man really believe it? Life was terrifying and awful. By your logic, which says that intelligent design is not implied through this world, they wouldn't have had much reason to. Life was BAD. Cruel, and more difficult than we'll likely ever know.
As for the fear of death: as I've said in the past, there's no reason to assume people would invent religion to find a way "around it." There's just as much reason to believe they'd rather not believe in God, because it imposed rules and more difficulties on them.
This subject is bogging down our debate, as is your apparent obsession with atheist morals. I simply feel that it is wrong to teach something subjective like religion so relentlessly that the child is basically forced to have those opinions, and none that contradict them. Some parents do that, while others merely give their opinions that their religion is right, and they don't force that opinion on their children very much (that was what happened with me when I was a child). And there are even those out there who don't try yto influence their kids at all, but give them all kinds of religious texts (as well as non-religious texts on religion), and let their kids decide on their own what they want to have faith in, if anything. That last one is my favorite way of teaching kids about religion.
So, it is not even the singing of Psalms, but rather, the situations in which that is the ONLY way of teaching?
Saying I am obsessed with Atheistic morals is like saying you are obsessed with Christian morals: it is very relevant and more than worth discussing. It's not bogging down the debate any more than your questions about God from every front.
Well, I believe things in degrees, of course, just as you do. If a stranger tells me that she heard the weather was going to be nice today, I will probably believe her to a certain extent, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was lying or mistaken. Am I really sitting here, or am hooked up to some Matrix-like computer? I would say that I am about 99.9999% or so sure that I am really sitting here. I can't be totally 100% sure about anything, but I think it is a huge stretch to say I can't believe in things. I believe I am sitting here, I believe I am debating a Christian, I believe at least billions of things.
So, therefore, you do not demand undeniable proof to believe things...and rightly so. At least, this is the impression I get...and it's what I hope is the truth. My point is simply that it's ridiculous to hold religion to such a remarkably high standard of evidence and proof, when no one holds the majority of their beliefs to such a standard. No one here is claiming undeniable proof of God, and so, no one should be asked to provide it...just as I do not ask you to provide proof contrary to that of God's existence.
You lost me here. Truly live what way?
What you deem to be the correct way: without belief in God.
Seems like quite a hoax to me too.
Understatement of the year. If what you say is true, not only have billions of people toiled for something that doesn't exist, but they've done so with more money and effort than the rest of the world has ever seen. In terms of hoaxes, it is a beach full of sand to the hourglass that is the runner-up. IMO, believing THAT requires faith.
I never said that, and I don't believe it. I believe that humans are much different than other animals, and that we are the only animal that can use our intellilect to control or even disregard our instincts (even though many of us don't control those instincts very well at all). Instincts explain certain things about how our societies have developed, though, and they explain why we still do certain things today.
Well, it seems you are led by your instincts. I've still yet to grasp why it is you care for what you call morals.
Needing a reason to believe that something exists is much different than needing an explanation for things that I don't understand. I accept that there are things I don't understand; I will try like hell to understand them, but I don't need to believe in a religion just so that I can claim to understand it when I will have no proof to support that claim whatsoever.
That's being unreasonable. For one, Christianity is not about people claiming to know all sorts of things. Christianity is about submission! You claim it as being too reliant on Faith...yet you also seem to fault it for providing too many answers, as it were. The fact of the matter is that religion does not throw many answers at us. If anything, most of what you'll read in The Bible will have you saying "duh, I knew that." The teachings are simple, and are things most of us will know of already...though you and I will disagree as to why that is.
I've given you reasons to believe: If you don't, you must believe that this is the most embarassingly elaborate hoax of all time, and that billions of people have wasted good portions of their lives on it.
You must believe that the person known as Jesus Christ, in addition to not being God, was a lunatic.
You must believe in some other theory of creation...none of which have ever had any more evidence on their side, as far as I can see, than creationism.
You must believe that your conscience is just an instinct, and that your morals differ not from your favorite TV show.
You must believe that (and yes, I realize this argument applies to both sides), many, many brilliant minds have disagreed with you.
You must completely discount its longevity and endurance throughout all human history.
You must dismiss The Bible as nonsense.
You must believe that morals, in large part, come from your surroundings, so that you may very well be a cannibalistic murder if your father happened to have been named Hannibal.
You must believe you are right, and over 95% of the population of this earth is wrong.
You must believe that all the disturbingly high amount of complexity around you...this planet, your brain (who's complexity you've marveled at), your retena, etc, despite their amazingly precise levels, did not come from any plan or force. They just sort of happened over time.There is MUCH you must believe if you discredit the existence of God. There is much I must believe in order to believe in Him, too...but please do not make out that you have no reasons for believing. Surely the reasons above, even if not sufficient for you, are noteworthy and undeniably serve as evidence. I get the impression you enjoy reverting to great minds for wisdom...and I do as well. I think that as important as it is for us to figure things out as best we can on our own, it is equally as foolish to do so without the help of those wiser than us.
The 9|11 special just ended...I'm not really in an argumentative mood, but I need to say something: if you can watch that sort of thing, and try to tell me that is not wholly and universally evil, I know not what to say to you. It is not evil because I wouldn't want it to happen to me...it is not evil because it is against the law...and it is not evil because it makes it less likely that we will survive as a species. It is evil because it IS. It is evil because we all know it is regardless of those other things. That's all I have to say.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.