Religion In Government

[John McClane]

Hey guys tell me your views on Religion in the Government. This just came to me mind this morning after seeing the news about the Pledge of Alliegence case. The one with that guy from California, who's Atheist, who thinks religion shouldn't be in the government in any way. Tell me what you all think about this case. Here's my thoughts on it.

I believe that if you don't like it don't say the Pledge or just omit the word God. Next thing you know will have to take In God We Trust off all of the USA currency. I believe that this is just a way for the man to get his name in the papers. I mean his daughter isn't even Atheist, she's Christian. I think that it really doesn't matter if religion is in the government. I really don't have any religion, but I do believe in God. That's why it doesn't bother me. This is just my opinon though.

[Yoda]

I think we've discussed this before, but I'll try to summarize my stance on the issue.

Re: religion staying out of government. Yes, that's true. Government should not endorse any specific religion. The question, then, is whether "under God" qualifies. "God" is a vague, all-purpose religious term. It can be used to describe Jesus, Allah, Gaia, or anything other Supreme Being you can imagine. In that sense, one could make the case that no religion is being endorsed...except perhaps Theism, which is not a religion in the organized sense.

But then again, one could make the case (as I have in the past) that the mere declaration of unalienable rights also implies some sort of God, and thus anyone who has a problem with the phrase "under God" ultimately has a problem with the very bedrock of America's system, and Democracy itself.

You could also make the (less compelling) case that the country, for better or worse, WAS, in a sense, founded "under God," and therefore the phrase is less a description of what is or ought to be, and more a historical acknowledgement.

Anyway, regardless of where you come down on the issue, there's no doubt that Mr. Newdow is most definitely hoping to achieve some level of fame. Apparently he's raised various other hot-button issues in the past, all of which have increased his name recognition. Right or wrong, I think the man is clearly more concerned with making a name for himself than with justice, truth, and all the other virtures he likely claims this movement is about.

[Sir Toose]

You could also make the (less compelling) case that the country, for better or worse, WAS, in a sense, founded "under God," and therefore the phrase is less a description of what is or ought to be, and more a historical acknowledgement.


This is where I'm at on this. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. If you take that foundation away then you will end up with something entirely different. To me, that would be a bad thing.

[bluebottle]

Are we just talking about the States? I live in a secular democracy and I wouldn't want it any other way. Iran, Sudan and many other nations have non-secular governments and who of you would like to live there, I certainly wouldn't.

[Golgot]

But then again, one could make the case (as I have in the past) that the mere declaration of unalienable rights also implies some sort of God, and thus anyone who has a problem with the phrase "under God" ultimately has a problem with the very bedrock of America's system, and Democracy itself [!!!]

Oh Mr McCarthy, stop with the communism-categorisation will you? ;)

Seriously, i really wish you'd leave this particular argument alone, coz it's a meaningless distinction you make. But feel free to repeat your argument and i'll point out (concisely this time) why it is logic-light ;)

This is where I'm at on this. Like it or not, this country was founded on Christian principles. If you take that foundation away then you will end up with something entirely different. To me, that would be a bad thing.

But the constitution was founded on the principles of secular government wasn't it?

Shouldn't you be true to these principles too? They've also got you where you are.

[SPIDEI2_MAN__]

Honestly, I am more inclined to let the "under god" part of the Allegiance pass. As Yoda and others have pointed out, 'god' can be any number of things. I feel strongly in this matter that without a 'moral' code provided by religions, there would be chaos in the world, and, therefore, the government as well.

However, those who want to argue to take "under god" out have a very good arguement that many of you may not know of. The "under god" part of the Pledge of Allegiance was only added in about 50 years ago. Therefore, you can't really say that the founding father completely relied on christian foundations.

[Sir Toose]

But the constitution was founded on the principles of secular government wasn't it?

Shouldn't you be true to these principles too? They've also got you where you are.

That's arguable.

Notice I said 'principles'. That's different from saying that we govern by rote using the bible as law.

There is much language in governmental documentation that refers to God and to Christian principle. I see where you're coming from, but the whole 'separation of church and state' was meant to segregate the administrative duties of the two... not to be mutually exclusionary in concept and theory as folks would like to believe that it means.

[John McClane]

The main thing I would like to get out is the fact that Mr. Newdow is just trying to get his name out. You know your 15 mins of fame? He wants more than 15 mins though. You see he based this case on the fact that his daughter had to say "Under God" and he doesn't like that. I mean he's an Atheist and his daughter is Christian. I mean what the f***! All I have to say to him would be "Don't use your daughter as a way to get the ruling in your favor. I mean she's Christian and your Atheist. Don't hurt Amercia because you don't believe in God. I mean they're plently of Atheist that still say "Under God" without a problem." That's all I have to say on that part.

[Golgot]

The "under god" part of the Pledge of Allegiance was only added in about 50 years ago. Therefore, you can't really say that the founding father completely relied on christian foundations.

Well, all you can say on that count is that that particular phrase wasn't put in place by the founding fathers. It doesn't go much further than that. (tho Yoda went through a bit of a time warp, back to commie-bashing days, when he suggested that a concept of democracy and social rights cannot exist without religious substantiation. [But then again, i've always thought he was born 50 years old ;)]).

Incidently, i agree that the "under god" thing is pretty harmless, and that societies have gained their cohesion and moral potential through religious/belief structures.

[John McClane]

If the "Under God" is taken out then the next you know some other bozo will say "It's against my rights as an American to have to read "In God We Trust" on all of the USA currency. I think that no one should have to do that either. I think we should take off and leave religion out.

[Golgot]

That's arguable.

Notice I said 'principles'. That's different from saying that we govern by rote using the bible as law.

Notice that i said 'principles' too....;)...

There is much language in governmental documentation that refers to God and to Christian principle. I see where you're coming from, but the whole 'separation of church and state' was meant to segregate the administrative duties of the two... not to be mutually exclusionary in concept and theory as folks would like to believe that it means.

But yeah, i respect that the over-riding central "principle" was Christianity.

I just see secularism as a beneficial emergent phenomenon that lends potential for constructive mutual growth and adaptation.

;) :)

[Sir Toose]

Why do people come to the US and try to change it to echo their past experience in some other country. Many of them are fleeing a suck factor to look for opportunity... then they come here and try to make it suck here too.

Obviously this is not true for all immagrants but it sure is true for some.

[Sir Toose]

I just see secularism as a beneficial emergent phenomenon that lends potential for constructive mutual growth and adaptation.

;) :)


:laugh: So if capitalism were COMPLETELY Godless then you would be happy? The opposite would be interesting... what if religion were penniless?

[Golgot]

Why do people come to the US and try to change it to echo their past experience in some other country. Many of them are fleeing a suck factor to look for opportunity... then they come here and try to make it suck here too.

Obviously this is not true for all immagrants but it sure is true for some.

Yes yes, the US is perfect, and can benefit from no form of cultural input ;) :rolleyes: (i know you're not completely saying that, but i wasn't even going to respond to this until i saw you tottering off towards silliness below, and felt i was allowed some "extremeness" too...)

:laugh: So if capitalism were COMPLETELY Godless then you would be happy? The opposite would be interesting... what if religion were penniless?

Ohhh, you demon of extremes you.

I'm not advocating godless capito/socialistic societies silly (;)). I was just asserting that you don't need to believe in "a god" to believe in the benefit of societal laws (contrary to what Yods says).

I've got me own God. I wish some other people would dig my dogma rather than their own too, and put it at the heart of their actions. My God is called the Universe. I'm quite fond of it ;). (I could call the Earth the "son of god" if that would make you feel more comfortable ;):p).

[Piddzilla]

Capitalism is completely godless. It's an economic system, not a political ideology or philosophy.

And if you white christian guys came to America and made it suck for the indians, then I think you can take a few immigrants trying to make it suck for you too as well. I'm pretty certain you wont see a muslim president this millenium so don't worry.

[Sedai]

You see he based this case on the fact that his daughter had to say "Under God" and he doesn't like that. I mean he's an Atheist and his daughter is Christian. I mean what the f***! All I have to say to him would be "Don't use your daughter as a way to get the ruling in your favor. I mean she's Christian and your Atheist. Don't hurt Amercia because you don't believe in God.

To me it seems like he is excercising his rights as the legal guardian of his child. Keep in mind, his daughter does not yet have the right to choose every course of action in her life. Parents have the right to bring their own children up however they see fit, as long as they don't abuse/harm the child. If a father does not want his child exposed, even in the slightest, to religious ideals, then by all means he has the right.

That said, I don't agree with this man's actions. If he was so concerned about shielding his child from certain ideas, he should have had her privately tutored, or taken some form of action other than attempting to push his beliefs on the public. Someone should explain to this man that America is, for now anyway, not a fascist state. Explain to him that attempting to force a public body to conform to his ideals is not democracy, by any stretch of the imagination.

Unfortunately, the news is rife with issues like this right now. Howard Stern, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, gay marriage.... Uber left and uber right extremists (whom, btw, constitute a small portion of America's overall population) are attempting to manipulate the system in such a way as to lock certain ideals, their ideals, in as the American way of life. I consider these people fascists. I want Howard Stern on the air, I don't necessarily agree with Mr. Sterns views, but I understand that at any point, I can turn my radio off and stop listening!

Public decency is a concern to a point, and should not be taken lightly, but neither should the Bill of Rights.

As for Religion in Government, since I should probably have at least one sentence on topic, it depends greatly on the situation. If we are talking denominational, I would keep them as far apart from one another as possible. If we are talking upholding certain religious ideals and morals, (Thou shalt not Kill, Thou shalt not steal) through governmental means, well then I am all for it. As I have said before, these ancient texts that have been around for thousands of years, be it The Bible or The Torah, they must have something to teach us eh?

As for hurting America by not believing in God, I fail to comprehend a correlation here. This comment could also be phrased "If you don't believe in God, you are hurting America", and this reminds seems a lot like the aforementioned fascist gentleman's comments in it's intent.

_S

[John McClane]

To me it seems like he is excercising his rights as the legal guardian of his child. Keep in mind, his daughter does not yet have the right to choose every course of action in her life. Parents have the right to bring their own children up however they see fit, as long as they don't abuse/harm the child. If a father does not want his child exposed, even in the slightest, to religious ideals, then by all means he has the right.

The fact is his daughter is living mostly with her mother who's rasing her to be Christian.

As for hurting America by not believing in God, I fail to comprehend a correlation here. This comment could also be phrased "If you don't believe in God, you are hurting America", and this reminds seems a lot like the aforementioned fascist gentleman's comments in it's intent.

I mean to say "Don't hurt America by pushing your views on everyone. What this means is the fact that by you wanting the "Under God" removed you are hurting America's foundations. This is possible because when you push your views on America you hurt Americans freedoms. If you don't like saying it omit it when you say it. Americans have this right and if you were to take it out you would still have people saying it. Then you would have cases against that. I mean as an American you have the right to not do what you think is wrong. As long as it doesn't back any laws. I know some one who doesn't agree with the Pledge, so he doesn't say it. I mean he doesn't push his views on to me, because I have my rights and he has his rights.

[Sir Toose]

Capitalism is completely godless. It's an economic system, not a political ideology or philosophy.

And if you white christian guys came to America and made it suck for the indians, then I think you can take a few immigrants trying to make it suck for you too as well. I'm pretty certain you wont see a muslim president this millenium so don't worry.

It's not though. Companies are run by people who follow their own principles. If they are christian then they will likely run their companies with at least some christian values. You can't just extricate a person's political/religious/etc leanings from his job performance and/or choices. The world is not black and white and neither are any of the issues that we spend so much time banging around here.

Your last comment sucked and I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. Why is it that Golgot 'gets' my twisted humor (God love him :D ) and you're always always ready to pounce?

Don't stop, by the way, it's fun.

[John McClane]

It's not though. Companies are run by people who follow their own principles. If they are christian then they will likely run their companies with at least some christian values. You can't just extricate a person's political/religious/etc leanings from his job performance and/or choices. The world is not black and white and neither are any of the issues that we spend so much time banging around here.

Nice reply.
I didn't know that this topic would get such a response.

[Golgot]

It's not though. Companies are run by people who follow their own principles. If they are christian then they will likely run their companies with at least some christian values.

I dunno. I think the survival ethic often outweighes the moral one, and people will bend their morals to fit with the requirements of their job. And capitalism is a very amoral system in many of its incarnations.

(as a secularist, i'm also tempted to say many people drawn to religions actually do see things in a more black-and-white way, and might be tricked into 'evil' actions while believing them to be good, amongst life's grey areas, and pure-capitalism's morally-astray ones. Just a thought ;))

Your last comment sucked and I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. Why is it that Golgot 'gets' my twisted humor (God love him :D ) and you're always always ready to pounce?

Don't stop, by the way, it's fun.

When you make comments like that last one, my first instinct is that your tongue is poking out of your mouth, rather than into your cheek. But i guess i've known you long enough now ;). And Pidz has too, you've just gotta remember that that's not his mother's tongue you've got stuck in your mouth ;) :)

[kaisersoze]

Funny how there was a segment on CNN today precisely about this issue. Some atheist man didn't want his daughter exposed to the "pledge of alliegience" saying how the pledge uses the words "under god" ( I do not know the pledge because I'm not American so correct if what I remembered is wrong) and ultimately, he is saying it is unconstitutional... saying the pledge failed to seperate "church and state"


Frankly I operate under the no harm, no foul policy and I'm atheist myself ... If I were american I would find no problem saying it as long as I knew that I beileve there is no god ... to me the words are just ceremonial and frankly I will not be mortified in any way with regards to the outcome of this case, even if they change it to: "under god, allah, buddha, zeus, higher being non-specific if any (then the words following)"

[John McClane]

Funny how there was a segment on CNN today precisely about this issue. Some atheist man didn't want his daughter exposed to the "pledge of alliegience" saying how the pledge uses the words "under god" ( I do not know the pledge because I'm not American so correct if what I remembered is wrong) and ultimately, he is saying it is unconstitutional... saying the pledge failed to seperate "church and state"

That's why I started this thread. Lol. :D


Frankly I operate under the no harm, no foul policy and I'm atheist myself ... If I were american I would find no problem saying it as long as I knew that I beileve there is no god ... to me the words are just ceremonial and frankly I will not be mortified in any way with regards to the outcome of this case, even if they change it to: "under god, allah, buddha, zeus, higher being non-specific if any (then the words following)"

That's a very good outlook. That's what the man should do. If I was atheist I would do exactly that. I mean I'm not a true Christian I don't go to church and I don't live my life by the Bible. I just believe in God.

[kaisersoze]

That's a very good outlook. That's what the man should do. If I was atheist I would do exactly that. I mean I'm not a true Christian I don't go to church and I don't live my life by the Bible. I just believe in God.


thanks, I was wondering.... is there any penalty if a student made the decision not to say the pledge in America?

I mean would anything severe happen to you?

[Caitlyn]

I don’t think I have ever read a case where so much public contempt was exhibited toward a plaintiff… in this case, Mr. Newdow… but he is not the only one… the judges who ruled in this case have come under fire too… they have all been accused of being non-patriotic, crazy, stupid, and communist, just to name a few… and those accusations have not been limited to just ordinary people… members of the Government have had their part to say also… However, the really disturbing thing for me is that Mr. Newdow has received numerous death threats since day one and absolutely nothing has been done about it…

So much for “and justice for all” …

[Caitlyn]

thanks, I was wondering.... is there any penalty if a student made the decision not to say the pledge in America?

I mean would anything severe happen to you?


No, there are no legal penalties... however I have seen kids badgered by fellow students for not participating...

[kaisersoze]

No, there are no legal penalties... however I have seen kids badgered by fellow students for not participating...

Thanks for clearing that up Caitlyn, so I guess if the only real penalty is the badgering of your peers, he could just tell his daughter to be strong and not listen to the badgerring of others. or just adopt my strategy of everything is just ceremonial......it is what you believe inside that counts.


I agree with all the people above that said this is just a pathetic attempt to gain fame ... but come on... I could have BULL SHAT THAT and do we really need the Supreme Court for this one? Judge Judy could have handled this.

I predict that Mr. Newdow is a sad man who is bitter that his wife got custody over their daughter and "converted" (shall we say) her into christian. I believe that the majority of the people just mindlessly say the pledge without giving it much thought... and lastly I think if Mr. Newdow gets his way we would all be saying: "GOD, ALLAH, BUDDAH,GAIA, HIGHER BEING NON-SPECFIC IF ANY bless you" or risk being sued for millions in court.

note: if one of you is considering on suing me because I didn't mention your god above and you consider your god must be named for this reason or that reason in my example..... kaisersoze has no money.... in fact he will help you track down the alchol company that got him drunk and awake at this ungodly hour causing him to write this "morally offensive garbage" in the first place and WE will sue THEM :up:

[Piddzilla]

It's not though. Companies are run by people who follow their own principles. If they are christian then they will likely run their companies with at least some christian values. You can't just extricate a person's political/religious/etc leanings from his job performance and/or choices. The world is not black and white and neither are any of the issues that we spend so much time banging around here.

That's like saying that England plays christian football and Saudi Arabia plays muslim football.

Could you tell which film companies in Hollywood that are run respectively not run by jews only by watching their company structure or strategies? And how come Coca Cola Company was able to establish their business in the islamic country Turkey as early as 1964? Was it because Coca Cola changed the company's christian values to muslim values in order to suceed on the turkish market or was it because the market in Turkey was allready free (=capitalism)? In any case capitalism, not religion, determined the strategy that Coca Cola used to get into the market.

The very basic values that a successful company has to keep the moral and decency on an acceptable level are the same in any capitalistic society let it be christian, jewish or muslim society. And what happens when a company is run by a board with people of different religious beliefs? I would dare to say: nothing. Capitalism is still the determing factor, and thank god for that.

I don't know my Das Kapital well enough to be an expert on communism. But I know that here in Sweden, up north there is a strong tradition of christian/religious socialist miners and workers in general. I.e., the two walk hand in hand without no problem. Before and during the WWII The Church in Europe often took the side of the fascists and the nazists and The Church has historically been a symbol of conservatism and supremacy who supressed rather than helped the working class. So when socialism and in some cases revolution spread over some parts of the world The Church was out because of old sins. Now, communism has yet never showed a democratic side in any of the countries it has ruled so naturally religion was banned, persecuted or at least ignored by most of the revolutionary countries' regimes (the people kept believing though). But to say that socialism is godless by definition is not true. In Sweden, who during 70 of the last 80 years or something has been lead by a labour party, the swedish church (protestant evangelistic lutheranian.. or what the hell the name is) received a small portion of the income tax up until just a few years ago when the church was finally seperated from the state completely. Thus a socialistic regime that supported christianity.

So that capitalism is "godly" while planned economy (which is the opposite to capitalism, not communism or socialism) is godless is wrong.

Your last comment sucked and I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. Why is it that Golgot 'gets' my twisted humor (God love him :D ) and you're always always ready to pounce?

Don't stop, by the way, it's fun.

I am ready to pounce all the time. You gotta be...

Ok so feel free to explain the humorous aspect of that post. I just fail to see it. You were being ironic? Not serious at all?

And even though my comment may have sucked according to you, let me remind you that I have no intetions in letting it go into your posts making them suck too. Do I need a smilie here?

...and I laugh at your posts 99 times out of 100. You can't score all the time.

[Caitlyn]

Thanks for clearing that up Caitlyn, so I guess if the only real penalty is the badgering of your peers, he could just tell his daughter to be strong and not listen to the badgerring of others. or just adopt my strategy of everything is just ceremonial......it is what you believe inside that counts.


Yes, he could just tell his daughter to be strong… but in the end it would depend on whether she could handle what her peers decided to dish out to her or not… when I refused to say the pledge in school, I was slapped (by a teacher), hit, spit on, kicked, had food smeared in my face and hair, called a traitor, un-patriotic, un-American, and told to “go home” … but not once was I asked why I refused to say a pledge that was written in celebration of Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of America…

[bluebottle]

… when I refused to say the pledge in school, I was slapped (by a teacher), hit, spit on, kicked, had food smeared in my face and hair, called a traitor, un-patriotic, un-American, and told to “go home” … but not once was I asked why I refused to say a pledge that was written in celebration of Christopher Columbus’s “discovery” of America…
I admire your courage.

[Piddzilla]

Yes, me too. And that is so ...... I don't know. I get so angry, that's all.

[Sir Toose]

.................

I'm not really sure I got everything above this. Religion (in many cases) does drive the way a company operates. That was meant to be a general statement and you're off talking football and Coke. At any rate, look to the media (American) for validation. Have you seen many stories about Israeli atrocities? No? Why? Because the news is owned by members of the jewish community. It has been so for quite a long while (Hitler was angry about this lo those many years ago). You really can't argue that a person who controls a company will be motivated to do it in such a way as it will be counter-intuitive to his/her own beliefs. If that's what you're saying in your Coke story then I don't believe it.


So that capitalism is "godly" while planned economy (which is the opposite to capitalism, not communism or socialism) is godless is wrong.

When did I say capitalism is Godly? I implied that people who run companies can do so in a christian (or insert religion) manner and it will have a weight upon their decisions because religion tends to be at the core of who someone is.



I am ready to pounce all the time. You gotta be...

Like a kitten at times ... you go off half-cocked and smash your face into the floor while your supposed target has already left the building.

Ok so feel free to explain the humorous aspect of that post. I just fail to see it. You were being ironic? Not serious at all?

Not really serious at all, no. It was just a humorous observation to me. Case in point, here in Texas we have many, many Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal). They kill themselves to get here, literally in some cases, citing their motivation as increased opportunity, better lifestyle, better education et al. I see the hispanic reps on TV talking about how the immigrants want to change the system here (public assistance, public housing, etc) to what they had available in Mexico. They even want to change the street signs and the language here to match what they had in Mexico. Why not stay there and try to change it if it's so great in the first place? I don't mean to pick on Mexicans, I hear it from a lot of nationalities. I don't hate them for trying it... I just don't understand the logic of it at all.

And even though my comment may have sucked according to you, let me remind you that I have no intetions in letting it go into your posts making them suck too. Do I need a smilie here?

I smiled because I have no idea what the fck you just said here.

...and I laugh at your posts 99 times out of 100. You can't score all the time.

Still working on those maturity issues I see.

[Piddzilla]

I'm not really sure I got everything above this. Religion (in many cases) does drive the way a company operates. That was meant to be a general statement and you're off talking football and Coke. At any rate, look to the media (American) for validation. Have you seen many stories about Israeli atrocities? No? Why? Because the news is owned by members of the jewish community. It has been so for quite a long while (Hitler was angry about this lo those many years ago). You really can't argue that a person who controls a company will be motivated to do it in such a way as it will be counter-intuitive to his/her own beliefs. If that's what you're saying in your Coke story then I don't believe it.

I see stories about Israeli atrocity on swedish tv and in swedish newspapers everyday. And, no, american news media doesn't appear objective at all to me.

The reason to why you don't see it in America is probably because Israel is one of America's closest allies, not because jews own the news. And do jews own all the american news? I know that Rupert Murdoch had a jewish mother and still supports christian George W Bush. A quick look at AOL Time Warner's (owner of CNN) Board of Directors doesn't exactly reveal a domination of jewish sounding names. Anyway, let's say that jews do indeed own all the american news media. If they will not say anything negative about Israel, that has nothing to do with the jewish religion but with political and ethnical reasons. So I am still off talking about Coke. Why was my example of Coke selling well in islamic Turkey not relevant to you?

I think that anybody who runs a company of Coca Cola's caliber does so with the intentions of in the end of the day earn money period - not to do it in a good christian way. If the directors at Coca Cola will have to change their ad campaignes which are appropriate enough for their christian values but not for the buyer's muslim values, then they will change the ad campaignes as long as it will increase the profit.

When did I say capitalism is Godly? I implied that people who run companies can do so in a christian (or insert religion) manner and it will have a weight upon their decisions because religion tends to be at the core of who someone is.

It sounds to me that you equals personal principles and morals with religion. I have some principles that I would never compromise with even if it meant that I would earn a ****load of money. But I am not at all religious. At the same time I am absolutely certain that there are many religiously active Board Charimen that would walk and walk over dead bodies to reach their company's goals, even though it is totally against what their religion preaches.

You said something about socialism or communism being "godless", and therefore I thought that you meant that capitalism, as opposed to communism in your case, was more "godly" or "spiritual". Any individual, communist or not, must have some kind of personal principles or morals that he or she follows, even when running a company. So I just don't think the specific religion that the members of a Board confesses to makes a deciding difference in the capitalistic OR communistic world. Ethnicity? Sometimes, but that's another issue.

Like a kitten at times ... you go off half-cocked and smash your face into the floor while your supposed target has already left the building.

Eh... What am I supposed to do? Stop typing as soon as you log off?

Not really serious at all, no. It was just a humorous observation to me. Case in point, here in Texas we have many, many Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal). They kill themselves to get here, literally in some cases, citing their motivation as increased opportunity, better lifestyle, better education et al. I see the hispanic reps on TV talking about how the immigrants want to change the system here (public assistance, public housing, etc) to what they had available in Mexico. They even want to change the street signs and the language here to match what they had in Mexico. Why not stay there and try to change it if it's so great in the first place? I don't mean to pick on Mexicans, I hear it from a lot of nationalities. I don't hate them for trying it... I just don't understand the logic of it at all.

Are they american citizens? If no, well what influence could they possibly have? If yes, as long as they don't break any laws what is so wrong with them trying to change things for the better (seen from their point of veiw)? Is America the land of possibilities or not? Or only for a selected few?

I smiled because I have no idea what the fck you just said here.

Just making a comment referring to what you said about people coming from places that suck to your place trying to make it suck too.

Still working on those maturity issues I see.

Like you on your ability to handle criticism, chief.

[bluebottle]

No offence, but you cannot win a debate about religion with a believer, as they must have a closed mind or accept that their beliefs are not superior to others, which in turn would make all religion obsolete.

[Piddzilla]

No offence, but you cannot win a debate about religion with a believer, as they must have a closed mind or accept that their beliefs are not superior to others, which in turn would make all religion obsolete.

BLASPHEMER!!!!!

[bluebottle]

:D

[Yoda]

No offence, but you cannot win a debate about religion with a believer, as they must have a closed mind or accept that their beliefs are not superior to others, which in turn would make all religion obsolete.This just isn't accurate. What you're essentially saying is that anyone who has come to any kind of conclusion about religion must inevitably be closed off to dissent. I don't think that's true in the least.

Christians have generally been educated, rational people throughout history. Today's Christian is a far cry from its historical counterpart.

[bluebottle]

This just isn't accurate. What you're essentially saying is that anyone who has come to any kind of conclusion about religion must inevitably be closed off to dissent. I don't think that's true in the least.

Christians have generally been educated, rational people throughout history. Today's Christian is a far cry from its historical counterpart.
Then please tell me, why is Christianity, assuming you are a Christian, better than Judaism or Islam? And if you don't think that your beliefs are better - or more accurate - than others, then you might as well be a Catholic one day, a Muslim the next and a Unitarian the day after that. I am in no way implying that religiousity necessarily leads to ignorance, on the contrary, I'm aware that quite a few great minds were religious; what I'm saying is that you absolutely must hold your beliefs to be superior to any others. There can be no equality among the various creeds, otherwise they would lose their raison d'etre.

[Yoda]

Then please tell me, why is Christianity, assuming you are a Christian, better than Judaism or Islam? And if you don't think that your beliefs are better - or more accurate - than others, then you might as well be a Catholic one day, a Muslim the next and a Unitarian the day after that. I am in no way implying that religiousity necessarily leads to ignorance, on the contrary, I'm aware that quite a few great minds were religious; what I'm saying is that you absolutely must hold your beliefs to be superior to any others. There can be no equality among the various creeds, otherwise they would lose their raison d'etre.I'm not denying that, but the same logic applies to any belief (or lack thereof). Atheism thinks it's better than Christianity. Christianity thinks it's better than Buddhism. Religion isn't special in this regard.

[bluebottle]

As an atheist I have a live and let live attitude towards religion, as long as you don't force your views upon me or anyone else, then I don't care what your beliefs are. I just find religious beliefs to be wholly incompatible with what I observe in the world around me. This has nothing to do with faith, or do you think that believing in the laws of physics is an act of faith?

[John McClane]

This has nothing to do with faith, or do you think that believing in the laws of physics is an act of faith?

I think that believing in the laws of physics is an act of faith because you have to have faith that it stays like the way it is. Or at least I guess.

[kaisersoze]

As an atheist I have a live and let live attitude towards religion, as long as you don't force your views upon me or anyone else, then I don't care what your beliefs are. I just find religious beliefs to be wholly incompatible with what I observe in the world around me. This has nothing to do with faith, or do you think that believing in the laws of physics is an act of faith?


Same here, I wish these religious groups would just leave me alone, I don't need to be "saved".

I don't quite follow your last sentence, but laws of physics can be proved or disproved....faith in something (such as religion) can not be.

[bluebottle]

I don't really recall why I said it, so just disregard that last bit and blame it on me being tired and tipsy. :)

[Golgot]

I reckon Athiesm/Secularism and Scientific belief systems are still just that - systems of belief - just like religions.

I also belive that religious belief systems involve the believer engaging in rational deconstruction and debate.

But...

I would argue that secular belief systems have the potential to be superior to religious ones. I think we should accept, Blue, that that's basically what we say when we criticise religious thinkers. We're basically saying they're way of perceiving and believing is lesser to ours - limited by false ideas etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yoda's a good example of a religious believer who's totally prepared to discuss the parameters of his religion and beliefs.

But unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, he's also in the sway of the rational arguments he builds up around the unquestionable and uncheckable premises at the centre of his religion.

As demonstrated by the "you-must-be-religious-to-believe-in-human-rights". An argument which has many facets, and can be right when taken to a purely theoretical level (IMO). But is ridiculous when over-applied i.e. "don't believe in God = can't believe in Democracy". That was an example of when a rational thought construct gets pushed too far in the service of the concept it's trying to rationalise, and becomes completely irrational. (;))

Sorry Yods, but it's true. The flaw at the heart of your rational construct is your desire for God's will to be true. You'll bend the rules, or what you apply them to, to subsume all other things within this rationalisation of your God's existence.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question at hand isn't that humans rationalise around the core beliefs they've settled on (consciously and unconsciousy). It's the nature of the core beliefs.

Yods knows what i think. I think having the World/Universe as the central thing that you "believe" in allows more scope for more accurate rationalisations to emerge. And for that reason is superior.

Which all sounds a bit cold. I also think it has the most positive over-all effect. (And that it's been influential in helping many of the beneficial aspects of religions form over the years)

Scientists need to be a bit more open to the unknowable and unknown aspects of this world perhaps.
Religious believers could do with a bit more central respect for the known.

That's what i've grown to believe ;)

[Tea Barking]

I will just say this.
The crusades right up to todays holy war against the west.
Some things never change when it come to religion.

[Yoda]

I'm taking these all out of order. So sue me. :)

As an atheist I have a live and let live attitude towards religion, as long as you don't force your views upon me or anyone else, then I don't care what your beliefs are. I just find religious beliefs to be wholly incompatible with what I observe in the world around me. This has nothing to do with faith, or do you think that believing in the laws of physics is an act of faith?Believing that the laws of physics exist is not an act of faith. Believing that they exist on their own account is, though. The materialist view says they just are; clearly, faith is involved.


I will just say this.
The crusades right up to todays holy war against the west.
Some things never change when it come to religion.Some things never change it comes to people. Religious is often the excuse, and not necessarily the cause.

[Golgot]

Some things never change it comes to people. Religious is often the excuse, and not necessarily the cause.

Agreed.

Doesn't mean these "houses" of human thought couldn't do with a bit of structural change tho ;). Make them less likely to protect mental rigidity perhaps.

Still, i agree. The real source of those problems is humanity.

That's why we need to keep refining the stories we tell ourselves, and rules that guide our barbarities.

I'm taking these all out of order. So sue me.

You're skipping over mine coz they're ridiculously long aren't you. I'll sue you for being lengthist so i shall ;)

[r3port3r66]

Realistically, religious beliefs should have nothing to do with how one is governed by others, rather, it should be more about how one governs himself.

[Yoda]

I would argue that secular belief systems have the potential to be superior to religious ones. I think we should accept, Blue, that that's basically what we say when we criticise religious thinkers. We're basically saying they're way of perceiving and believing is lesser to ours - limited by false ideas etc.Exactly. No belief can avoid a certain tint of superiority. If you didn't believe what you thought was superior to the alternatives, you'd have no reason to believe it.

It's a bit puzzling that religion is so often criticized for things that apply equally to the alternatives.


Yoda's a good example of a religious believer who's totally prepared to discuss the parameters of his religion and beliefs.

But unfortunately, and perhaps inevitably, he's also in the sway of the rational arguments he builds up around the unquestionable and uncheckable premises at the centre of his religion.

As demonstrated by the "you-must-be-religious-to-believe-in-human-rights". An argument which has many facets, and can be right when taken to a purely theoretical level (IMO). But is ridiculous when over-applied i.e. "don't believe in God = can't believe in Democracy". That was an example of when a rational thought construct gets pushed too far in the service of the concept it's trying to rationalise, and becomes completely irrational. (;))

Sorry Yods, but it's true. The flaw at the heart of your rational construct is your desire for God's will to be true. You'll bend the rules, or what you apply them to, to subsume all other things within this rationalisation of your God's existence.I'm not saying you can't believe in Democracy unless you believe in God; clearly, many faithless people do. But the materialist view inherently undermines it. Equality has no basis in a Godless world; why would it? What thought process could lead a materialist to the conclusion that all men are created equal? The best they can do is acknowledge that equality is bunk, and support that lie insofar as it improves their quality of life.

You said this principle is right, but ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. Why? It feels to me as if you're trying to keep the ceiling, but get rid of the pillars. Godless societies have already tried it; they've all been covered in rubble.


The question at hand isn't that humans rationalise around the core beliefs they've settled on (consciously and unconsciousy). It's the nature of the core beliefs.

Yods knows what i think. I think having the World/Universe as the central thing that you "believe" in allows more scope for more accurate rationalisations to emerge. And for that reason is superior.

Which all sounds a bit cold. I also think it has the most positive over-all effect. (And that it's been influential in helping many of the beneficial aspects of religions form over the years)

Scientists need to be a bit more open to the unknowable and unknown aspects of this world perhaps.
Religious believers could do with a bit more central respect for the known.

That's what i've grown to believe ;)The funny thing is, I'm a big believer in listening to reality. My family (and thus, has a very entrepreneurial slant to it, and the entrepreneur is all about reality. Their livelihood depends purely upon their ability to change and adapt based on whether or not the rest of the world accepts or rejects their product or service. I'm a huge believer in this principle; so much so that I do not currently plan to attend college, opting instead to work and train myself in the "get shocked when you grab the wrong cheese" environment.

However, these kinds of tests simply do not speak to the issue of God. It's another realm entirely. It's like trying to use science to prove morality. There is no way to use the universe as a standard, and simultaneously advocate change, because we're allegedly a product of that universe. We're supposed to be the result of natural selection, the result of nature taking its course. How, then, can we somehow act outside of the universe's will, so to speak?

And what of those who believe in God BECAUSE of the Universe? Many people believe in God despite living in isolated cultures. Many believed long ago, with their mere existence, and the existence of the world, to serve as their evidence. Taking your cues from the world around you is not something which points squarely towards Atheism.

[bluebottle]

What thought process could lead a materialist to the conclusion that all men are created equal?
Empathy?

[Yoda]

Agreed.

Doesn't mean these "houses" of human thought couldn't do with a bit of structural change tho ;). Make them less likely to protect mental rigidity perhaps.Perhaps, yes. But I don't think mankind is often about new ideas...I think most of life is sifting through the ones which have already been thought. We're all the President of the United States, and the books we read and arguments we have are our team of advisors. Based on their input, we have to decide which to go with. Rarely do we ignore them all and go off in some entirely seperate direction, and that's usually for the best.

It is this reason that so many Americans admire George W. Bush, and other Presidents who exhibit a certain "mental rigidity." As backwards as it sounds, open-mindedness can be a severe detriment to a politician. Those high in government are inevitably going to be targetted for all sorts of persuasion and demagoguery, based on everything from pure unbridled hatred to simple self-interest.

Because of this, I think people underestimate the benefit of being firm in your beliefs. Of course, I'm not advocating that anyone make a habit of setting their views in stone. Just that sometimes there's an advantage to using a pen, instead of something with an eraser. Any person, whether right or wrong, will be told that they're wrong. Thus, being a bit on the pig-headed side can be invaluable, assuming you've already pointed yourself in the right general direction. Someone supremely open to changing their mind might change it so often so as to see the truth, and fly right by it.


You're skipping over mine coz they're ridiculously long aren't you. I'll sue you for being lengthist so i shall ;)Nah. Just got a phone call, actually.


Realistically, religious beliefs should have nothing to do with how one is governed by others, rather, it should be more about how one governs himself.If anything is deserving of rep, this is.

It's rare that I hear this difference explained so eloquently.

[Yoda]

Empathy?While empathy is an emotionally compelling reason to pretend that we're all equal deep down, I don't believe it gives the materialist any logical reason to believe so.

[John McClane]

The only thing I believe is that Jesus is God's son and he died to save me. In the Bible it says that's all you have to believe in to go to Heaven. So look out Pearly Gates cause here I come.

[bluebottle]

Yoda, you're making quite a few assertion aren't you? I'd like to point out that logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe.
Why is that I need to explain why I behave in a "moral" way, is it not enough that I do? Or is it better to treat others well just because you fear divine retribution ?

[Yoda]

Yoda, you're making quite a few assertion aren't you?I'd use the word "arguments" instead of "assertions," but yeah, this thread's touching on a lot of different topics. I don't see why that would be a problem, though.


I'd like to point out that logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Why is that I need to explain why I behave in a "moral" way, is it not enough that I do? Or is it better to treat others well just because you fear divine retribution ?I'm not sure what you mean when you say that logic is not an "absolute law." I do know, however, that there's no use trying to discredit logic, because you'd have to inevitably employ it to do so. If we cannot start with the assumption that rational behavior is desirable, we won't get far.

That said, it is definitely good that you behave in a moral way, regardless of the reason. But isn't this discussion about the reasons we have for our respective moralities? I'm just trying to get at the core of a materialist's morals. Logically, all I can come up with is either instinctual or arbitrary. From an objective standpoint, neither of these is a very compelling thing to base a code of conduct on.

And, for the record, fear of "divine retribution" is not the basis for my morality. The idea that it's truly, objectively good, and the will of the God which gave me life, is enough for me. The fact that it makes sense to me and is generally in line with what most people consider to be good helps a bit, too.

[Golgot]

I'm not saying you can't believe in Democracy unless you believe in God; clearly, many faithless people do. But the materialist view inherently undermines it. Equality has no basis in a Godless world; why would it? What thought process could lead a materialist to the conclusion that all men are created equal? The best they can do is acknowledge that equality is bunk, and support that lie insofar as it improves their quality of life.

There's the point. A "material-spiritualist" (coz i believe this is a more accurate term) doesn't necessarily believe that all men are created equal per se (although they can draw that conclusion if they want to). But in what way does that limit their ability to see the social and personal benefit in certain one-size-fits-all rights? It doesn't. There are multiple other rationales for embracing the concept and practice of "rights".

Just because we have a different rational from you for coming to the same conclusion, doesn't mean our rationale is baseless.

You make numerous peculiar statements along this line - and it all seems to stem from that little system you've got worked out, whereby your worldview is given sense because it tallies with what is understood to be God's will.

In a classic piece of either-or "logic", you then insist that non-religious-based rationals are "arbitary"/unjustified etc.

Here's what you wrote on the subject on the Howard Dean thread...

If God is real, then my statement is perfectly legit. If not, it's not. My point is that I've come to this conclusion based on my conclusion to the question of God.

There's the first problem...you argue with non-believers using an (insulting) argument that relies on us accepting your God exists for us to engage with it. Pointless.

It's consistent...it does not contradict itself. But what you're describing cannot even potentially line up in the same way. Saying that you think we should support best practices does not tell us WHY you've chosen that as your standard. IE: for instinctual or arbitrary reasons.

And here's the insult. That because our reasons are different from yours, they are arbitary and instinctual - not rational.

You've really really really got to stop with this line of argument. It's flawed, and it's pointless.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that your rationale is "better"/more-logical coz it's based on God's logic.

That's really not the best basis for a logical discussion.
(see below for some things we can actually get out teeth into...)

You said this principle is right, but ridiculous when taken to its logical conclusion. Why?

I'm saying it's probably right to say that only someone who believes god-established rights for humans believes in "god-given-rights".

But just because i don't believe we come into this world with a little metaphysical marker that says "has the right not to be murdered" attached to me, doesn't mean i can't come to conclusion that such a "right" should be invented and observed by society.

You dig?

I think you're right that "materialists" often don't believe in absolute rights of this sort. But that doesn't mean our support for socially reinforced rights is therefore illogical. It means we see the value in establishing them. i.e. Lessening murder in society, and our own potential murder.

That's totally logical. There's your "why".

It feels to me as if you're trying to keep the ceiling, but get rid of the pillars. Godless societies have already tried it; they've all been covered in rubble.

Do you mean the USSR? (can't think of any others who aspired to "godlessness") Yes, they tried to dedicate the human spirit to a foolish and constricted end.

But that's the point. Religions are built of social imperatives in my opinion. They are an expression of the "human spirit" if you like. A creation of natural drives and desires.

These things can take many forms, and shape society in many ways. I think you're making the mistake of thinking existing religions are the only way these things can be expressed.

Belief systems might well change Darwinistically too you know ;)

I'm a huge believer in this principle; so much so that I do not currently plan to attend college, opting instead to work and train myself in the "get shocked when you grab the wrong cheese" environment.

Jolly good.

I never said the religious don't look at reality. (I just say they purport to know the "why" of it - and that can be a dangerous thing ;). Like those who are so sure we can't do any damage to the earth, coz it's god's creation, never bother to check if that's true or not)

There is no way to use the universe as a standard, and simultaneously advocate change, because we're allegedly a product of that universe.

Wow, another totally peculiar statement.

Quick answer: the universe is always changing, as much as it stays the same. Change is a constant.

We're supposed to be the result of natural selection, the result of nature taking its course. How, then, can we somehow act outside of the universe's will, so to speak?

Emergance (a core aspect in the modern idea of evolution) suggests many things. What is doesn't suggest is a "will" on behalf of the universe.

The idea is that what emerges from the universe is not following a preformed plan per se. The universe is the exploration of possibilities.

There is no will to be breaking. We are merely an emerged possibility that can extend the possibilities for further emergance. We can effect the things that made us.

But there's always "better"s and "worse"s to consider. Especially where our own survival, and the quality of that survival is concerned. (And to be concerned with that, we must be concerned with the "quality" and survival of what surrounds us).

You asked a very broad question, so that was a very broad answer.

And what of those who believe in God BECAUSE of the Universe? Many people believe in God despite living in isolated cultures. Many believed long ago, with their mere existence, and the existence of the world, to serve as their evidence. Taking your cues from the world around you is not something which points squarely towards Atheism.

True.

But religions fulfill several purposes human-pleasing purposes - They give us a "why" for the existance and functioning of all things, and they provide social structure and stability.

Therefore it's no suprise that they "emerge" on a regular basis.

The existence of religions does not point squarely towards God ;)

[Golgot]

I'm just trying to get at the core of a materialist's morals. Logically, all I can come up with is either instinctual or arbitrary.

Don't worry Blue. He means well, it's just his logic is a bit flawed on this one.

Yods thinks we have to believe in a set of absolute god-given human rights for our support of social "rights" to make any sense.

He can't seem to fathom that you don't have to believe in pre-existing absolute/universal rights to believe that societies benefit from establishing and enforcing "rights" in the form of laws etc.

I've been trying to point out the peculiarities of his "materialists are all arbitary, illogical, inconsistant people" argument for ages, but i don't seem to be getting anywhere.

[Yoda]

There's the point. A "material-spiritualist" (coz i believe this is a more accurate term) doesn't necessarily believe that all men are created equal per se (although they can draw that conclusion if they want to). But in what way does that limit their ability to see the social and personal benefit in certain one-size-fits-all rights? It doesn't. There are multiple other rationales for embracing the concept and practice of "rights".

Just because we have a different rational from you for coming to the same conclusion, doesn't mean our rationale is baseless.I never said a materialist could not see the benefit in the concept of equal rights; but you know as well as I that such proclamations are never of the "let's all get behind this big fat lie for our own good" variety. Who do you know who champions equality on those grounds?

As for "material-spiritualist" -- why is the term more accurate? A materialist believes in the physical universe alone. They do not believe in what would generally be called supernatural. That is, no soul, no God, no heaven, no hell, etc. Is that an inaccurate description of what you believe?


There's the first problem...you argue with non-believers using an (insulting) argument that relies on us accepting your God exists for us to engage with it. Pointless.You've said this before, and it still don't know what you're talking about. I've never put forward an argument that non-believers were somehow excluded from responding to.

As for "insulting" -- I really don't think it's any more insulting than your insistence that I employ pseudo-logic to delude myself. That is, after all, what you're saying, even if it is in a roundabout way. I don't think there's any way to tell the other person they're wrong in such a situation without coming off as a little insulting.

The best I can recommend, and the policy I've employed, is to simply recognize that any insult is not deliberate, and perceived insults are inevitable in any disagreement about core beliefs.

Okay, now on to the meat of the issue...


And here's the insult. That because our reasons are different from yours, they are arbitary and instinctual - not rational.But they are. Sure, it's rational to want to live, and therefore it's rational for a materialist to support a system of government which they believe will be most likely to allow them to. But the only motive there is self-interest, and I'll wager you don't know anyone who would call a person "moral" for doing only those things which happened to benefit them.

Besides, isn't acting out of self-interest a very instinctual thing, anyway?


You've really really really got to stop with this line of argument. It's flawed, and it's pointless.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that your rationale is "better"/more-logical coz it's based on God's logic.

That's really not the best basis for a logical discussion.
(see below for some things we can actually get out teeth into...)I've been quite clear on this point, but it's regularly glossed over: this is not about any self-justifying logic. It's about consistency. A rationale which is internally consistent may be right, or it may be wrong. A rationale which is not internally consistent cannot be right. Simply put, internal consistency is the first litmus test of an idea.

Example 1: saying that logic is more important than emotion is consistent. It doesn't contradict or undermine itself. It may or may not be correct, however.

Example 2: (touched on in an earlier post) trying to use logic to disprove logic is internally inconsistant. Thus, there's no point even dealing with the question of whether logic is reliable, because any claim that it doesn't inevitably cancels itself out.

This is not me simply claiming that I'm right, or saying that believing in God makes me so. Not even remotely. This is purely about the first test of any idea: is it consistent?


I'm saying it's probably right to say that only someone who believes god-established rights for humans believes in "god-given-rights".

But just because i don't believe we come into this world with a little metaphysical marker that says "has the right not to be murdered" attached to me, doesn't mean i can't come to conclusion that such a "right" should be invented and observed by society.

You dig?Of course. Is there really any doubt about it? I believe I've already gone out of my way to say just this.

Just because I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I don't understand you.


I think you're right that "materialists" often don't believe in absolute rights of this sort. But that doesn't mean our support for socially reinforced rights is therefore illogical. It means we see the value in establishing them. i.e. Lessening murder in society, and our own potential murder.

That's totally logical. There's your "why".This would seem to imply that what morality and belief in equality you do have is purely self-interested. But you and I both know that a great part of what many people consider to be moral is selfless in nature. Is there any logic in those sorts of acts? Does it make any sense at all, for example, to care about what happens to your loved ones after you pass on?


Do you mean the USSR? (can't think of any others who aspired to "godlessness") Yes, they tried to dedicate the human spirit to a foolish and constricted end.

But that's the point. Religions are built of social imperatives in my opinion. They are an expression of the "human spirit" if you like. A creation of natural drives and desires.

These things can take many forms, and shape society in many ways. I think you're making the mistake of thinking existing religions are the only way these things can be expressed.

Belief systems might well change Darwinistically too you know ;)That's one example, sure. I've yet to come across a single society founded on DISbelief in a deity which has done anything other than fail miserably. Doesn't this indicate that people need more at the heart of their country's principles than just "hey, it's not true, but things run nicely when we pretend it is"? Do you really think such a proclamation would fly?


Wow, another totally peculiar statement.

Quick answer: the universe is always changing, as much as it stays the same. Change is a constant.I don't see what's peculiar about it. See below...


Emergance (a core aspect in the modern idea of evolution) suggests many things. What is doesn't suggest is a "will" on behalf of the universe.

The idea is that what emerges from the universe is not following a preformed plan per se. The universe is the exploration of possibilities.

There is no will to be breaking. We are merely an emerged possibility that can extend the possibilities for further emergance. We can effect the things that made us.

But there's always "better"s and "worse"s to consider. Especially where our own survival, and the quality of that survival is concerned. (And to be concerned with that, we must be concerned with the "quality" and survival of what surrounds us).

You asked a very broad question, so that was a very broad answer.I know the Universe does not have a "will," but you continually refer to the world around us as if it did. You say you use it as your standard to measure the validity of ideas, basically. I'm not entirely sure how you measure this, but however you do, the result is most easily summarized as the "will" of the Universe. That's what I mean when I use the term.

Your "better" and "worse" must stem from something. You say it stems from the world. The first thing that comes to mind when you say this, for me, is evolution. It is the closest thing we have to the world/universe weighing merit and actually making choices.

And we, allegedly, are a product of it. We did not come about on our own accord. You believe we developed, the same as any other animal. But do you believe any other animal is acting in a way which is wrong, or incorrect? Why is the way a catfish behaves right, except in that it evolved to behave that way? And if what it does is right, why isn't what we do right for the same reason?

I often get the feeling that you regard mankind as out of place, rather than just another species of animal. It's as if everything behaves in a comendable, natural way, except for us, even though you believe we evolved to this point, just like every other creature around us.


True.

But religions fulfill several purposes human-pleasing purposes - They give us a "why" for the existance and functioning of all things, and they provide social structure and stability.

Therefore it's no suprise that they "emerge" on a regular basis.

The existence of religions does not point squarely towards God ;)Ah, but we've been over this. For every psychologically-pleasing benefit of belief, one can always be found for disbelief as well. Furthermore, there are several down-sides, psychologically-speaking, with belief.

I can summarize them if it's been too long since our last foray into this area.

[Yoda]

Don't worry Blue. He means well, it's just his logic is a bit flawed on this one.

Yods thinks we have to believe in a set of absolute god-given human rights for our support of social "rights" to make any sense.Not quite. Just that materialism dictates that such "rights" are made-up social constructs, yet you'll be hard-pressed to get a materialist to actually say so, which I, admittedly, find somewhat telling. In simpler terms: actions speak louder than words, and few materialists possess a moral code that makes sense, given their denial of an objective moral standard.


He can't seem to fathom that you don't have to believe in pre-existing absolute/universal rights to believe that societies benefit from establishing and enforcing "rights" in the form of laws etc.

I've been trying to point out the peculiarities of his "materialists are all arbitary, illogical, inconsistant people" argument for ages, but i don't seem to be getting anywhere.You might not be getting anywhere because your premise (that I'm calling all materalists arbitrary, illogical, and inconsistent) is a bit off. I'm saying that certain aspects of the materialist worldview do not generally line up. This is not to say that they can't, just that they usually don't.

Remember, you've admitted in the past (in the Howard Dean thread, for example) that materialist morality is often irrational, and sometimes simply instinctual. This does not invalidate materialism, except in the sense that materialists are almost never willing to simply embrace it. Presumably because materialism and Atheism generally purport to be bastions of logic and reason standing in opposition to the emotion and demagoguery of religion, and to admit that they, too, do things for purely emotional or instinctive reasons, would undermine what most claim is their big edge over the religious establishment.

[r3port3r66]

Why is that more people are likely to question the validity of their government, but never the validity of their religion?

[Yoda]

Why is that more people are likely to question the validity of their government, but never the validity of their religion?Never is a pretty strong word, but anyway, I would presume it is because most of the questioning of a religion comes before it is accepted to begin with. From that point forward, most religions remain largely unchanged, espousing the same principles they did when the person first came to believe in it. Government, on the other hand, is in a constant state of flux, and can be radically different from one generation to the next.

I imagine this is just one reason of many, though.

[r3port3r66]

As per usual Chris, you make a damn good point. Dammit, it must hurt to be you!

[Yoda]

As per usual Chris, you make a damn good point. Dammit, it must hurt to be you!:laugh: Oh, you know it. I talk too damn much, and I'm showing no signs of getting over it.

To be fair to what what I'm assuming was the intent of your question, though, you're right in implying that there is a bit of a contradiction sometimes. Obviously you'd expect that something like religion would garner more -- not less -- scrutiny than a thing like government. Maybe it's just easier to question things that you know are man-made (such as laws and governmental policies) than it is to question things that may or may not be man-made (various holy texts).

Either way, I guess the explanations probably run the gamut from perfectly logical to totally hypocritical. Myself included.

[r3port3r66]

You are going to be a great husband. It would be a great pleasure to meet your children someday. I hope one of them decides to vote Dem!

[Yoda]

You are going to be a great husband. It would be a great pleasure to meet your children someday.:blush: Are you sure you're not really my mom under an alias?


I hope one of them decides to vote Dem!Just had to slip that in there, didntcha? :D

Maybe we can compromise on an Independent candidate. Plus, I get them on weekends and every-other major holiday.

[bluebottle]

I admire your eloquence Yoda, so maybe you can explain to me, without resorting to sophistry, why, if you're god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, is there any evil - natural or moral - in the world?

[Golgot]

I never said a materialist could not see the benefit in the concept of equal rights; but you know as well as I that such proclamations are never of the "let's all get behind this big fat lie for our own good" variety. Who do you know who champions equality on those grounds?

Well, i do for a start.

What other arguments have you encountered?

As for "material-spiritualist" -- why is the term more accurate? A materialist believes in the physical universe alone. They do not believe in what would generally be called supernatural. That is, no soul, no God, no heaven, no hell, etc. Is that an inaccurate description of what you believe?

Well, there are two probs here as i see it:

1) lots of people straddle the line between materialist/scentific belief systems, and spiritual belief systems. I've suggested previously that the religious mindset is a natural phenomenon that emerges from the human brain anyway - so you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't beleive in metaphysical concepts.

2) But to talk about pure-"materialists" as you'd like to view those who believe soley in a physical source to all things, i still think you're using an unfortunate appraisal. I could happily put myself in that category - and yet there is still a strong "spiritual" dimension to my beliefs. For example:
-our understanding of biology doesn't explain "life". There are still a million and one mysteries out there. The full workrings of the universe are something we will never understand, to my mind, and as such are the equivilant of something transcendant - something outside our understanding that never-the-less guides our steps.

The main difference between us is that i don't create an anthropomorphised "god-figure" in the metphysical area we can term "the unknowable". I call it just that. The mysterious. The wonderous, unforgiving, regenerating, dynamic complexity of the universe.

It's physical in nature - yet has basically all of the "spiritual" facets that your religious appraisal has.

Here's what i think - these metaphysical preoccupations - that in turn lead to social constructs - are an emergant survival tool that all human cultures have developted as a form of survival. They are a survival tool.

In this sense you're coming at things from the wrong way. You're saying social constructs can only "validly" exist if sourced in your specific metaphysical understanding of the world. I say they'll come about anyway, and that we should analyse the "why" of that. The source of our metaphysics.

The source of mine is "logical". It's checkable. It's still broad, and all encompasing, and beautfiul. But it hasn't sprung from a human mind as such (as you know i believe the concept of God has). It's the world. We may misinterpret it - but it will still be the world.

I believe that's a more reliable concept to base all your social-constructs around - rather than basing them on a previously emerged social construct. That system lacks flexibility. And a solid base.

(see below)...

You've said this before, and it still don't know what you're talking about. I've never put forward an argument that non-believers were somehow excluded from responding to.

As for "insulting" -- I really don't think it's any more insulting than your insistence that I employ pseudo-logic to delude myself. That is, after all, what you're saying, even if it is in a roundabout way. I don't think there's any way to tell the other person they're wrong in such a situation without coming off as a little insulting.

The best I can recommend, and the policy I've employed, is to simply recognize that any insult is not deliberate, and perceived insults are inevitable in any disagreement about core beliefs.

I agree that we won't get anywhere discussing this aspect of our disagreement. We're best off discussing the issue (i guess it's just a novelty for us athiests/mystics/non-aligned-believers to get called arbitary, when that's exactly what we think of you believers ;)).

You think our godless-justifications are instinctive, not logical. So be it (tho i still find the conclusion outrageous, and unjustified)

I think your God is a social construct, a story, a creation of the human mind. As such, i think conclusions that rely on it as a justification are flawed.

Heigh ho. That's the inevitable-insult section out of the way then...

Okay, now on to the meat of the issue...

Good.

But they are. Sure, it's rational to want to live, and therefore it's rational for a materialist to support a system of government which they believe will be most likely to allow them to. But the only motive there is self-interest, and I'll wager you don't know anyone who would call a person "moral" for doing only those things which happened to benefit them.

As far as i'm concerned, that is the basis of morality. It has come about because it sustains both society and self. But unfortunately you can only get people to act in a social way if you appeal to some internal profit at some level. Now as things progress, this can allow for greater and greater selflessness in certain areas, as the pressures of selfish-survival are mitigated slightly by increased social cohesion and cooperation.

Again - my point would be - there's no difference between us other than terminology and conceptualising when it comes to this morality/rights set up.

(I would however argue that my conceptualisation and logic isn't reliant on an unprovable [God's will], and therfore has more logical strength tho ;) :p )

Besides, isn't acting out of self-interest a very instinctual thing, anyway?

Yods, surely you recognise how far you're stretching things here.

For example: Isn't wanting to protect your access to food an instinctual thing too? So could we say opening a bank account, to ensure your money is in a safe place and accessible when you're near the shops, is an instinctual act too is it?

Stop being silly. We could term anything instinctual under this line of argument.

I've been quite clear on this point, but it's regularly glossed over: this is not about any self-justifying logic. It's about consistency. A rationale which is internally consistent may be right, or it may be wrong. A rationale which is not internally consistent cannot be right. Simply put, internal consistency is the first litmus test of an idea.

You use your belief in God to justifiy your belief in God. That's cyclical and self-referential rather than consistant.

A murderer who says he likes killing women, so he killed a woman, is being "consistant". Consistancy of this sort proves nothing.

Aside from anything else tho - you're the one who's glossing over the consistancies in the "materialist" argument. We have strong reasons for acting in a moral way. Do you accept this or not? Or would you like to call our rationales arbitary and instinctive some more?

Example 1: saying that logic is more important than emotion is consistent. It doesn't contradict or undermine itself. It may or may not be correct, however.

Example 2: (touched on in an earlier post) trying to use logic to disprove logic is internally inconsistant. Thus, there's no point even dealing with the question of whether logic is reliable, because any claim that it doesn't inevitably cancels itself out.

Hehehe. I love it. "Logic is reliable because to say otherwise would be illogical".

I actually refuse to get involved in this one for now. Other than to say the approach your talking about tries to ignore the subjective and psychological in all of us. And as such has its flaws.

This is not me simply claiming that I'm right, or saying that believing in God makes me so. Not even remotely. This is purely about the first test of any idea: is it consistent?

And how many times must we point out that "materialist" views also have logical consistancy for you to acknowlege this???

Of course. Is there really any doubt about it? I believe I've already gone out of my way to say just this.

Just because I disagree with you, it doesn't mean I don't understand you.

You've shown repeatedly that you don't understand my point of view - i reckon we differ on so many aspects of approach that we'll forever talk at cross-purposes concerning certain subtleties.

This would seem to imply that what morality and belief in equality you do have is purely self-interested. But you and I both know that a great part of what many people consider to be moral is selfless in nature. Is there any logic in those sorts of acts? Does it make any sense at all, for example, to care about what happens to your loved ones after you pass on?

Sure. If you want pure logical reasoning (and again, we should both asknowledge that instinctive/emotional "reasoning" play their roles in both of our worldviews)....

How about biological survival of your genome. That could be considered a logical reason to care about your family's continued well being.

And as for your friends, there's the survival of the "memes" you share. The ideals. That's something that you could logically argue for caring about. Their survival and the survival of your ideals are contingent.

Logical enough for you?

That's one example, sure. I've yet to come across a single society founded on DISbelief in a deity which has done anything other than fail miserably. Doesn't this indicate that people need more at the heart of their country's principles than just "hey, it's not true, but things run nicely when we pretend it is"? Do you really think such a proclamation would fly?

As we've both agreed, metaphysical beliefs and contingent social structures have emerged in all societies.

What i'm suggesting would be beneficial is not absence of belief, but an altered focal point for belief.

I believe the Earth to be the source of all our knowledge, and our sustenance. I believe that for it to continue to sustain us, and for our socieities to be sustainable and productive, we need to observe certain mutually-beneficial laws.

So, if it's necessary for us to artificially percieve these things as infinite constructs, to make them work, then so be it. It could be seen as a mature recognition of our abilitiy to affect our own well-being or suffering (through our ability to conceptualise and then actualise etc)- while still being "trapped" inside the true "infinites", the steady dynamics of the physical world.

It's not just about things "running nicely". It's about things cooperating and coexisting the best way they can.

Can you think of a more beautiful, "spiritual", yet practical, objective?

I know the Universe does not have a "will," but you continually refer to the world around us as if it did. You say you use it as your standard to measure the validity of ideas, basically. I'm not entirely sure how you measure this, but however you do, the result is most easily summarized as the "will" of the Universe. That's what I mean when I use the term.

You're anthropomorphising the universe when there's no need - and indeed it's counter-productive to do so because it suggests a human-style rationale or guidance behind the machinations of the universe.

Incidently, it's very easy to use the universe as your yard-stick. You compare one thing to another. Not that tricky. (well it is actually, the universe is a complex place. But it's made easier when you don't try and imply conceptualised/God-guided orchestration in what's unfolding)

Your "better" and "worse" must stem from something. You say it stems from the world. The first thing that comes to mind when you say this, for me, is evolution. It is the closest thing we have to the world/universe weighing merit and actually making choices.

Again. Measure things against each other. Is this better or that. A massive, huge, all-encompasing task in itself. And one with no end. Just an objective - sustained, or improved, "quality" of existance.

And we, allegedly, are a product of it. We did not come about on our own accord. You believe we developed, the same as any other animal. But do you believe any other animal is acting in a way which is wrong, or incorrect? Why is the way a catfish behaves right, except in that it evolved to behave that way? And if what it does is right, why isn't what we do right for the same reason?

I don't think the fact that something evolved makes it right per se. If it's working in a balanced or balancing ecosystem, that is mutually beneficial, then i see it as "better" certainly ;). Many things evolve, but then fall by the wayside. The very fact of their emergance is not enough to say they are doing the right thing. Their sustainable and mutually-beneficial presence is.

Now, i judge humans within the same parameters. But we are also a special case...

I often get the feeling that you regard mankind as out of place, rather than just another species of animal. It's as if everything behaves in a comendable, natural way, except for us, even though you believe we evolved to this point, just like every other creature around us.

I've already said the rest of the world isn't good-by-existance-alone.

Equally, human "goodness" in my eyes is contingent on integration with the world around us. (and there-in comes the "selflessness" of sorts. The cooperation that complements the competition)

I believe we have arrived at a situation that makes us distinct from all other species, yes. It's hard to argue against this one. We have numerous negative impacts on the world purely through pursuit of our standard approaches, because we are currently more able to manipulate the world than it is to manipulate us. Although there's strong reason to believe this is changing. Chemical build up, general pollution, climate-change (if human accelerated), and the end of fossilised fuels are all challenges for this century. [not to mention the repurcussions of the next set of manipulation technologies, like genetic modification etc]

We've been accidently throwing off ecosystems for years now. Introducing rabbits/toads/weeds to australia that wipe out beneficial local set-ups. Doing the same in the oceans with sea-life transported in ballast water in transport ships.

Our effect can be enormous. We're just too self-absorbed to realise or care most of the time.

I believe it's getting high time we recognised that - and placed the world that sustains us closer to our hearts. We are all children of the earth. We shouldn't abuse our mother, or ourselves and our siblings, in this way.

Does that sound selfish? Or just sensible?

Ah, but we've been over this. For every psychologically-pleasing benefit of belief, one can always be found for disbelief as well. Furthermore, there are several down-sides, psychologically-speaking, with belief.

I can summarize them if it's been too long since our last foray into this area.

I remember full well.

But you see i'm not arguing for disbelief. I'm arguing for altered belief. Not the belief that placates us and says there is an infinite heaven waiting for us. One that scares us and says, if you want the heaven for your kids, you better make it today here on earth.

[Golgot]

Not quite. Just that materialism dictates that such "rights" are made-up social constructs, yet you'll be hard-pressed to get a materialist to actually say so, which I, admittedly, find somewhat telling. In simpler terms: actions speak louder than words, and few materialists possess a moral code that makes sense, given their denial of an objective moral standard.

Loads of "materialists" admit their morality is based on a human-made construct. (tho it's worth remembering that there are probably conscious and unconscious [rational and instinctive] aspects to the generation of all moralities)

This approach makes perfect sense, when you consider that religious moralities are human-made constructs too :p :)

Have you ever considered that the metaphysical infinites that you say justifiy your morality may be made-up social constructs designed to justify your emergant moral system?

Eh?

Just a thought :) ;)

You might not be getting anywhere because your premise (that I'm calling all materalists arbitrary, illogical, and inconsistent) is a bit off. I'm saying that certain aspects of the materialist worldview do not generally line up. This is not to say that they can't, just that they usually don't.

Hehehe. oh please do generalise away to your hearts content. (I certainly hope you've met a sample of at least 200 "materialists" to be making claims like this).

So what about my materialist view. Are you saying it doesn't line up? You've heard enough of it now to gauge whether it contains internal consistancies.

Is it arbitary? Is it illogical?

Remember, you've admitted in the past (in the Howard Dean thread, for example) that materialist morality is often irrational, and sometimes simply instinctual. This does not invalidate materialism, except in the sense that materialists are almost never willing to simply embrace it. Presumably because materialism and Atheism generally purport to be bastions of logic and reason standing in opposition to the emotion and demagoguery of religion, and to admit that they, too, do things for purely emotional or instinctive reasons, would undermine what most claim is their big edge over the religious establishment.

I'm so glad you agree that all thought-structures, religious included, are irrational and instinctual in many ways.
Therefore, we could almost see logical arguments in favour of any of them as pure rationalising after the event eh? ;) :p

(incidently, i agree that many "materialists", as you define them, think they have evolved beyond the superstition of religion, and are free of that kind of unjustifiable belief-system. But they're fools, what can you do? :) ;))

Personally, i think our societies still need the unifying effect of religions to give them simplisitic and straight-forward targets.

But i also think society genuinely does need to evolve on to a new form of social understanding - a belief system that combines the logical and the instinctive to good effect.

In other words - a new religion. "Spiritual science" perhaps. An approach that takes the Earth as its "absolute", but recognises that our varied psychologies filter how we percieve its varieties too.

How i'd love to see that day.

[Yoda]

I should have a reply for you, Gol, a bit later today. I feel we're closer to a resolution.


I admire your eloquence Yoda, so maybe you can explain to me, without resorting to sophistry, why, if you're god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, is there any evil - natural or moral - in the world?Because the alternative to allowing people to do evil is a dictator God controlling puppet subjects. The principle behind this is the same as the principle behind any free society. "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just political; it's theological, too.

[bluebottle]

Because the alternative to allowing people to do evil is a dictator God controlling puppet subjects. The principle behind this is the same as the principle behind any free society. "Give me Liberty or give me Death" isn't just political; it's theological, too.
No omnibenevolence then?

[Yoda]

No omnibenevolence then?I do not think it would be benevolent to shelter the world from evil by robbing it of free will. Freedom is, in my mind, the more benevolent of the two choices, and thus consistent with a benevolent God.

[bluebottle]

I do not think it would be benevolent to shelter the world from evil by robbing it of free will. Freedom is, in my mind, the more benevolent of the two choices, and thus consistent with a benevolent God.
If we had no free will, how would we know the difference? And couldn't we at the least do without diseases? I'm not trying to mock you, I'd honestly like to know your views.

[Yoda]

If we had no free will, how would we know the difference?Perhaps we wouldn't. But what would be the point of creating creatures that did not make their own decisions? Why would God want such pointless toys?


And couldn't we at the least do without diseases? I'm not trying to mock you, I'd honestly like to know your views.We could, though as I'm sure you know not all forms of bacteria are bad, and many play some useful role in the world.

This kind of question can be extended, though. Why can't we fly? Why can't we walk through walls? Are our inabilities to do these things further evidence that God does not exist? My tentative answer would be that it isn't, because we are capable of doing what God asks of us in spite of these imperfections.

I would also like to add (though I imagine you are already aware of this) that a fair number of Christians do believe in some form of macroevolution (which is not necessarily mutually exclusive to Christianity), and would simply explain diseases in the same way an evolutionist might.

[bluebottle]

Perhaps we wouldn't. But what would be the point of creating creatures that did not make their own decisions? Why would God want such pointless toys?
So we are free to make choices, yet if we choose to believe in another god, or none at all, we are condemned to purgatory - Exodus xx. 5, "For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."

[Yoda]

So we are free to make choices, yet if we choose to believe in another god, or none at all, we are condemned to purgatory - Exodus xx. 5, "For I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God."It depends on your perspective. If you believe God is the sole source of goodness, the rest falls right into place. How can a person who rejects goodness be met with anything but badness?

Think of it this way: the universe is a room, and God's the wood stove in the middle. The nearer you get to it, the warmer you are, and the further, the colder. Is the stove "condemnding" you to the cold when you choose not to stand near it? If not, then why would you say God "condemns" us to purgatory/Hell? If God really is what will ultimately make us happy, how can rejecting Him result in anything other than misery?

[Golgot]

I should have a reply for you, Gol, a bit later today. I feel we're closer to a resolution.

Cool :) (tho aren't i still waiting on the world-spiritualism vs.. thread? ;))

Despite getting a bit frustrated about the core differences of approaches and beliefs (again :) - not to mention the struggle of communicating them through the austere cipher of the written word), i've found it interesting being forced to see aspects of my own perspective from the outside.

My "summary" beliefs are still the same, but the details are worked out a little better now.

It depends on your perspective. If you believe God is the sole source of goodness, the rest falls right into place. How can a person who rejects goodness be met with anything but badness?

And this is one of the areas i have problems with (as you know).

One of the downsides of monotheistic religions is that they force you to unify whole rafts of complex issues into one lump concept. You must filter all your views through your concept of God, which in turn has further ideas attached to it through the constructs of organised religion.

I know you argue that secular people are the same, but i disagree. Our focal-points and filters are broader as a rule, and we are freer to explore issues, if you ask me. Some may claim to know the "why" of everything they do, and they're free to think so ;). But we can filter and explain what we observe and feel through a multiplicity of possibilities, never having to ascribe all things to a singular divinity.

I believe both mind sets and social approaches inherent in religiously-aligned and secularly-minded lifestyles have beneficial aspects.

It's just sometimes a struggle to agree :)

[Yoda]

Most of the bits and quotes are pretty similar in base form (same basic questions and arguments, but not all next to each other), so I'll respond to several at once, as it were. If you feel I've missed or left out anything that needs to be responded to, just say the word.


2) But to talk about pure-"materialists" as you'd like to view those who believe soley in a physical source to all things, i still think you're using an unfortunate appraisal. I could happily put myself in that category - and yet there is still a strong "spiritual" dimension to my beliefs. For example:
-our understanding of biology doesn't explain "life". There are still a million and one mysteries out there. The full workrings of the universe are something we will never understand, to my mind, and as such are the equivilant of something transcendant - something outside our understanding that never-the-less guides our steps.Believing that there's a great deal left to learn, and that the universe is a beautiful, wondrous thing, does not necessarily constitute "spirituality." At least, not as I've come to understand the word.

The difference between a materialist and everyone can be summed up thusly: a materialist believes that, though we may discover extraordinary things, and may never discover the answers to some of the universe's biggest questions, ultimately there is nothing which cannot be technically answered through scientific observation. There is nothing outside the physical world, and nothing capable of defying the laws of nature, even though our knowledge of those laws is subject to revision.

Does this describe you?


A murderer who says he likes killing women, so he killed a woman, is being "consistant". Consistancy of this sort proves nothing. You're right, consistency proves nothing. But inconsistency does. That's my point.

My example illustrated this very clearly: being internally consistent does not make an idea correct (I've never said anything to the contrary, though you seem awfully convinced that I have), but being internally inconsistent certainly rules out the possibility. Consistency is the first step in the validation of an idea. If an idea passes that test, it can go on to pros and cons. If it doesn't, there's no point weighing the ups and downs, because it invalidates itself.


Hehehe. I love it. "Logic is reliable because to say otherwise would be illogical".

I actually refuse to get involved in this one for now. Other than to say the approach your talking about tries to ignore the subjective and psychological in all of us. And as such has its flaws.The fact that emotion plays a part in many human decisions in no way makes it rational or logical. Logic and reason are, directly or indirectly, the basis for all human deduction and decision-making. Even emotional, impulsive people make decisions because they know, logically, that those decisions will help them reach whatever goals they've set for themselves.

If two people cannot agree on the basic validity of logical deduction, there's no way to have a conversation. It is similar to the possibility that all our perceptions may be an illusion; even if it is so, we have no choice but to assume they are real, if we're to operate at all. The same goes for our ability to reason.


How about biological survival of your genome. That could be considered a logical reason to care about your family's continued well being.

And as for your friends, there's the survival of the "memes" you share. The ideals. That's something that you could logically argue for caring about. Their survival and the survival of your ideals are contingent.

Logical enough for you?Actually, no. There's no non-instinctual reason to care much about what happens after you die. Wanting your genome to survive, as well as spreading ideas that you believe to be beneficial to your species, are both instinct in one of its rawest forms.

You seem to be relying on the fact that most people share this desire to justify calling it logical. But the idea of logic is that it remains unchanged and consistent no matter how badly it is muddled or ignored. It'd have no value, otherwise.


Incidently, it's very easy to use the universe as your yard-stick. You compare one thing to another. Not that tricky. (well it is actually, the universe is a complex place. But it's made easier when you don't try and imply conceptualised/God-guided orchestration in what's unfolding)Again. Measure things against each other. Is this better or that. A massive, huge, all-encompasing task in itself. And one with no end. Just an objective - sustained, or improved, "quality" of existance. At last we come down to it. :) When I ask you how you make moral judgement, you say you measure them against the universe. I ask how. You say you simply compare things. But that doesn't get us anywhere; compare them to what? How do you determine which is better? What's your yardstick?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that you compare things based on their benefit to the world as a whole. But how is that benefit measured? And, however it's measured, why measure it that way as opposed to any other way? And how is your decision to measure things in one specific way, as opposed to the billions of other possible ways, anything other than arbitrary?

The fact that you may have put a great deal of time and thought into your choice of beliefs does not cease to make them arbitrary, because each decision within your framework of beliefs, however logical within that framework, still assumes the validity of your core values. At some point, your decision-making process must inevitably boil down to a base principle as to what is and is not desirable that you hold simply because you want to, or else simply because you feel you ought to. These two possibilities are reasonably summarized as (you guessed it) "arbitrary" and "instinctual."

Heck, let's take it further: you might be onto something by playing down logic. After all, assuming you believe in the big bang theory, your thoughts are nothing more than the result of a big, purposeless cosmic accident. That means your very thoughts are accidents, as well. In light of this, do you have any reason to trust them?


Equally, human "goodness" in my eyes is contingent on integration with the world around us. (and there-in comes the "selflessness" of sorts. The cooperation that complements the competition) Okay. So it's not mere ability to survive which makes things "good," in your eyes. It's cooperation and, simply put, things which are mutually beneficial to all creatures, ideally. That's fine and all; I've got no objection. As a Theist, I think mankind has both emotional and logical reasons to care for the world around it in a considerate manner.

But as a materialist, you're faced with a question of purpose and motivation. Have you ever followed your goals for the human race through to their logical conclusion? If you have, you must know that even if the human race achieves all the things you wish it to (cooperation, environmental consideration, peace, fuel efficiency, and cheaper movie tickets), it will one day (a long, long time from now) result in nothing but death.

Thermodynamics are an utter indictment of any materialist with ambitious desires for the human race, because no matter how well we survive...no matter how good we get at conserving consumption and energy, it must inevitably run out. And when it does, any species lucky enough to last to that point (humans included) will be left to die.

In other words, if we do nothing, we die now. If we make an effort, we die later. And if we do absolutely everything right, we die even later, and all at once. And we presumably cause more pain and suffering than we would have if we died out with a smaller population, too. With that in mind, what reason is there to forge ahead?

[Yoda]

Cool :) (tho aren't i still waiting on the world-spiritualism vs.. thread? ;))It's getting to the point where we're covering most of those issues here, but believe it or not I've still got a response written up (maybe 80-90% done), that I haven't touched in months. We can always decide to move this discussion there, if it continues long enough. My only reluctance is due to the fact that we'd then be juggling all those old issues, as well as a few new ones, and arguing 6 things at once makes for some pretty slow-going.


Despite getting a bit frustrated about the core differences of approaches and beliefs (again :) - not to mention the struggle of communicating them through the austere cipher of the written word), i've found it interesting being forced to see aspects of my own perspective from the outside.

My "summary" beliefs are still the same, but the details are worked out a little better now.I feel the same way, actually. Glad to hear it. :)


And this is one of the areas i have problems with (as you know).

One of the downsides of monotheistic religions is that they force you to unify whole rafts of complex issues into one lump concept. You must filter all your views through your concept of God, which in turn has further ideas attached to it through the constructs of organised religion.

I know you argue that secular people are the same, but i disagree. Our focal-points and filters are broader as a rule, and we are freer to explore issues, if you ask me. Some may claim to know the "why" of everything they do, and they're free to think so ;). But we can filter and explain what we observe and feel through a multiplicity of possibilities, never having to ascribe all things to a singular divinity.

I believe both mind sets and social approaches inherent in religiously-aligned and secularly-minded lifestyles have beneficial aspects.

It's just sometimes a struggle to agree :)I think you're missing something here, though. Even if all of what you say here is right...even if there are some downsides to various forms of Theism...such claims would take a backseat when it comes to actual truth.

In other words, pointing out the potential downsides of a belief (and I hope you'll acknowledge that they all have downsides) isn't necessarily an argument against that belief. God could exist, and your comments above could also be true. The two don't conflict. Thus, if I've come to the conclusion that God exists (for various reasons), the above doesn't make for a compelling argument. If God exists, the downsides don't matter. The truth outweighs them. Therefore, this line of discussion holds no weight if God does, in fact, exist. Which means it only points us right back at the question of God's existence, where we were before.

[Golgot]

Yes, many strands have got mashed together, but let's judge each lump by its general flavour...;)

Believing that there's a great deal left to learn, and that the universe is a beautiful, wondrous thing, does not necessarily constitute "spirituality." At least, not as I've come to understand the word.

Well my idea of spirituality is based on the idea that there is a kind of sense and unity to the universe - just not a "human" "sense", or necessarily a fully percievable or concievable unity. Never-the-less, it exists, and within it's framework, things can be done better or worse. As self-aware creatures, it's our duty to integrate our subjective-survival-desires with the objective-demands-of-reality. I just happen to believe there's a complementary point in the middle, based around the axis between competition and cooperation.....(you've heard this b4, but....)

There's a contingent "state-of-mind" point here, that involves advocating a balance between rational analysis and instinctive/unconscious appreciation. i.e. - that this vast and complex system is not rationalisable into a mechanistic structure that we can understand within our limited frames-of-reference, so we benefit from allowing our instinctive appreciations of unities and regularities to supplement our rational appraisals of best practice and likely outcomes.

That's a brief summary of the functional side of what i consider spirituality.

Part of what seperates "spiritual" approaches from organised religions, to me, is that they are about accessing the original inspiration behind said religions. They're free form. They're not tied to the human-constructs that have formed around established religions.

That's the ideal.

It's also why i think the world benefits from having both people who prefer being "told" the structure, and/or being given comfort by certainty - and those who prefer to seek out exceptions to the accepted rules, and who don't require things to makes sense or reach logical closure.

A totally balanced individual should be capable of both i think - and these two core "approaches" exist in multiple social formats methinks - but i have a feeling people lean more towards one side or the other.

Both are natural imperatives tho i think. Both have generated religions in the past.


The difference between a materialist and everyone can be summed up thusly: a materialist believes that, though we may discover extraordinary things, and may never discover the answers to some of the universe's biggest questions, ultimately there is nothing which cannot be technically answered through scientific observation. There is nothing outside the physical world, and nothing capable of defying the laws of nature, even though our knowledge of those laws is subject to revision.

Does this describe you?

Here's the problem (and the problem with your extreme definition of a materialist).

No. [EDIT:actually, yes-and-no: i believe everything happens within the "laws of nature" - i just don't believe we'll ever know fully what those laws are - and that they may well be flexible depending on context. i.e. over time and space etc]

And i think it only describes a minority of people who aren't aligned to a religion.

I think it applies to hard-core scientists, who are themselves members of the "religion-of-science" once they reach that extreme, IMO (and i take great pleasure in "demonstrating" this to scientists who think they carry none of the vestiges or failings of religious dogma)

And yet....i only believe in the "material".

All that means is i think that anything miraculous that happens still has a "material" basis - we just might not know what material it's made out of yet ;). Or whatever.

There's a thousand and one variations on the theme when it comes to "materialists" - just as there's huge variety amongst believers. (and a huge variety of reasons for these variations).

In short - i think your "materialist" definition is too limited.

People aren't that logical for a start anyway - so even if you were to prove that the "pure-materialist" approach (that you've described) were illogical (which i agree with), that wouldn't bother the 95% of the world who don't operate on a basis of 99% logic. (although that 5% of pure-materialists would get pissed off when they realised they've been acting religiously all this time ;)).

You're right, consistency proves nothing. But inconsistency does. That's my point.

My example illustrated this very clearly: being internally consistent does not make an idea correct (I've never said anything to the contrary, though you seem awfully convinced that I have), but being internally inconsistent certainly rules out the possibility. Consistency is the first step in the validation of an idea. If an idea passes that test, it can go on to pros and cons. If it doesn't, there's no point weighing the ups and downs, because it invalidates itself.

Well, unfortunately, in that case your argument falls down, coz it's inconsistant.

At least - it relies on the existance of god - something which cannot be logically proved. Yet it claims to be a logical argument. That's a fundamental flaw.

So i'm afraid you have to give me some logical reasons for the existence of god before i can consider your belief in him to be anything other than arbitary and illogical - and hence your argument too.

(incidently, i believe in the validity of some forms of contradicition...but that's another issue...more or less...)


The fact that emotion plays a part in many human decisions in no way makes it rational or logical. Logic and reason are, directly or indirectly, the basis for all human deduction and decision-making. Even emotional, impulsive people make decisions because they know, logically, that those decisions will help them reach whatever goals they've set for themselves.

If two people cannot agree on the basic validity of logical deduction, there's no way to have a conversation. It is similar to the possibility that all our perceptions may be an illusion; even if it is so, we have no choice but to assume they are real, if we're to operate at all. The same goes for our ability to reason.

I disagree on one core point. That the reason for the action is the logical deduction in many cases. Often we act on instinct and rationalise afterwards. And this works on a longer scale too.

I believe a belief in god to be an instinctive act. I believe any logical justification for that belief to be secondary to that belief.

Therefore, any actions taken because of that central belief are certainly not "logical" in basis, though they may have logical constructs formed around them.

I do agree though that "logical"/"rational" debate is the only form available.

I'm not convinced it can help us alter our instinctive aspects. The Buddha asserted this, and i think he was probably right. Only experience itself can change these instinctively held beliefs within us.

The best that can be hoped for is that you can prompt a person to pursue a fresh option within themselves etc.

Actually, no. There's no non-instinctual reason to care much about what happens after you die. Wanting your genome to survive, as well as spreading ideas that you believe to be beneficial to your species, are both instinct in one of its rawest forms.

Well again, if you're going to term anything that doesn't fit your argument as instinctual, then we're not going to get anywhere.

I agree that a belief in God logically justifies caring about long-term univerals.

I assert that a belief in the interconnectedness of the universe equally confers logical justification for caring about long-term universals.

Both come from an instinctive, nay inescapable, desire to believe in something, so we could call them both instinctive. (hell, it's my main argument against your logical-superiority-of-religious-morals argument anyway ;)).

But let's not. Let's recognise people will always strive to populate their known world with greater unknown structures - even "pure materialists".

We can call any argument "instinctual" at heart under the rationale you're using.

Let's concentrate on the strength of the actual justifications shall we.

You seem to be relying on the fact that most people share this desire to justify calling it logical. But the idea of logic is that it remains unchanged and consistent no matter how badly it is muddled or ignored. It'd have no value, otherwise.

That's "religious" logic i'm afraid. Classic "universalising"/reductionist logic. Which i think exists in its purest form in the human mind - but when taken to said "purity", it bears next to no relation to the muddy world around us - and so becomes next to useless for anything other than learning about how the human mind would have the world be. :)

In other words - i think you over-rate logic, and indeed what it can do. It's vital. It's the backbone of the human mind as it were. But it's fallible. It's too rigid - as we've said before. You've said that makes it a perfect measuring stick. I've pointed out that space is curved ;) (more or less. But you get the picture maybe? Logic's cool - but it's a tool. It needs to work in conjunction. It's not the be all and end all. It's actually subjective in many ways. Again - think about how perfect Euclidian geomatry seemed - how eternally and consistantly it seemed to desribe the world. Until the inconsistancies insisted themselves over time - and it lost it's aspirations to universal applicability. And so shall it always be. ;))

But we can refine. Yes we can refine again and again.

(but personally i'd like to see the "unconscious" things we don't know we know being allowed to affect our classifications/decisions, if they're ever to effectively bend. There are aways ;). Just a personal preference :). Getting the best out of all our faculties working in conjunction and all that.).

Anyway. Like i said b4 - this particular disagreement between us is a whole nother kettle of talking tuna. It's a lagoon of moonjuice. It's a storm in the caboose and a rampant recluse. (It's a profuse problem of interaction and rational refraction is what it is. Heigh ho :))

At last we come down to it. :) When I ask you how you make moral judgement, you say you measure them against the universe. I ask how. You say you simply compare things. But that doesn't get us anywhere; compare them to what? How do you determine which is better? What's your yardstick?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that you compare things based on their benefit to the world as a whole. But how is that benefit measured? And, however it's measured, why measure it that way as opposed to any other way? And how is your decision to measure things in one specific way, as opposed to the billions of other possible ways, anything other than arbitrary?

The central yardstick is: "do these actions contribute to a more multi-benefitting, cooperative world?" (i.e. this is the central, non-arbitary, target we should aim at IMO)

There are systems of mutual-benefit in nature that are enviably efficient, and therefore provide the most "free energy" possible for the component elements. This i see as a structural good worth pursuing. It seems like a format for life that brings stability, yet fluidity, and as such the best world possible. (Of course, times of violent change have also proved necessary, both in nature and human history, but i dare say they'll handle themsevles ;)).

To me, religions are an "ecosystem" of this sort. They bring social cohesion while allowing for change over time, and internal variation.

But if any of their elements start to clash too much with a changing and unforgiving world, then it's time for them to change (or ideally, for us smart little humans to guess the best outcome and interfere first).

And there's the nub of the problem. We're not very good at assessing and logically prescribing these types of situations. They're better when they emerge, as a result of all known interactions having rubbed up against eachother.

But that's no reason not to try. (the most efficient computer chips ever made were constructed using darwinistic principles, i'm given to understand). It's just a reason to try with a massive amount of caution.

Either way. I have a yardstick. It's observable. It's desirable. If you look at its various facets you can draw moral-conclusions from it (and you get the whole other fascinating aspect of dealing with our role within it of course ;)).

And to be honest, i think your just being silly with the arbitary thing now. I understand why you came up with the theory - but i think you should accept that you've extended the theory beyond its boundaries. (And indeed, that you need to re-assess "materialists". I agree that the idea of your God, with the moral arguments attached to him through the bible etc, provides a given reason for morality. And even tho there are texts that extrapolate morality from my God, i concur that they are not as unified are explicit in their demands for morality. That's not to say such precepts can't be derived from my God. We're not arbitary. We just believe in "the world". You just happen to think the world is arbitary. That's the real source of your argument methinks. Yet the world has settled on certain paths over others because they work best. It may not be "thought-out", but it's still not arbitary. It's emergant. Different thing.)

The fact that you may have put a great deal of time and thought into your choice of beliefs does not cease to make them arbitrary, because each decision within your framework of beliefs, however logical within that framework, still assumes the validity of your core values. At some point, your decision-making process must inevitably boil down to a base principle as to what is and is not desirable that you hold simply because you want to, or else simply because you feel you ought to. These two possibilities are reasonably summarized as (you guessed it) "arbitrary" and "instinctual."

Not necessarily. This reductionism is something you hold dear. I think it's valid, but needs balancing with relativity to make it truly accurate (and vice-cersa) - coz as much as the world sits still, it keeps moving too. One of life's big constants is Change (one of my favourite little sayings, as you've no doubt spotted ;)).

All core values must be assumptions in my view. You can never know them conclusively through logical/rational means alone. The limitations of the human mind invalidate the possiblity of our being able to conceptualise and adequately explain the most wonderous complexities of life.

That's my position. I have no problem with it.

We're both the same - as i've said many times before - i just don't expect a final explanation; a completed picture etc.

Heck, let's take it further: you might be onto something by playing down logic. After all, assuming you believe in the big bang theory, your thoughts are nothing more than the result of a big, purposeless cosmic accident. That means your very thoughts are accidents, as well. In light of this, do you have any reason to trust them?

Oh for heaven's sake (and please remember how ironic this seems to me - coz despite enjoying the "flip-sides" to logic - as a secularist, i ultimately see your major underlying justifier, God, as illogical. So, to me, it's you who should be "renouncing" logic ;)).

Do you see from the above how psychologically necessary rationalism is? It tricks us, conveniently and usefully, into thinking we know "the answer". It's a survival tool on many levels. It helps us lever the backs off things - but it also helps us believe that we therefore control that thing. It's a marvellous thing is the consciously-controlled, absolutely-rational approach. But taken to extremes it's the height of subjectivity and folly, if you ask me. Blindingly so.

I've told you before, i "trust" none of my ideas 100%. But i do believe the world is 100% there, when conceptualised as a whole. It's just that we can't actually do that accurately. So i accept a lack of closure. I accept that in theory there's a universal absolute - but in practice we'll never know it.

I accept that if something makes complete sense it's probably wrong.

Do you get the logic?

Okay. So it's not mere ability to survive which makes things "good," in your eyes. It's cooperation and, simply put, things which are mutually beneficial to all creatures, ideally. That's fine and all; I've got no objection. As a Theist, I think mankind has both emotional and logical reasons to care for the world around it in a considerate manner.

One of the many marvellous things about religion of course - is it's one of the many facilitators of the cooperation that is equally important in good "quality" of survival, and indeed sustainable survival (IMO), to balance out natural, survivalistic, competition.

(of course it all backfires when it comes in competition with another religion...but there you go. The benefit of "venerating" the Earth you see...no one can disagree about the "God" in question....though of course the nature of worship is a whole other branching-tree of problems ;)).

But as a materialist, you're faced with a question of purpose and motivation. Have you ever followed your goals for the human race through to their logical conclusion? If you have, you must know that even if the human race achieves all the things you wish it to (cooperation, environmental consideration, peace, fuel efficiency, and cheaper movie tickets), it will one day (a long, long time from now) result in nothing but death.

Thermodynamics are an utter indictment of any materialist with ambitious desires for the human race, because no matter how well we survive...no matter how good we get at conserving consumption and energy, it must inevitably run out. And when it does, any species lucky enough to last to that point (humans included) will be left to die.

In other words, if we do nothing, we die now. If we make an effort, we die later. And if we do absolutely everything right, we die even later, and all at once. And we presumably cause more pain and suffering than we would have if we died out with a smaller population, too. With that in mind, what reason is there to forge ahead?

Hehehehe. Well, here's a "materialist-spiritualist" answer for you. If we consider the conversion of our bodies "energies" into new uses, then everything's cool in the short term. And we then consider the multiple arguments of quantum mechanics that postulate everything from "mirror-worlds" on the other side of the big-bang, to infinite recurrences of "big bangs", to numerous other hypothesis of grand energy-retention (a big doctrine of faith in science ;)).....then again, you can see a kind of immortality there.

I don't believe in "immortal" souls, in the sense of a universally enduring "personality". I think that's just wishful thinking.

But i do believe, in the "short" term, that we don't completely die when the time comes. We live on in the sense that our actions live on in the hearts and minds of those who were around us. Our children, our ideas, the fond memories we leave behind for others. The examples of how to live your life (and of corse, how not to ;)).

I'm thinking about all this especially tonight - because a man who is basically my (was sorry), basically a father of sorts to me, died this morning. After a long fight with cancer, he left this world. My great aunt did the same a few days before.

But i know, for as long as all of us that knew them are alive - they're still alive. We'll feel their absence most keenly over the next months. We'll bring them to life in the sharing of our love for them when we come together to remember. And we'll shift our boundaries, and change, and reform. But always carry that space where they were too.

And really, that's all we can do. It's realistic. And it's beautful too. And to me, it's a reason to lead the best life i can. Coz i know the echo of what i do will leave its mark, and that as part of the world, we can make it less stark.

Doesn't that sound reasonable to you?

[Golgot]

It's getting to the point where we're covering most of those issues here, but believe it or not I've still got a response written up (maybe 80-90% done), that I haven't touched in months. We can always decide to move this discussion there, if it continues long enough. My only reluctance is due to the fact that we'd then be juggling all those old issues, as well as a few new ones, and arguing 6 things at once makes for some pretty slow-going.

That's all cool. I was only pulling your leg. (we've got enough powder-kegs of discussion topics to be tap-dancing on for now ;)).

I feel the same way, actually. Glad to hear it. :)

We're fun "opposites" you and me. ;)


I think you're missing something here, though. Even if all of what you say here is right...even if there are some downsides to various forms of Theism...such claims would take a backseat when it comes to actual truth.

In other words, pointing out the potential downsides of a belief (and I hope you'll acknowledge that they all have downsides) isn't necessarily an argument against that belief. God could exist, and your comments above could also be true. The two don't conflict. Thus, if I've come to the conclusion that God exists (for various reasons), the above doesn't make for a compelling argument. If God exists, the downsides don't matter. The truth outweighs them. Therefore, this line of discussion holds no weight if God does, in fact, exist. Which means it only points us right back at the question of God's existence, where we were before.

I'm afraid then, we really have come to the nub of it. To continue these discussions - you're going to have to try and logically prove the existence of God. (because i'm afraid this whole if-God-exists-then-God-exists argument is consistantly silly...;)).

I agree that all beliefs have downsides. I just don't think you can wave the magic wand of God-is-truth/correctness/goodness to counter-balance inherent flaws.

If you want to rely on God in a logical argument - you'll have to make a strong logical case for his existance (and one that isn't self-contradictory in any way :) ;))

[Golgot]

Yay, help may have arrived in the logical, scientific justification for God.

A physicist has come up with a probability equation that suggests there's a 67% chance that God exists.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/long022604.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/sciences/story/0,12243,1164894,00.html

I'd say he's a touch biased (and he agrees in many ways - but then, he's a whimsical man. Still, his personal assessment of God's existence is that there's a 95% probability. He puts the extra 28% down to faith ;))

I think our impending "does-God-exist" debate could benefit from looking at some of his criteria Yods. Although i think we were set to cover similar ground anyway

[Sir Toose]

If you want to rely on God in a logical argument - you'll have to make a strong logical case for his existance (and one that isn't self-contradictory in any way :) ;))


While Yoda is busy with that, I'll be expecting your essay on the logical and scientific proofs that God does not exist.

Personally, I think the two co-exist and one will ultimately lead to the other but we (man) have a lot of catching up to do.

[firegod]

Toose,

If I tell you that I believe in vampires, and that you should believe in them too, while you say you don't believe in them, who has the bigger burden of proof? I do, of course. If I tell you that there is a 500 foot human living on a mountain in Switzerland, I'm the one who needs to show proof, not the people who don't believe it. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for people to understand.

Edit: I neglected to mention that it is usually IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something doesn't exist. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

[Sir Toose]

Toose,

If I tell you that I believe in vampires, and that you should believe in them too, while you say you don't believe in them, who has the bigger burden of proof? I do, of course. If I tell you that there is a 500 foot human living on a mountain in Switzerland, I'm the one who needs to show proof, not the people who don't believe it. I don't know why this is such a hard concept for people to understand.

Edit: I neglected to mention that it is usually IMPOSSIBLE to prove that something doesn't exist. Prove to me that unicorns don't exist.

Are you telling me that you think that believers are a minority? Are you comparing God to vampires and giants? You're the one bucking thousands of years of tradition and validation (yes, I did use that word) AND you want me to do your homework for you. I would wager all that I own that most of the world are believers (in one form or another) and that you (atheists) are still the minority. THAT is the concept that is apparently difficult for 'people' to understand.

[Golgot]

Are you telling me that you think that believers are a minority? Are you comparing God to vampires and giants? You're the one bucking thousands of years of tradition and validation (yes, I did use that word) AND you want me to do your homework for you. I would wager all that I own that most of the world are believers (in one form or another) and that you (atheists) are still the minority. THAT is the concept that is apparently difficult for 'people' to understand.

Erm, the majority of people thought the world was flat didn't they?

(Well, actually, probably not...everyone could see the moon was spherical, sailors knew you didn't drop off the horizon, guys in Babylon has done the calculations using shadows etc etc etc. Generally, people figured out the round-things idea. But people like Irving Washington and others spread the idea that they hadn't around the 1800s [ironically, to further the idea that "The Church" was against science and investigation {as it was on occasion, but not as a rule}])

So maybe the question should be....don't the majority of people today think the majority of people before thought the world was flat? ;)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And what i'm trying to get at with all that is.......

1) ideas contained in religion, and especially those that are consistant over time, almost undoubtably reflect genuine knowledge about the universe.
2) whether this knowledge pertains more to the nature of humans and of the physical world, or to the existance of an immortal designer God....well...i know what i believe ;)
3) Yes, you're surely right when you say more people are believers than not. I'd say we're all believers - it's a necessity. Which is why the creator-God looks a lot like a "unicorn" belief to us who choose to believe in the (...mystical, uncategorisable entity called the...) Universe. It exists because it provides an explanation that is both intuitively and rationally pleasing. And furthermore, it provides a social function.

I'd say scientific-mysticism (i.e. "Earth/Universe-worship") has achieved the same as the former, but stayed closer to the evidence we've "unearthed" (;) :)).

On the second thing, i think religion's still got a thing or too going on.

But i doubt you'll ever get me to limit my beliefs in the...beauty, complexity, regularity, destructiveness, creativity, variability and un-fully-knowablilityness of life...into...a belief in a designer God.

But then i believe in the beauty and balance of ecosytems and cooperative competition (man ;)). A not-consciously-beneficient, harsh yet judicious, and occasionally delicious, "task-master" none-the-less, that insists on nothing but the best from us.

I agree with Firegod. We know the world exists. No need to prove that. You do have a burdon of proof if you want to say God exists.

(thankfully, you seem to be up for a discussion ;):))

[Sir Toose]

I agree with Firegod. We know the world exists. No need to prove that. You do have a burdon of proof if you want to say God exists.

(thankfully, you seem to be up for a discussion ;):))

I knew you'd pop up with the 'world is flat' argument. I was wagering with myself only on the timing. :D

I could take the easy road and simply say that I have no burden, I know God that exists.

I'm considering leaping off the fence here but I want to establish my views early on. I do not disrespect science or logic. I DO think that science and logic will eventually lead mankind to the conclusion that our current explanations and proofs are microcosmic.


A few things:

1). The complexity of life suggest design versus coincidence
2). The fossil record is grossly incomplete to support 'evolution' et al
3). The fossil record suggests sudden appearances of organisms
4). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown, versus growing in complexity as in the case of evolution.
5). Science cannot explain how life is generated form non-life.
6). Science cannot explain what 'life' actually is
7). Genetic code (on record) does not allow drastic mutation (evolution) within historical confines.

Those lead me to look further than science for my explanations. I can go into greater detail or not, up to you all.

What leads one man astray leads another to salvation.

[Sedai]

I knew you'd pop up with the 'world is flat' argument. I was wagering with myself only on the timing. :D

I could take the easy road and simply say that I have no burden, I know God that exists.

I'm considering leaping off the fence here but I want to establish my views early on. I do not disrespect science or logic. I DO think that science and logic will eventually lead mankind to the conclusion that our current explanations and proofs are microcosmic.


A few things:

1). The complexity of life suggest design versus coincidence
2). The fossil record is grossly incomplete to support 'evolution' et al
3). The fossil record suggests sudden appearances of organisms
4). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown, versus growing in complexity as in the case of evolution.
5). Science cannot explain how life is generated form non-life.
6). Science cannot explain what 'life' actually is
7). Genetic code (on record) does not allow drastic mutation (evolution) within historical confines.

Those lead me to look further than science for my explanations. I can go into greater detail or not, up to you all.

What leads one man astray leads another to salvation.


Solid post, and I agree with some of the points, however:

1). The complexity of life suggest design versus coincidence
Only one coincidental event would be needed as a catalyst to combine the necessary elements needed to create life. After this event, a cyclic evolution would begin with each concurrent system breaking down eventually which brings us to the next point...

4). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown, versus growing in complexity as in the case of evolution.

Carnot's Principle, aka the entropy effect, suggests that indeed all systems break down. This breaking down could be a part of a larger cyclic system, however.

5). Science cannot explain how life is generated form non-life.

I would theorize that some sort of celestial collision could/did cause this, which seems plausible to me.

It is of course also possible that these events were set in motion by a higher power/grand design....

This much is clear:

We still have much to learn :yup:

_S

[Sir Toose]

Only one coincidental event would be needed as a catalyst to combine the necessary elements needed to create life. After this event, a cyclic evolution would begin with each concurrent system breaking down eventually which brings us to the next point...
_S

Possibly true, but look to the fossil record for validation. Evolution takes a far longer time than the oldest bones are old. Evolutionists put forward the 'primordial soup' theory but leave out the fact that oxygen would kill thier super amino chain cells. In response, the evolutionists postulated that oxygen must have been absent from the atmosphere, thereby allowing the formation of evolutionary cells. The geologic record, however, (advancing daily) indicates that an ammonium atmosphere never existed or it would be evident in the layers of sediment.


I would theorize that some sort of celestial collision could/did cause this, which seems plausible to me.

Transference?

Maybe, but that's a band-aid.

[Golgot]

I knew you'd pop up with the 'world is flat' argument. I was wagering with myself only on the timing. :D

;) (hey, i took a vaguely novel slant on it didn't i? ;))

I could take the easy road and simply say that I have no burden, I know God that exists.

I'm considering leaping off the fence here but I want to establish my views early on. I do not disrespect science or logic. I DO think that science and logic will eventually lead mankind to the conclusion that our current explanations and proofs are microcosmic.

Yeah, but forums necessitate that we use "logic/rational" arguments.

As much as i agree with you that there's much that is "macrocosmic", that there is much that we understand via other faculties than the logical-rational aspects of our brain alone (which are so much the province of science's clinical deconstructions of the world)....we gotta have a clash of theories here. And thankfully we're both up for sourcing our arguments in reality to do that.

The other stuff. Well, that's our own personal path, and a broad one we share at the same time. (and who knows, maybe one day we'll come up with a way to let it guide the logical steps of our rational thoughts and debates too)




A few things:

Mind if i deconstruct...? :)

1). The complexity of life suggest design versus coincidence

Not necessarily. Complexity can arise through simple underlying structures. This has been demonstrated for decades, but with increasingly impressive results (thanks in part to computer modelling/technology advances). The theory in question is that of emergance".

An example: Clay and carbon-molecules both have properties that, in combination, allow for the creation of a more complex structure to be built up. These more-complex structures allow for further explosions of complexity.

This is one example amongst many. (i'm sure we can get on to more detail later ;))

Suffice to say that complexity [I]can come about without "design". (but it's very "human" to think otherwise).

=2). The fossil record is grossly incomplete to support 'evolution' et al

Agreed that the fossil record is sparse, and in need of careful and cautious interpretation, for a start (some fascinating potential "insights"/possibilities from our past can come from single sites even - like the potentially mind-boggling "Burgess Shale").

But it's not the only support for the theory of evolution. We can also look at the genetic make up of modern creatures and compare them. Or even just look at their general biological/chemical make-up. For example, we can notice the striking similarities between a lizard's brain and a core section of our own in terms of form, behaviour and apparent function. They tally frighteningly well for it to be just chance.

3). The fossil record suggests sudden appearances of organisms

There's much to be debated and learned. (and it's worth noting you've just pointed out how sparse the fossil record is. Perhaps the organism introduction is fairly gradual, but the record is aprupt? :)).

Never-the-less...

A core tenet of many evolution theories is that sudden, devastating change is what stimulates new explosions of change/variety. And this can happen very quickly, of necessity. (i can go in to much more detail on all of this :))

This can all be explained under Darwinistic principles.

Again, our main source of information must be examination of modern evidence/life to try and understand our scant "intelligence" (;)) from the past.

4). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown, versus growing in complexity as in the case of evolution.

Are you dissolving and breaking down? Yes. Is life breaking down. It doesn't seem to be. Energy is never lost. Isn't that another rule of Thermodynamics? :)

Be careful how you interpret physics reductionisms. Remember, certain physicists assserted, much to their own confusion, that kangaroo's couldn't possibly bounce the way they do (and that bee couldn't fly etc)

It's all about application of the rule. Those guys didn't take the context into account.

5). Science cannot explain how life is generated form non-life.

Well, it can have a go at tackling certain intriguing aspects. But i agree, because...

6). Science cannot explain what 'life' actually is

I'm so glad. Science is still too limited.

Like i said before....the earth exists. Life exists. We, who don't sprout from the everything-must-be-explained-through-God tree, look for explanations based on what seems to be. Without losing our social spirituality of course :)

7). Genetic code (on record) does not allow drastic mutation (evolution) within historical confines.

That's just far too definitive a statement where the DNA-RNA-protein-livingcreature chain is concerned.

I read up a lot on DNA etc too. There's a lot of debate about the limits and behaviour of mutation. The "neo-darwinists" would have it that all mutations are random.

I'm with the camps that suggest there is probably a response aspect to mutation - and who have demonstrated forms of adaptive mutation by putting well-understood lifeforms like yeast and fruitflies under distressingly challenging conditions.

Either way, you can't make such a categorical claim. Genetics is a big old open field (which gets slightly clogged up by all those pesticide-tolerant weeds we've created by mistake, but heigh ho ;) :rolleyes: )

Those lead me to look further than science for my explanations. I can go into greater detail or not, up to you all.

What leads one man astray leads another to salvation.

Hehehe. So nice you think you know where you're going. I do too. I hope you don't mind if i think that it's you who's astray in certain key ways :)

Coz i also agree that there's more to "life" than science. I just don't think that makes "God", as defined by religions, the automatic truth beyond.

[bluebottle]

1). The complexity of life suggest design versus coincidence
How so?
2). The fossil record is grossly incomplete to support 'evolution' et al
No, it isn't. One excellent example is the archaeopteryx.
3). The fossil record suggests sudden appearances of organisms
I thought you just said, it's "grossly incomplete".
4). The Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown, versus growing in complexity as in the case of evolution.
No, it doesn't: It is impossible to obtain a process such that the unique effect is the subtraction of a positive heat from a reservoir and the production of a positive work.
The entropy of a closed system never decreases
5). Science cannot explain how life is generated form non-life.
At one time science couldn't explain lightning and until Copernicus it was believed that the earth was at the centre of solar system. Times change and our knowledge grows.
6). Science cannot explain what 'life' actually is
Definitions may vary, but of course it can.
Here's one:
1) Living organisms contain molecular components such as: carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins.
2) Living organisms require both energy and matter in order to continue living.
3) Living organisms are composed of at least one cell.
4) Living organisms maintain homeostasis.
5) Species of living organisms will evolve.
7). Genetic code (on record) does not allow drastic mutation (evolution) within historical confines.
Drastic mutation is not the same as evolution, and many children of those who suffer from the effects of radioactivity are indeed drastically mutated on the genetic level.

Also, do you know how many races of dogs there are? It may have been humans who did the selecting, as opposed to nature, but domesticated animals and crops have been evolved to our demands.

[firegod]

I think almost everything I wanted to say has already been said. Toose, I'm thinking you are reading some pretty goofy magazines. ;) The Second Law of Thermodynamics? I haven't heard that argument in a long time, since it is so easily shot down.

[firegod]

I thought of something I wanted to respond to:


1). The complexity of life suggest design versus coincidence

I'm not sure how far you take this idea. It has already been pretty well discredited by Golgot, but if you mean that this is good evidence for a god, then I would ask you this: If complex things need to have a creator, then who created God (who, if exists, is someone or something that would obviously be complex)? And if someone or something created your god, how can you call him God?

[Sir Toose]

Okay, Your turn.


I'm not going to sit here and forward all of the discussion points so that you all can try to shoot them down. The fact is that none of you have any more evidence either way than I do and we are all just shooting in the dark.

So, all of you oh so learned scientists....

Tell me

1). Where and how did life begin?
2). Use the fossil record to support your claims.
3). Explain (scientifically) how evolutionary 'mechanics' works.
4). Genetic code only allows for small mutations at any one time. Evolution calls for many mutations over a short period of time. Please dispute this and explain, using sources from your 'scientists' of course.
5). "archaeopteryx", otherwise known as the piltdown chicken, is not even accepted as reality. You can't quote science on one hand and then use folklore as proof on the other. If it is (or were) real, all that it would prove is that a species can become better. It does not prove that there is or ever was extra-species evolution.

Since the arguments are 'easily shot down' I'm really looking forward to learning from you all where and how life began. Seems like a great way to spend a Wednesday.

[firegod]

I'm sure that your questions will be answered, whether it is by me or not. However, all I really feel like saying at the moment is that I don't need to know how life began in order to not believe in your god or any other god. And you didn't answer MY question.

[Sir Toose]

I'm sure that your questions will be answered, whether it is by me or not. However, all I really feel like saying at the moment is that I don't need to know how life began in order to not believe in your god or any other god. And you didn't answer MY question.


I got tired :D

I'll get to it.

[firegod]

I got tired :D

I'll get to it.

Cool :)

[Yoda]

Lots to respond to, but before I get some work done, I thought I'd just address this:

If complex things need to have a creator, then who created God (who, if exists, is someone or something that would obviously be complex)? And if someone or something created your god, how can you call him God?The complexity that implies a creator is, you'll notice, physical in nature. God is not physical in nature. God does not, presumably, have organs and the like, and thus would not fall under the definition of "complexity" being used.

The argument for intelligent design is far stronger than I think you give it credit for. Precision implies intelligence in every other situation imaginable: walk in the jungle and find a giant wall of stones, and you'd assume someone built it; you'd never assume they simply landed that way on their own. If you came across a house (or even a hut), you'd never presume that it was not built by an intelligent being. Yet when you observe the Universe, or the planet Earth, you're more than willing to assume it's the result of a big, unexplainable, witnessless cosmic accident.

Doesn't seem consistent, to me.

[firegod]

Lots to respond to, but before I get some work done, I thought I'd just address this:

The complexity that implies a creator is, you'll notice, physical in nature. God is not physical in nature. God does not, presumably, have organs and the like, and thus would not fall under the definition of "complexity" being used.

The argument for intelligent design is far stronger than I think you give it credit for. Precision implies intelligence in every other situation imaginable: walk in the jungle and find a giant wall of stones, and you'd assume someone built it; you'd never assume they simply landed that way on their own. If you came across a house (or even a hut), you'd never presume that it was not built by an intelligent being. Yet when you observe the Universe, or the planet Earth, you're more than willing to assume it's the result of a big, unexplainable, witnessless cosmic accident.

Doesn't seem consistent, to me.

Actually, I don't assume that. The big bang theory is believed in by a whole lot of theists and not believed in by a whole lot of atheists. I am one of the latter. Why lump people together with no good reason to?

[firegod]

and not believed in by a whole lot of atheists.

That was a confusing way to phrase that. I didn't mean that there aren't a lot of atheists who DO believe in it. I meant that there are a lot of atheists who DON'T believe in it.

[Yoda]

Actually, I don't assume that. The big bang theory is believed in by a whole lot of theists and not believed in by a whole lot of atheists. I am one of the latter. Why lump people together with no good reason to?Because my point is made either way; a disbelief in the big bang would only require that I remove "cosmic" from my last post. What I said could apply to anyone who does not believe an intelligent being of some sort created the world we live in, for whatever reason. Assuming that you are still both an Atheist and materialist (please correct me if this has changed), any complexity or precision around us must have come about without aim or purpose, and therefore is the result of an accident.

Your skepticism towards the big bang is healthy, admired, and noted, but I don't think it changes what I was getting at.

[bluebottle]

1). Where and how did life begin?
As I pointed out earlier, science changes and just because something cannot be scientifically explained now, doesn't mean that it has to stay that way in the future.

It is widely accepted that the first single-celled life came about some 3.5 - 4 billion years ago. Approximately 500 million years ago mitochondria became integral parts of cells, allowing the conversion of the potential energy of food molecules into ATP, which is able to store and transport chemical energy within cells.


2). Use the fossil record to support your claims.
First I'd like to point out, that fossilization is a rare occurrence, and in order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible.
The oldest known probable stromatolite fossils are structures from western Australia thought to be about 3.5 billion years old.
The lack of fossils of transitional species , according to Darwin, is due to "the extreme imperfection of the geological record", combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, which makes it unlikely that many such fossils would be found.

3). Explain (scientifically) how evolutionary 'mechanics' works.
4). Genetic code only allows for small mutations at any one time. Evolution calls for many mutations over a short period of time. Please dispute this and explain, using sources from your 'scientists' of course.
Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene-frequencies in a population over a few generations . These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in gene-frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may result in the evolution of new species). The difference between the two is hard to distinguish because successive tiny mutations like those in microevolution can build up in isolated populations and eventually create entirely new species, which is known as macroevolution. While microevolution has been demonstrated in the laboratory to the satisfaction of most observers, macroevolution has to be inferred from the fossil record, and its precise mechanisms are a topic of discussion amongst biologists.

BTW, what do you mean with a short period of time?

5). "archaeopteryx", otherwise known as the piltdown chicken, is not even accepted as reality. You can't quote science on one hand and then use folklore as proof on the other.
What!!! It is you, who are mistaken. I have personally seen two of the seven discovered specimens, one in the Humboldt Museum, Berlin, and the other at the Natural History Museum in London. Neither those nor the other five have been proven to be fakes, that's just a malicious allegation made by creationists.

I've only ever heard of Piltdown Man, which was a hoax and revealed as such in 1953.

If it is (or were) real, all that it would prove is that a species can become better. It does not prove that there is or ever was extra-species evolution.
So a species can improve, but not evolve? I thought you believed that God had created everything as good as as it could be, or do you only accept science when it fits into your view of the world? Make up your mind!

walk in the jungle and find a giant wall of stones, and you'd assume someone built it; you'd never assume they simply landed that way on their own. If you came across a house (or even a hut), you'd never presume that it was not built by an intelligent being. Yet when you observe the Universe, or the planet Earth, you're more than willing to assume it's the result of a big, unexplainable, witnessless cosmic accident.
Aaahh, another variation of the statement first made by William Paley. "Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." - from the book jacket of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

I'd like to conclude by saying science is not religion, science changes by adapting to the observed facts.

[Yoda]

Aaahh, another variation of the statement first made by William Paley. "Natural selection, the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process that Darwin discovered, has no purpose in mind. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker." - from the book jacket of The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.I suppose the base concept is similar, though my slant on is not so much that it's not possible or probable, but rather that skeptics generally fail to apply reasoning consistently when religion is involved. It's always met with a modified sense of what is and is not believable that does not reflect what many would think if they were presented with a similar choice, sans the God element.


I'd like to conclude by saying science is not religion, science changes by adapting to the observed facts.True. Then again, this only finds fault with religion if you start off with the assumption that it is flawed or incorrect.

[Golgot]

I'm not going to sit here and forward all of the discussion points so that you all can try to shoot them down. The fact is that none of you have any more evidence either way than I do and we are all just shooting in the dark.

Oh Toosey. This is a bit childish isn't it? You don't want to discuss anything??

Of course those of us who have a problem with religious-logic can't prove God doesn't exist. But there's no need to get annoyed just because we can justify (many of) our own beliefs, and can find flaws in your justifications. (well, alright, there's some "need". But there's a need for dialogue here too)

So, all of you oh so learned scientists....

Tell me

1). Where and how did life begin?
2). Use the fossil record to support your claims.
3). Explain (scientifically) how evolutionary 'mechanics' works.
4). Genetic code only allows for small mutations at any one time. Evolution calls for many mutations over a short period of time. Please dispute this and explain, using sources from your 'scientists' of course.
5). "archaeopteryx", otherwise known as the piltdown chicken, is not even accepted as reality. You can't quote science on one hand and then use folklore as proof on the other. If it is (or were) real, all that it would prove is that a species can become better. It does not prove that there is or ever was extra-species evolution.

Since the arguments are 'easily shot down' I'm really looking forward to learning from you all where and how life began. Seems like a great way to spend a Wednesday.

bluebottle dealt nicely with the details. (altho i'd make the scientist-angering point that science sometimes differs from "religion" more in theory than in practice, coz "belief" and rationalisation are fundamental parts of being human.)

There's no need to understand the inception and nature of life to believe in life in the first place. That would be silly.

What we're talking about is trying to understand life a little better. We're not claiming to know how it all started etc.


If complex things need to have a creator, then who created God (who, if exists, is someone or something that would obviously be complex)?

:)

The complexity that implies a creator is, you'll notice, physical in nature. God is not physical in nature. God does not, presumably, have organs and the like, and thus would not fall under the definition of "complexity" being used.

Always a get out clause isn't there ;). :rolleyes:

How do you think God interacts with the world then if he has no physical expression?

(I used to believe in a Cartesian split between the physical and the spiritual. Now i think everything's made of something [we just might not know about it :)]. The closest thing to an intangible to me is something like an idea. Although it exists in our brains, and in our communications, it has a kind of life of it's own in the broader context.

But thinking about it, even an idea is made of stuff.

The argument for intelligent design is far stronger than I think you give it credit for. Precision implies intelligence in every other situation imaginable: walk in the jungle and find a giant wall of stones, and you'd assume someone built it; you'd never assume they simply landed that way on their own. If you came across a house (or even a hut), you'd never presume that it was not built by an intelligent being. Yet when you observe the Universe, or the planet Earth, you're more than willing to assume it's the result of a big, unexplainable, witnessless cosmic accident.

Doesn't seem consistent, to me.

Doesn't it seem a bit too conveniently consistant to imagine a just-like-us scenario? (altho i do admit i'm prepared to believe in the possiblitiy of alien interference:)).

However, there is plenty of "consistancy" in looking at the observable facts and recognising that complexity can emerge from simplicity.

On this level i'm happy enough with the "accidental" generation of life idea (altho i think there might be a more accurate, and positive, term out there - i.e. - just coz there's no intention/design, doesn't mean there might not be a kind of "purposefulness" to things that has emerged over time. Things have got "used to" inter-acting perhaps? Who knows? :)).

I'm happy with there being no controlling designer, because it seems possible.

The actual "start" of things etc is still a happy mystery to me. Tho i do love all of the quantum pondering (the "mirror" universe and regular-big-bang theories etc) and all the "measuring background radiation from the beginning of time" and stuff.

It's worth noting tho that there's more physical data concerning the big bang than God tho :) (coz he's not physical is he ;))

[Piddzilla]

Who created the Earth always seems to be a much more important issue than what we do with and to this Earth. It seems more important for some world leaders to keep people believing in the bible while they themselves are responsible for actions that will burn this planet out in no time.

One thing I find a bit odd. How can one dismiss the creator of all things as a non physical or complex power, then at the same time use the physical world as an example of his/her/its greatness? The argument "God isn't complex because he is God" doesn't sound convincing to me. And just because the Big Bang seems unexplainable doesn't make the evidence or indicators for it actually happening less valid. "I can't explain why it happened, but it happened".

I can't prove that God doesn't exist and I don't feel no need to. But it is a fact that a lot of the stuff in the Bible has been proven incorrect.

And another thing. Someone said that the non-believers were in minority and that would be some sort of sign of God's existence. I think that is wrong. It is a sign of that religion still fills a void in people's lives and that it gives them comfort. But if you take a look at the christian community today and compare it to the christian community 100 years or even 50 years ago you would see that a lot of the non believers' ideas have found its way into the christian community. The archbishop of The Swedish Church (evangelistic lutheranian protestant.... or something like that), K G Hammar, made a great stir here when he went out and said that it wasn't necessary to believe in for example the Virgin birth to be a good christian. It isn't necessary to believe that Jesus actually walked on water. It's an allegory. The important thing is to see the symbolism in the stories of the gospels and to understand what Jesus meant. Listen to the words for the brilliance in them, not because they were spoken by someone who is thought to be God's son. I found it very refreshing to hear him say that on national tv. If there is a God or a higher power it perhaps is something ever existing but never changing, but religion is man made and needs to follow the changes in man and society to stay relevant.

So, when the head of The Swedish Church comes out and says things that "non believers" have claimed for centuries, who is really gaining ground? Theists or agnostics?

[Sir Toose]

Oh Toosey. This is a bit childish isn't it? You don't want to discuss anything??


Absolutely. I just wanted to establish that what was needed was a discussion and not one side piling up on the other. We've done that before.

I'll get to bluebottle's post later ... I have too much on my plate today and likely won't be around much.




BTW,

I liked Piddy's post above but...

"Movie Forums Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Piddzilla again."

Next time mon ami

[Piddzilla]

BTW,

I liked Piddy's post above but...

"Movie Forums Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Piddzilla again."

Next time mon ami

Cash is fine too. :D

[Golgot]

Absolutely. I just wanted to establish that what was needed was a discussion and not one side piling up on the other. We've done that before.

Ok, but surely the point of discussion is to communicate info and expose and explore weaknesses in specific arguments? All we did was point out some contradictions to your claims (altho admittadly it was a kind of 3-versus-1 situation).

I'll get to bluebottle's post later ... I have too much on my plate today and likely won't be around much.


Cool. I've finally got a little break now it's Easter (hooray for Jesus :)). So i'll be here in case you want to try some target practice on my points and queries. ;)

BTW,

I liked Piddy's post above but...

"Movie Forums Message
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Piddzilla again."

Next time mon ami

I'm sure i haven't given him cred as recently as i should have. I'll pay in lieu of you ;) (in contagious green spots Pietar my man, not greenbacks ;))

The important thing is to see the symbolism in the stories of the gospels and to understand what Jesus meant. Listen to the words for the brilliance in them, not because they were spoken by someone who is thought to be God's son.

So, when the head of The Swedish Church comes out and says things that "non believers" have claimed for centuries, who is really gaining ground? Theists or agnostics?


Absolutely, on both points. All religions have had a positive effect (otherwise they wouldn't be around) and are full to the brim with wisdom about life. It's a joy to be able to get the best out of them even as a "mystic-materialist" or what have you.

And as for Church practice - yeah, i'm pleased that the Anglican church also takes a free-flowing approach to their belief and interpretation of the bible

I'd love to see a day when the positive community aspects of religion combine with the positive conceptual freedoms of "materialism". (sorry if that offends anyone, but at the end of the day, people who don't explain everything through a defined God [or whose God is the physical ;)] are free to roam a wider range of explanations EDIT: or are more likely to)

At the end of the day, all the enduring religions have also been flexible in many ways, and mutated over the years (whoops, that won't be a popular term ;)). And humans will always need to believe.

I just wish they'd believe in the unchanging yet ever-changing universe. (Have i mentioned that before? ;) - I'm beginning to see myself as a prophet lost in the wilderness of cyberspace ;):))

[Golgot]

True. Then again, this only finds fault with religion if you start off with the assumption that it is flawed or incorrect.

Yods, I'm sure you'll have lots to say when you have time (not least about my "conceptual freedom" comment i suspect ;))...but I can't believe i skipped this....

Is it so unreasonable to suggest that their might be a flaw in religious doctrine or practice?? (and if it were unreasonable, would we get anywhere through discussion of the same? Isn't starting off with the assumption that nigh-on-anything can be flawed the basis of an open discussion?)

[John McClane]

*Bump*

I really don't have any religion, but I do believe in God. That's why it doesn't bother me. This is just my opinon though.Holy crap, what the hell was wrong with me?! :D

[mark f]

Maybe you had an original :idea:

No matter who you are, I totally believe this is one of the greatest quotes ever: "The only things worth learning are the things you learn after you know it all." - Harry Truman

It helps one to keep an open mind because without an open mind, you are no more intelligent than a person/animal with a closed mind. If that doesn't matter to you...

[John McClane]

I know exactly why I used to think that way. I never gave the entire thing serious thought, and the problems I had with what I thought I simply wrote off. I never gave them any consideration, but what 13 year old actually *does* give the entire thing some serious discourse? :D