# A {probably vain} attempt at a rational discussion of religion



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

A recent post in one of my other on-line haunts provides me with some [I hope] very reasonable and rational questions for theists (not deists).

I would like those of you who are Theists to try to address as many (or as few) of these questions as you can. They are biased to address Christianity, but if you are an adherent of a different religion, feel free to tweak them to suit your faith.

1. If the answer to "how the universe came to be?" is "god did it", then how did god come to be?
1.1 If god can "just be", then why can't the universe "just be" too?

2. Why don't you believe in Zeus, Odin, Thor (the cooler god if you ask me), Isis, Ra or any other in that list (List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?
2.1 What are the differences between you and a believer in Zeus back in ancient Greece? Why is he wrong and you are right?
2.2 If Zeus, Odin, Thor,... and all those other gods/religions aren't real, they must be creation of man, why is your god not a creation of man too?

3. Why are you a Christian (or any other religion) and not a muslim/jew/Hindu/Buddist/Jain/[insert all other religions]?
3.1 Why are those other contemporan religions wrong and yours right?
3.2 Why do other religions exist at all if one deity exists?
3.3 Why are those other religions so neatly geographically separated?
3.4 Why do the overwhelming majority of children raised in muslim/christians/jewish/hindu/... families become muslims/christians/jewish/hindu/... instead of switching to your religion? 
3.5 Do you think you'd be a christian if you had grown up as a kid in a muslim family in Iran?
3.6 Why are there so many splinters in each religions. If god was omniscient and omnipotent certainly this wouldn't happen?

4. How do you rationalize Epicurus' dilemna with your omnipotent god: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"?

5. How do you determine which parts of your holy book should be followed litteraly, which part are figurative and which part ought to be entirely ignored?
5.1 How do you rationalize the tales of Old Testament which portray god as a wicked, jealous and genocidal despot?
5.2 How do you rationalize the support for slavery and rampant sexism in the bible?
5.3 Why did god not provide a clear unequivocal rule book instead of a book that is rampant with contradictions and a nightmare to interpret?
5.4 Why doesn't god provide an updated version of its holy book at regular interval instead of expecting us to abide by bronze age rules in the 21st century (certainly we could use a good rulebook for the cyberworld too)?
5.5 Why was god so active thousands of years ago yet nowadays he is oddly nowhere to be seen?
5.6 Why did god dictate in his holy books stories about how the world is and works that are blatantly wrong (geocentrism for example)?

6. Do you believe in hell and paradise?
6.1 How do you rationalize the notion of eternal torment (infinite punishment for a finite crime)?
6.2 How do you rationalize the notion of a perfectly virtuous atheist being sent to hell?
6.3 How do you rationalize the notion of thought crime that is comon in the bible?
6.4 How do you rationalize the ban of blasphemy with free speech?
6.5 How do you rationalize god punishing people with eternal torment for for crimes he knew those persons would do (omniscient) and are a direct result of the way he designed us to be (e.g. homosexuality)?

7. Why did god wait 194,000 years (assumption, **** sapiens is 200,000 years old) before showing himself?
7.1 What do you make of god waiting 194,000 years old while humans died, sinned and murdered with no help/guidance whatsoever?
7.2 Why send his son in the middle-east, at the time, one of the most backward and ignorant part of the world instead of China, Greece or Rome?

8. Why is god so obsessed with our bodies and sex in general?

9. What do you make of people claiming god saved them from a catastrophe/illness yet don't blame him for putting them in the catastrophe or making them ill in the first place?

10. What do you make of the fact that prayer has been proven to have no measurable effect whatsoever?
10.1 How do you reconcile prayer with the notion of an omniscient being?
10.2 How do you reconcile prayer with the notion of god having a plan for each of us?

11. Are you 'good' just because of the threat of eternal punishment and promise of reward in paradise, or would you be 'good' if you believe god did not exit?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc, you've bit off far too much here for people to address in a cogent or coherent fashion. Why not introduce these one question at a time?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*It's a la carte*

People should feel free to pick and choose any questions that stimulate them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sure, but the thread will be a mess of arguments and counter arguments on about 25 different topics. I defer, of course, to your design choice.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I wish... bring 'em on


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> 1. If the answer to "how the universe came to be?" is "god did it", then how did god come to be?
> 1.1 If god can "just be", then why can't the universe "just be" too?


It *could* have been, it just wasn't.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> It *could* have been, it just wasn't.


Sweet... is there any way we can distinguish between these stories? Does one make predictions we can test that the other doesn't?

If not, then I'll go with parsimony, but you're welcome to believe whatever shuffles your deck.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'll simply point out that Epicurus' dilemma isn't a real one:



> 4. How do you rationalize Epicurus' dilemna with your omnipotent god: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"?


I was never impressed by this one, because of the false conclusion: _If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked_

Good and evil exist as choices we can make using our free will, so it is up to us to allow evil or abolish it. So God can abolish evil by abolishing free will and choice. But by abolishing free will and choice, he also abolishes the concept of good and evil.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> Sweet... is there any way we can distinguish between these stories? Does one make predictions we can test that the other doesn't?.


Is that a question?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> Is that a question?


Absolutely, although "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer. If the universe is infinite in both space and time, how would we observationally be able to distinguish it from a universe that was finite, and more apropos to the discussion, from one that was 'created' at a specific time (especially if "time" was created as part of the universe)?

This relates to one of my all time favourite questions for theists: What evidence would convince you God _does not_ exist?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Good and evil exist as choices we can make using our free will


An omniscient god logically precludes free will. If god knows what you will choose, you don't have free will; if god does not know what you will choose, He is not omniscient.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

bryanc said:


> This relates to one of my all time favourite questions for theists: What evidence would convince you God _does not_ exist?


That's like asking me what evidence I'd need to convince me that my children don't exist. It's a false premise.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Good questions. I don't know the answers, if they are not rhetorical, but I believe there is a little series of Mr. Deity podcasts that you would very much enjoy:

http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/mr-deity/id211692759


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Valhalla baby, that's where it's at. Loki is it.

My god is Joseph Campbell followed by Nietzsche.

...and that reminds me of a joke:

"God is dead"...Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead"....God


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

bsenka said:


> That's like asking me what evidence I'd need to convince me that my children don't exist. It's a false premise.


Not at all... Presuming your children are anything like mine, you'd need evidence to refute years of accumulated physical evidence of their existence (the holes in the dry wall; the framed drawings, the photographs, the memories of the hugs, smiles, noise, toothpaste in the sink, laughs, and questions that make you reexamine your entire universe).

The people I know who believe in god(s) do so for none of the kinds of reasons we believe in the existence of real people, or even historical people... which is one of the reasons I find it so fascinating/perplexing that so many people have these beliefs.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> Good questions. I don't know the answers, if they are not rhetorical, but I believe there is a little series of Mr. Deity podcasts that you would very much enjoy


They're not at all rhetorical. And if I can find the time I will definitely check out that podcast. That being said, I'm far more interested in the responses of people here than those of people I have no contact with.

One of my friends answered every one of the questions with "faith" or "lack of faith".

I'm still trying to get him to expand on this, because, while I have a dictionary and can look up what the word "faith" means, it doesn't really mean anything to me. Faith is one of those completely abstract concepts to me... perhaps I'm just stupid, but I really cannot conceive of belief without evidence.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> An omniscient god logically precludes free will. If god knows what you will choose, you don't have free will; if god does not know what you will choose, He is not omniscient.


God knows what I will choose because he is omniscient. However, I still need to make that choice and act on it for it to stick. If I know that you will choose wine over beer, that knowledge does not rob you of your choice.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> God knows what I will choose because he is omniscient. However, I still need to make that choice and act on it for it to stick. If I know that you will choose wine over beer, that knowledge does not rob you of your choice.


But if God knows you will choose beer (or both, as I have this evening), you _cannot_ choose otherwise. Omniscience is logically exclusive with free will.

Now, it's pretty easy to argue that the fundamentals of Xtianity are not profoundly altered if we accept that God is just *very knowledgeable* and the bronze age mystics that wrote the bible either mistook that for omniscience or exaggerated. But taking that tact profoundly changes the philosophical tenor of the discussion.


----------



## MACenstein'sMonster (Aug 21, 2008)

I wish to opt out.

No, no, you can't sway me either. My mind is made up.

But please, can someone PM me when the final results are in? I've always wanted to know what the definitive answer of this _since-the-dawn-of-spare-time_ argument would be.

EDIT: I just remembered.... Some religious guy (like a monk of some kind) once told me he didn't know all the answers, didn't know anybody who did, and he was fine with that. He added that he keeps looking for answers but at the same time he doesn't expect to run out of questions either. That works for me too.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MACenstein'sMonster said:


> Some religious guy (like a monk of some kind) once told me he didn't know all the answers, didn't know anybody who did, and he was fine with that. He added that he keeps looking for answers but at the same time he doesn't expect to run out of questions either.


Sounds like an honest guy to me.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Sep 20, 2007)

[deleted]


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I'll tackle the monster quiz, but I'm not Christian, most of these won't apply.



bryanc said:


> 1. If the answer to "how the universe came to be?" is "god did it", then how did god come to be?
> 1.1 If god can "just be", then why can't the universe "just be" too?


1. I don't know how the universe came to be; it was never a question that held a lot of interest for me, and even if it did, I wasn't there, how could I know for sure if I was right?
1.1 Sure, why not?



bryanc said:


> 2. Why don't you believe in Zeus, Odin, Thor (the cooler god if you ask me), Isis, Ra or any other in that list (List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?
> 2.1 What are the differences between you and a believer in Zeus back in ancient Greece? Why is he wrong and you are right?
> 2.2 If Zeus, Odin, Thor,... and all those other gods/religions aren't real, they must be creation of man, why is your god not a creation of man too?


2. Who says I don't? 
2.1. Well, I'm not Greek, and we have a few thousand years between us. But who says he's wrong? 
2.2. Who says they aren't real? Who says my beliefs are not a creation of man? So what?

Rather inflammatory questions, IMO, 



bryanc said:


> 3. Why are you a Christian (or any other religion) and not a muslim/jew/Hindu/Buddist/Jain/[insert all other religions]?
> 3.1 Why are those other contemporan religions wrong and yours right?
> 3.2 Why do other religions exist at all if one deity exists?
> 3.3 Why are those other religions so neatly geographically separated?
> ...


3. As it happens, I was raised Jain, though I have difficulty self-identifying as such since I do not participate in the local Jain community though that's more of a culture thing... though Jainism comes closest to describing my beliefs.
3.1. Jainism does not state that other contemporary religions are wrong.
3.2. Jainism does not require belief in a single Jain deity; in fact, you can be Jain-Christian, Jain-Muslim, Jain-Hindu, etc.
3.3. That's more of a sociological question than a religious one.
3.4. Ditto, with a dash of nature vs. nurture.
3.5. It's highly unlikely I'd have even heard of Jainism in Iran. It's a little obscure. But again, we're getting into nature vs. nurture, because I don't know how different a person I would be if I were raised differently, so I don't know if my beliefs and values would continue to be Jainish in flavour.
3.6. God likes variety?  Why does the presence of a omniscient and omnipotent god necessarily preclude splinters? 



> 4. How do you rationalize Epicurus' dilemna with your omnipotent god: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"?


Define evil.

In Jainism, there is no good and evil; there is only karma, which is more accurately translated as cause and effect (value-neutral.) But ultimately, it all boils down to "Try not to a dick, mmmmkay? It's not cool."

If you want an grander spiritual context for not being a dick, it's there. If you prefer to ignore all that and get on with your life, that's fine. You can still be Jain.



> 5. How do you determine which parts of your holy book should be followed litteraly, which part are figurative and which part ought to be entirely ignored?
> 5.1 How do you rationalize the tales of Old Testament which portray god as a wicked, jealous and genocidal despot?
> 5.2 How do you rationalize the support for slavery and rampant sexism in the bible?
> 5.3 Why did god not provide a clear unequivocal rule book instead of a book that is rampant with contradictions and a nightmare to interpret?
> ...


5. What book?



> 6. Do you believe in hell and paradise?
> 6.1 How do you rationalize the notion of eternal torment (infinite punishment for a finite crime)?
> 6.2 How do you rationalize the notion of a perfectly virtuous atheist being sent to hell?
> 6.3 How do you rationalize the notion of thought crime that is comon in the bible?
> ...


6. Jainism does, but does not require me to believe in the same. There are many levels of what can be translated as hell, many levels of heaven, then there's the earthly plane between them and moksha (that's where you go when you achieve Nirvana) above it all. Until you arrive at moksha, you are in the cycle of birth and death.
6.1. It's not eternal.
6.2. Hardly anyone in history has been perfectly virtuous on this plane. But disbelief in god is not being a dick. Intolerance to those who do believe is being a dick. Intolerance to those who don't believe is being a dick. See how this works? 
6.3. No idea what you mean, and nice inflammatory language there. But Jainism looks at being a dick in all of thought, word and deed. 
6.4. Are you using free speech to be a dick? That ain't cool.
6.5. Accusatory question much? Can't even answer that one. 

Poor designed set of questions, IMO. It's difficult to seek understanding when approaching it from an intolerant point of view. Frankly, I don't see how this would give you the rational discussion you are looking for.



> 7. Why did god wait 194,000 years (assumption, **** sapiens is 200,000 years old) before showing himself?
> 7.1 What do you make of god waiting 194,000 years old while humans died, sinned and murdered with no help/guidance whatsoever?
> 7.2 Why send his son in the middle-east, at the time, one of the most backward and ignorant part of the world instead of China, Greece or Rome?


7. One can figure out that it's not cool to be a dick without specific instruction; people everywhere have been doing it for centuries.



> 8. Why is god so obsessed with our bodies and sex in general?


8. Jainism does not really care what you do, so long as (pardon the pun) you aren't being a dick. 

At most, those who choose to follow a more spiritual path and choose to become celibate as part of that choice have a lot more energy and attention to devote to that path that isn't getting expended in the pursuit of sex. But it's a personal choice.



> 9. What do you make of people claiming god saved them from a catastrophe/illness yet don't blame him for putting them in the catastrophe or making them ill in the first place?


That's up to them. 



> 10. What do you make of the fact that prayer has been proven to have no measurable effect whatsoever?
> 10.1 How do you reconcile prayer with the notion of an omniscient being?
> 10.2 How do you reconcile prayer with the notion of god having a plan for each of us?


Jainism's use of prayer is more in the sense of chanting and meditation. Meditation has been shown to have positive psychological effects on oneself. My own thought is that prayer can be comforting or calming.



> 11. Are you 'good' just because of the threat of eternal punishment and promise of reward in paradise, or would you be 'good' if you believe god did not exist?


Not being a dick seems to make my life a lot easier and more peaceful, so I think I will stick with it. I'm not perfect, however, so whatever happens, happens.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Oh Brother, another revival meeting hosted by the Evangelical Atheists. :yawn:

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

MazterCBlazter said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> ...


great quote...I stopped going to organized church years ago....if I want to believe in God I do it on my own but who's to say which God is right?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I'd like to ask another question: Why are we so arrogant that we only think that G_d cares about us? I often have what I call "converters" come to my door and I always ask them: do dinosaurs go to heaven?". They are taken back by this, to which I ask: " if G_d is perfect [ which they all espouse ] then if he created something that, too must be perfect ... so why would he [ funny how it always seems to be a "he" when a "she" would make more sense to me ] exclude the other perfect creations?

Many times when I open the door later to go out they are still standing there pondering........................


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Rps said:


> I'd like to ask another question: Why are we so arrogant that we only think that G_d cares about us?


This sounds clever but it's not. If one's already taken the leap of faith (literally) and decides there is a god, imbuing it with the characteristics of one's choosing is inconsequential, relatively speaking. I'd stick with the standard "does God exist"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> But if God knows you will choose beer (or both, as I have this evening), you _cannot_ choose otherwise. Omniscience is logically exclusive with free will.


So if I build a computer that has only this quality, that it is omniscient, free will ceases to exist? It existed before the computer was built and ceased after it was activated.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I'll tackle the monster quiz, but I'm not Christian, most of these won't apply...
> 
> Not being a dick seems to make my life a lot easier and more peaceful, so I think I will stick with it. I'm not perfect, however, so whatever happens, happens.


:lmao: :clap: I love it! Who needs Ten commandments when all you need is one:

Thou shalt not be a dick.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> I'd like to ask another question: Why are we so arrogant that we only think that G_d cares about us? I often have what I call "converters" come to my door and I always ask them: do dinosaurs go to heaven?". They are taken back by this, to which I ask: " if G_d is perfect [ which they all espouse ] then if he created something that, too must be perfect ... so why would he [ funny how it always seems to be a "he" when a "she" would make more sense to me ] exclude the other perfect creations?
> 
> Many times when I open the door later to go out they are still standing there pondering........................


You had a really easy crew if they were scratching their heads over that softball. 

1. First, few Christians say animals of any sort go to heaven. They were created--perfectly to God's plan-without souls.

2. The dinosaurs were perfect because they fulfilled God's purpose before going to their dinosaur deaths.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Macfury said:


> You had a really easy crew if they were scratching their heads over that softball.
> 
> 1. First, few Christians say animals of any sort go to heaven. They were created--perfectly to God's plan-without souls.


I was going to mention the same thing. 4 year-olds ponder such imponderables, as to whether "Fido" will go to heaven or not. 

Back to seminary school for them!


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> :lmao: :clap: I love it! Who needs Ten commandments when all you need is one:
> 
> Thou shalt not be a dick.


Jainism can be summarized in 5 points, 3 of which are more along the lines of behavioural guidelines, 2 of which are more spiritual/faith oriented, but belief in those 2 is independent of following the 3 guidelines.

But in any case, they are:
1) As much as reasonable for you, try not to be violent. 
2) Try not to be greedy either; it's just stuff.
3) Remember that there is always more than one side to the story; there's always another valid way to look at things.

Translation: don't be a dick.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

bryanc said:


> 1. If the answer to "how the universe came to be?" is "god did it", then how did god come to be?
> 1.1 If god can "just be", then why can't the universe "just be" too?


It's turtles all the way down, man!


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

chasMac said:


> I was going to mention the same thing. 4 year-olds ponder such imponderables, as to whether "Fido" will go to heaven or not.
> 
> Back to seminary school for them!


Actually, I think that the four-year-old probably have the right idea, it's only when we let religion get in the way that we muddy the waters of belief and faith.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

On the subject of religion, I've found that George Carlin speaks for me.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

+1


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I'll tackle the monster quiz, but I'm not Christian, most of these won't apply.


Thanks for your reply, Sonal. I don't know enough about Jainism, but what little I am familiar with would argue that this is not a Theistic belief system. Which is why most of the questions don't really apply.

While I'm not an adherent of any faith, I have far less difficulty understanding how a rational person might not see obvious conflicts with the various atheistic forms of spirituality. What I was trying to do with these questions was to find out how otherwise apparently rational people address the cognitive dissonance religions with Theistic dogmas would appear to cause.

Feel free to take a shot at it from the POV of a Jew, Christian or Muslim if you like (I have a few lists I've made from these POVs and I do think some (but not all) of the questions can be reasonably addressed by adherents of these religions).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> So if I build a computer that has only this quality, that it is omniscient, free will ceases to exist? It existed before the computer was built and ceased after it was activated.


Materialism (not to mention Gödel's incompleteness theorem) would argue that such a machine (or other entity) cannot exist in the physical universe. But yes, if omniscience exists, free will cannot. They are mutually exclusive logical constructs.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Bryan,
What exactly is an atheistic form of spirituality?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

theism - A philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom.

deism - The belief that there is a God who created the universe, but that after creating it he left it to regulate itself and doesn't step in to provide miracles or the like.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Bryan,
> What exactly is an atheistic form of spirituality?


Spiritual beliefs that do not include gods.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*Where did this thread go?*

By the way, did this thread disappear for anyone else for a couple of days?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Spiritual beliefs that do not include gods.


Sorta like a steak eating vegetarian.
I've never heard of an atheist claiming to be spiritual?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Spiritual beliefs that do not include gods.


Sounds like "philosophical" to me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Sorta like a steak eating vegetarian.
> I've never heard of an atheist claiming to be spiritual?


I know all kinds of people who are spiritual but do not believe in a deity per-say.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

screature said:


> I know all kinds of people who are spiritual but do not believe in a deity per-say.


Thats interesting. What exactly would they do or believe that would define them as spiritual and atheist at the same time?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Thanks for your reply, Sonal. I don't know enough about Jainism, but what little I am familiar with would argue that this is not a Theistic belief system. Which is why most of the questions don't really apply.


Most Jains believe in a god, or they worship Lord Mahavira, who was not a god but the last guy who achieved Nirvana from the earthly plane. (There were 24 of these people.)

But faith in a deity is not a requisite part of the practice. Goes back to the "everything has multiple sides" thing. If you find it useful--good on ya. If you don't--no worries. 

Mind you, this is Jainism from the layperson's perspective. Not the monk/nun perspective. But Jainism defines two paths, and what is appropriate for a person who has devoted their life to this is not necessary practical or required from the rest of us.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

screature said:


> I know all kinds of people who are spiritual but do not believe in a deity per-say.


Not much of a student of spiritualism, as you describe it, but isn't it a relatively recent, new-age-y phenomenon? To be spiritual while denying the existence of the spirit seems a bit odd.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

This stuff is deep.

I believe in God and I think the Bible teaches good things and I like church music but because I will never, ever, believe in Creationism so I can't ever consider myself Christian. If there was a new Christian denomination based on a modified book of Genesis based on Evolution I may be in but yea I'll stop my controversial response right here.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> Not much of a student of spiritualism, as you describe it, but isn't it a relatively recent, new-age-y phenomenon? To be spiritual while denying the existence of the spirit seems a bit odd.


"Theism" by definition, is a belief in god or gods. Monotheistic religions profess one god, polytheistic religions profess multiple gods. I think 'spirituality' is more difficult to define, but religions that involve beliefs of about 'souls' 'spirits' 'karma' 'chi' or other supernatural energies/entities would certainly fall into that category.

I wouldn't call it 'new-age-y' in that anthropologists seem convinced that these sorts of superstitions were ubiquitous among our ancestors long before theism of any sort emerged.

Personally, I don't believe in any of that, but I know many atheists who do. Atheism is not a religion, and therefore has no dogma, so there is no coherent belief structure that defines all atheists. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a particular type of supernatural entity.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> Thats interesting. What exactly would they do or believe that would define them as spiritual and atheist at the same time?


Karma, chi, souls, ghosts... Einstein's deism is probably best described as an atheistic spirituality, and I know many atheists who postulate some kind of supernatural existence but have no belief in gods (or they wouldn't be atheists, obviously).

Many philosophically naive people in this category will describe themselves as agnostics (which is perfectly correct but incomplete), because they don't really know what 'atheism' means, and they know most people see atheism as threatening.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Sounds like "philosophical" to me.


Philosophy, in my experience, is about as far removed from the common perception of "vague, airy-fairy arm-waving speculation" as can be imagined. But, in common parlance, I can understand your thinking.

Cheers.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dona83 said:


> I believe in God and I think the Bible teaches good things and I like church music...


I'm with you on the music, and I agree that some of what the Bible teaches is good (but I also think a lot of what it teaches is bad).

But neither of these things provides any support for the basic tenants of Christianity.

Cheers


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> I think 'spirituality' is more difficult to define, but religions that involve beliefs of about 'souls' 'spirits' 'karma' 'chi' or other supernatural energies/entities would certainly fall into that category.


But my point is, do not subscribers to what you mention believe in some sort of creator figure.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> theism - A philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom.
> 
> deism - The belief that there is a God who created the universe, but that after creating it he left it to regulate itself and doesn't step in to provide miracles or the like.


The only quibble I'd make here is that the deists I've met see the universe as god; they think the universe created itself, and that it is in someway self-aware and creative. So they wouldn't say God created the universe and then left it alone, but rather that God _is_ the universe.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

bryanc said:


> The only quibble I'd make here is that the deists I've met see the universe as god; they think the universe created itself, and that it is in someway self-aware and creative. So they wouldn't say God created the universe and then left it alone, but rather that God _is_ the universe.


Not being a religious person, I think our need to know the what and why we are here would be suitably answered with this position .... a religious compromise in my opinion.

As for spirituality, I think the best definition I've ever heard is" one has spirituality when one has no fear when they know their death is imminent".


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> But my point is, do not subscribers to what you mention believe in some sort of creator figure.


No.

I would consider my own beliefs (which is more Jainish than Jain) spiritual, but I do not believe in some sort of a creator figure.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Sonal said:


> No.
> 
> I would consider my own beliefs (which is more Jainish than Jain) spiritual, but I do not believe in some sort of a creator figure.


Do souls figure in your Jainish-ism (for lack of a better word)?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> Do souls figure in your Jainish-ism (for lack of a better word)?


Yes, they do. (In both Jainism and my own beliefs.)


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Sonal said:


> Yes, they do. (In both Jainism and my own beliefs.)


Whence does the soul derive? (I'm not trying to be argumentative; I am curious how a soul would manifest itself without any divine providence - I assumed they were eternal; so self-generation would seem to be out of the question)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> ... I do not believe in some sort of a creator figure.





> Yes, [souls] do [figure in] both Jainism and my own beliefs.


Thank you, Sonal, for a lovely example of what I would describe as atheist spiritualism.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> Whence does the soul derive? (I'm not trying to be argumentative; I am curious how a soul would manifest itself without any divine providence - I assumed they were eternal; so self-generation would seem to be out of the question)


That doesn't seem to be a problem for Theists, who claim God is eternal but needs no creator.

Personally, I'm not clear on what problem/phenomenon people feel they're solving by postulating the existence of souls, so it seems to me that these logical constructs are egregious breaches of parsimony, but they do seem to make some people feel better. 

My only problem with the idea of immortality is that it cheapens life; people who believe that death is not the end can be more easily convinced to do horrible things.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

bryanc said:


> My only problem with the idea of immortality is that it cheapens life; people who believe that death is not the end can be more easily convinced to do horrible things.


While many might argue against your position on this, I think history [ and recent history at that ] certainly supports your thoughts. So the trick is to get everyone to live appropriately in the "now". I once heard someone say that religion was similar to a "police force" trying to keep the community in some form of order. Now it looks like it is more of a "storm trooper" trying to impose its order on the community.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> As for spirituality, I think the best definition I've ever heard is" one has spirituality when one has no fear when they know their death is imminent".


I don't think that works. As both an atheist and a decidedly un-spiritual person (I do not believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, or any sort of 'afterlife'), my fear of death is based only on my fear of the suffering my death will cause (and the opportunities it will cost), not at all on fear of non-existence. How can one fear non-existence? I didn't exist for the first several billion years of the history of the universe and it didn't cause me any inconvenience at all. Why would I expect my future non-existence to be any different?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Why would I expect my future non-existence to be any different?


I don't think your non-existence presents a lot of problems in general.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> I once heard someone say that religion was similar to a "police force" trying to keep the community in some form of order.


Indeed. I have a good friend who is a cultural anthropologist, and she tells me that this is a very well-supported and popular view of why religions evolved in the first place.

Personally, I'm not sure our civilization is ready to completely abandon our myths about invisible policemen in the sky; too many people need the threat of magical reprisals/rewards to control their behaviour. But that dose no provide any philosophical support for the truth of these beliefs.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> I don't think your non-existence presents a lot of problems in general.


I'm sure you'd miss me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Thats interesting. What exactly would they do or believe that would define them as spiritual and atheist at the same time?


Well there are too many variations to mention them all, but just as one example. They believe that the universe contains a a "life force", a tendency for the universe to create life. Clearly sentient life has self awareness and awareness of the the "other" rest of the world and universe. It is this awareness that separates out living things from non-living things. However this awareness is not materialy manifest in living beings, it is tied up in the energy of living things. It is this living energized awareness that they would refer to as spirit. However they have no belief in a deity that brought all this to be, for them it is just part and parcel of the universe.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

chasMac said:


> Whence does the soul derive? (I'm not trying to be argumentative; I am curious how a soul would manifest itself without any divine providence - I assumed they were eternal; so self-generation would seem to be out of the question)


In Jainism, souls are indeed eternal. (For myself, I generally believe this and I simultaneously believe that I could be wrong, but whether I am right or wrong about this is not particularly relevant to how I live my life.)

Where does the soul come from? I don't know. 

Now, if I attain Nirvana, I will become omniscient and will find out then, but I'm just not there yet. 

I don't believe that all the answers can be found and understood from this plane of existence. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't search for answers, though.... it's the journey, not the destination, that matters.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> ...I think 'spirituality' is more difficult to define, but religions that involve beliefs of about 'souls' 'spirits' 'karma' 'chi' or *other supernatural energies*/entities would certainly fall into that category.


They are not necessarily seen to be "supernatural" at all, but intrinsically part of nature/the universe.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> The only quibble I'd make here is that the deists I've met see the universe as god; they think the universe created itself, and that it is in someway self-aware and creative. So they wouldn't say God created the universe and then left it alone, but rather that God _is_ the universe.


Just one of many commonly found definitions... the one you mention is indeed another take on deism.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> That doesn't seem to be a problem for Theists, who claim God is eternal but needs no creator.


My mistake for using the term 'creator', when I should have said god, whether as distinct from the universe, or the universe itself.


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

Is there any proof that anything anywhere is eternal?
I must be looking in the wrong places, since i've yet to find anything that lasts forever, Certainly nothing on earth stays the same for long.
In another couple million years, there could be another species that could take over as we did from other hominids less than 200,000 years ago. 
I wonder if Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon had their own religion or was it just a 
****-sapian gig?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

minnes said:


> I wonder if Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon had their own religion or was it just a ****-sapian gig?


To the extent that we can be confident about any prehistoric cultures, we can be almost certain they did. Even chickens are superstitious, and will engage in ritualistic behaviour under conditions of random reinforcement, so the neurological predisposition was certainly there in our ancestors. 

I think it's only our own species (and only in the past ten thousand years or so) that has turned these instincts into profitable businesses, but religion, at least in a loose sense, likely predates our species.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

minnes said:


> Is there any proof that anything anywhere is eternal?


How could one ever prove that something is eternal? It's easy to prove something is not eternal, but the opposite is logically impossible.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

minnes said:


> Is there any proof that anything anywhere is eternal?
> I must be looking in the wrong places, since i've yet to find anything that lasts forever, Certainly nothing on earth stays the same for long.
> In another couple million years, there could be another species that could take over as we did from other hominids less than 200,000 years ago.
> I wonder if Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon had their own religion or was it just a
> ****-sapian gig?


What, a whole new species can't have souls too? Hominids never had souls? The soul is an exclusively **** sapiens gig?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

screature said:


> Well there are too many variations to mention them all, but just as one example. They believe that the universe contains a a "life force", a tendency for the universe to create life. Clearly sentient life has self awareness and awareness of the the "other" rest of the world and universe. It is this awareness that separates out living things from non-living things. However this awareness is not materialy manifest in living beings, it is tied up in the energy of living things. It is this living energized awareness that they would refer to as spirit. However they have no belief in a deity that brought all this to be, for them it is just part and parcel of the universe.


Sounds a lot like StarWarsism when Obiwan gave a theology lesson to Luke trying to learn to use his light sabre in episode 1. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Sounds a lot like StarWarsism when Obiwan gave a theology lesson to Luke trying to learn to use his light sabre in episode 1.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well... it is as a valid a belief as any other IMHO.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Well... it is as a valid a belief as any other IMHO.


For some values of "valid." I certainly find Jedi as valid as (although somewhat less entertaining than) Christianity, or any other Abrahamic religion, and it certainly makes as much logical sense. But if you mean "philosophically defensible" when you say it's valid, I'd like to hear more of your reasoning.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> ...when Obiwan gave a theology lesson to Luke trying to learn to use his light sabre in episode 1....


You mean Episode IV, right? </SF pedant>


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

FYI, the word "**** sapien" is an evolutionist term, the church will not acknowledge that word.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

dona83 said:


> FYI, the word "**** sapien" is an evolutionist term, the church will not acknowledge that word.


Really? When you say "the church", which church are you referring to? I was under the impression that the Catholic church had (ever so begrudgingly) accepted the science of evolution, and had retreated into the gaps.


----------



## wslctrc (Nov 13, 2007)

I'll take a stab at them.



bryanc said:


> 1. If the answer to "how the universe came to be?" is "god did it", then how did god come to be?
> 1.1 If god can "just be", then why can't the universe "just be" too?


1.God didn't come to be, God always was, is and will be.
1.1 The universe is material and created by God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.




bryanc said:


> 2. Why don't you believe in Zeus, Odin, Thor (the cooler god if you ask me), Isis, Ra or any other in that list (List of deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?
> 2.1 What are the differences between you and a believer in Zeus back in ancient Greece? Why is he wrong and you are right?
> 2.2 If Zeus, Odin, Thor,... and all those other gods/religions aren't real, they must be creation of man, why is your god not a creation of man too?


2. I believe that men created them in their own minds, to sacrifice to and to pray to. They knew their was a greater being, believing it wholeheartedly, but not knowing the one true God, they fabricated one to suit their needs.
2.1 The difference is that an ancient believer of Zeus, believed in a fabricated God, where as I believe in the one true God. Hence the wrong/right - fabricated/true.
2.2 God is not created, God is/was/always will be, He is the great I am.




bryanc said:


> 3. Why are you a Christian (or any other religion) and not a muslim/jew/Hindu/Buddist/Jain/[insert all other religions]?
> 3.1 Why are those other contemporan religions wrong and yours right?
> 3.2 Why do other religions exist at all if one deity exists?
> 3.3 Why are those other religions so neatly geographically separated?
> ...


3. I am a Christian through faith in a God, I believe is the one true God.
3.1 Not all religions are wrong if they believe in the true creator, many religions have altered beliefs surrounding Him, but if the religion in question fails to include the Son of God, than there lies the problem. "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also." John 8:20 Christianity believes that the Son of God died for the sins of all mankind and if you believe and accept this you live for eternity in Heaven, if not, you are not accepted into God's presence, meaning you are banished for eternity without Him.
3.2 I will repeat what I have said, many religions exist because of a created god/deity some exist believing in the true God but have altered the beliefs or rules.
3.3 Each gathers to his own kind, there is strength in numbers.
3.4 Many continue in the faith of their fathers due to many contributing factors including, ancestry, ignorance, pride, fear etc.
3.5 If I had heard someone explain the Gospels to me, yes I would be, just as many have become in the same situation.
3.6 Why so many forms of government? Which one is right, what if we take this one, tweek it a bit and offer it as an alternative?



bryanc said:


> 4. How do you rationalize Epicurus' dilemna with your omnipotent god: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"?


4. Epicurus was a man who had an opinion, you have an opinion, we all have an opinion. I can create a philosophy out of my opinion just as you can. We are all human and that is all that we are. God can remove anything He desires, He can create anything that He desires. There is a word that we have created that describes the lack of God in ones life, thoughts and actions, that is the word evil.



bryanc said:


> 5. How do you determine which parts of your holy book should be followed litteraly, which part are figurative and which part ought to be entirely ignored?
> 5.1 How do you rationalize the tales of Old Testament which portray god as a wicked, jealous and genocidal despot?
> 5.2 How do you rationalize the support for slavery and rampant sexism in the bible?
> 5.3 Why did god not provide a clear unequivocal rule book instead of a book that is rampant with contradictions and a nightmare to interpret?
> ...


5. I assume you would be describing the Holy Bible?
5.1 If you list these tales I will try to answer your question.
5.2 The slavery and rampant sexism you describe would be initiated and supported by man, not God.
5.3 The ten commandments, the old testament rule book, was clear, the contradictions you describe need to be clarified as I do not read nor know of any. Again which ones do you read that need to be explained?
5.4 It was perfectly created by His own words, and apply to every generation to now and beyond without any need of "revisions". What would you describe as outdated?
5.5 God sent His Son to this earth to do His Father's will, dying for all who believe in Him and leaving the Holy Spirit to be His mediator.
5.6 Clarify which stories you believe to be wrong.



bryanc said:


> 6. Do you believe in hell and paradise?
> 6.1 How do you rationalize the notion of eternal torment (infinite punishment for a finite crime)?
> 6.2 How do you rationalize the notion of a perfectly virtuous atheist being sent to hell?
> 6.3 How do you rationalize the notion of thought crime that is comon in the bible?
> ...


6. Yes I believe in Heaven and Hell
6.1 You were given a choice, and chose wrong.
6.2 Why are you concerned for an atheist? He doesn't believe in God, Heaven or hell. If an atheist doesn't want anything to do with God in this life, what makes you believe God wants anything to do with an atheist in death?
6.3 You are referring to thoughts of covetousness?
6.4 Never put much thought into that question, will have to think about it.
6.5 God knows everything before it happens. The crimes we commit in our lives are the result of our choice or the influence of our rearing/peers as we grew. 



bryanc said:


> 7. Why did god wait 194,000 years (assumption, **** sapiens is 200,000 years old) before showing himself?
> 7.1 What do you make of god waiting 194,000 years old while humans died, sinned and murdered with no help/guidance whatsoever?
> 7.2 Why send his son in the middle-east, at the time, one of the most backward and ignorant part of the world instead of China, Greece or Rome?


7. Where is the number 194,000 derived from? God never showed Himself completely to anyone, man could not handle His radiance. He did communicate with man directly and immediately, the garden of Eden in the beginning. 
7.1 194,000? See answer 7.
7.2 Man is incapable of answering for God's decisions or plans.



bryanc said:


> 8. Why is god so obsessed with our bodies and sex in general?


8. We are created in His image.



bryanc said:


> 9. What do you make of people claiming god saved them from a catastrophe/illness yet don't blame him for putting them in the catastrophe or making them ill in the first place?


9. Give examples.



bryanc said:


> 10. What do you make of the fact that prayer has been proven to have no measurable effect whatsoever?
> 10.1 How do you reconcile prayer with the notion of an omniscient being?
> 10.2 How do you reconcile prayer with the notion of god having a plan for each of us?


10. Says who?
10.1 Just because He is omniscient doesn't mean He doesn't want to hear from us.
10.2 We have free will even though He has a plan for us. We choose the door.



bryanc said:


> 11. Are you 'good' just because of the threat of eternal punishment and promise of reward in paradise, or would you be 'good' if you believe god did not exit?


Man has a conscience and wants to do good, something inside him tells him that the wrong he is doing, shouldn't be done. I am a sinner by nature as is everyone born of woman, it is Christ who stands between me and the Judgement throne of God. When I die, I believe Christ will be the mediator I need when judgement day comes.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Really? When you say "the church", which church are you referring to?


Pick one...any one! LOL!

Yo, bryanc, remember this THREAD?

What do you think of my non-scientific wildass theory that some of us are predisposed to some form of spiritual fulfilment and that genetics may play a part?



> Here's my own non-scientific-wildass guess.
> 
> As I said earlier, it is possible that we may be genetically predisposed with a need for some inner spiritual need. It certainly manifests itself in various degrees and there are definitely external factors influencing its strength.
> 
> ...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> What do you think of my non-scientific wildass theory that some of us are predisposed to some form of spiritual fulfilment and that genetics may play a part?


Let me preface this by saying firstly that I know people who've genuinely devoted their lives to this problem, and secondly by saying that I've spent a non-trivial amount of time thinking about and studying this question myself. That being said, I think your "wildass theory" is right on the money. Humans (and, as we have discovered recently, other primates and probably most vertebrates) are genetically predisposed to "seeing agents in the shadows" and formulating rituals to appease them.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that we're scared of the dark, and we're prone to making up stories about stuff we don't understand. This has probably been a very valuable trait, in that it has helped create social structures that make us *vastly* more powerful as groups, and it hasn't cost us much (believing in bogey men or thunder gods generally does not get you killed, and does occasionally turn out to be close enough to 'true' to give you an edge).

Indeed, I'd credit religion as the defining characteristic of our species. Which is going to make it difficult to shake off. My hope is that our civilization spawns the species that makes **** sapiens extinct; **** sapiens sane (the literal latin translation for rational is 'sane') should rapidly extinguish it's less rational forbearers, just like we eradicated our less technologically adept ancestors.

Cheers


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

wslctrc said:


> I'll take a stab at them.


Thanks wslctrc, I appreciate your time and effort.



> 1.God didn't come to be, God always was, is and will be.
> 1.1 The universe is material and created by God who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.


Excuse me for being dense, but I don't see why it's okay for you to claim that God always was, but that existence was created. Why does god not need a cause, but the universe does? What makes god logically different than 'the universe'?



> 2. I believe that men created them in their own minds, to sacrifice to and to pray to. They knew their was a greater being, believing it wholeheartedly, but not knowing the one true God, they fabricated one to suit their needs.


And how does this not apply to the god of Abraham? What reason can you provide to elevate Yhweh above Zeus?



> I am a Christian through faith in a God, I believe is the one true God.


I'm sure a Zoroastrian or FSMist would make the same claim. How can we distinguish your claim from others?



> Epicurus was a man who had an opinion, you have an opinion, we all have an opinion.


No. Epicurus was a logician. His question has foiled Christian apologists for centuries. It is not an opinion: Evil exists. If an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god exists, this cannot be the case, and yet, by any reasonable definition it is. Therefore the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god of the bible does not. QED.

Aquinas and others have tried to deal with this by invoking Free Will, or placing limits on God's power, but both of these approaches are logical failures. Free Will cannot exist in a universe overseen by an omniscient mind, and limits on God's powers break the definition of omnipotence.



> 5. I assume you would be describing the Holy Bible?


yer damn right I am....



> 5.2 The slavery and rampant sexism you describe would be initiated and supported by man, not God.


here are just a few off the cuff... I'm sure I can find more if you like


> Exodus 21:1-4: "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve...





> Deuteronomy 15:12-18: "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free


So you should only keep your slaves for six years according to the bible...


> Genesis 3:16. Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.





> Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man"





> Corinthians 11:7 - 9 "7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
> 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
> 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
> ...
> ...





> Ephesians 5: "22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
> 23 For the husband is the head of the wife


I could go on... but that one's shootin' fish in a barrel.

As for contradictions in the bible; where should I begin?!?

How about "turn the other cheek" vs. "eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth".... you can find a biblical quote to support any course of action.



> What would you describe as outdated?


Um... all of Leviticus, fer starters?



> 6.1 You were given a choice, and chose wrong.


So a finite mortal with finite knowledge chooses to the best of her abilities and it turns out to be "wrong" according to God, and He is therefore morally justified in torturing her *for-freaking-ever?!?*

Sorry, but that just does not compute in my ethical system.



> 6.5 God knows everything before it happens. The crimes we commit in our lives are the result of our choice


Do you not see the logical paradox in what you've written above; if God knows what you will choose (and indeed _created_ you knowing you'd make those choices) how are the consequences anyone's fault but God's?

If I dig a big hole, fill it with pointed sticks at the bottom, and cover it with a thin layer of branches and leaves, I'm morally responsible if someone falls in and gets injured or killed *even though I don't know for sure that was going to happen!*. If God knows what's going to happen, and He's the cause of all events, how is _anything_ anyone's fault but His?



> 7. Where is the number 194,000 derived from?


Just an arbitrary number based on the estimate that our species is about 200,000 years old. So "humans" existed for about 194,000 years before "God" showed up to "save" us.

Makes the 2000 year wait for him to swing by on the way back from gettin' the car from the parking lot or whatever seem less onerous, doesn't it?



> [WRT God's fixation with our naughty bits]We are created in His image.


So you're saying that God's a big wanker?



> 9. Give examples.


Oh good grief... are you telling me you've never heard of anyone thanking god for their survival of a plane crash/car accident/disease/earthquake/tornado/freak-accident-of-your-choice?!? Take your pick.



> 10.1 Just because He is omniscient doesn't mean He doesn't want to hear from us.


So the dude who knows your every thought is unhappy because you don't call him on Mother's day? I've always thought of the Christian god as a sadomasochistic SOB, but not so much as the windging Jewish Mother... I guess it's good to put all the unpleasant stereotypes in one metaphorical basket.



> 10.2 We have free will even though He has a plan for us. We choose the door.


So he doesn't know what door we'll pick? Guess Omniscience goes out the window... Oh wait! He does know... Guess Free will goes out the window.



> I am a sinner by nature as is everyone born of woman


Yes! It's those damn women! beejacon



> When I die, I believe Christ will be the mediator I need when judgement day comes.


Good luck with that.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Human immortality is expressed through procreation of children as the continuation of the species.


Hey, don't forget teaching. If Socrates ever even existed (I've read some good arguments that Plato may have made him up) and he had kids, his genes would long since have been diluted into the gene pool sufficiently to have rendered his contribution to the species 'negligible'. But his (or Plato's) ideas are still fundamental to the way we think and attack new problems. So his (or Plato's) memetic legacy is far more important than his genetic legacy.

Teaching may be the most important thing we do as human beings (and obviously, we teach (intentionally or otherwise) our own children, so (except in certain cases) that is inextricably woven into our genetic legacy).

Cheers


----------



## minnes (Aug 15, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that we're scared of the dark, and we're prone to making up stories about stuff we don't understand. This has probably been a very valuable trait, in that it has helped create social structures that make us *vastly* more powerful as groups, and it hasn't cost us much (believing in bogey men or thunder gods generally does not get you killed, and does occasionally turn out to be close enough to 'true' to give you an edge).
> 
> Indeed, I'd credit religion as the defining characteristic of our species. Which is going to make it difficult to shake off. My hope is that our civilization spawns the species that makes **** sapiens extinct; **** sapiens sane (the literal latin translation for rational is 'sane') should rapidly extinguish it's less rational forbearers, just like we eradicated our less technologically adept ancestors.
> 
> Cheers


There was good reason to be afraid of the dark, when the most advanced technology was starting a fire or hunting a deer. There were predatory animals waiting in the dark, ready to eat you. If you wandered off too far , you would get lost and die alone. You could easily make up some stories designed to help you stay safe, by saying the bogie man will get cha if you go off in the dark alone. 

I wish I could come back in ohhh 500,000 years to check out what's happening on earth. Unfortunately I doubt I will be alive. Too bad, Im really curious, there is a good chance the whole species could be gone.

also consider this....
If all the insects die, then all the animals up the food chain could go extinct over a few years, including us. But if only we were gone, the rest of the species would cary on better than ever. Does that make the insects more important for the survival of Earth than humans?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

minnes said:


> Does that make the insects more important for the survival of Earth than humans?


Yep. Without a doubt the global biosphere would be better off without us, but we cannot survive without it. Something to think about.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Let me preface this by saying firstly that I know people who've genuinely devoted their lives to this problem, and secondly by saying that I've spent a non-trivial amount of time thinking about and studying this question myself. That being said, I think your "wildass theory" is right on the money. Humans (and, as we have discovered recently, other primates and probably most vertebrates) are genetically predisposed to "seeing agents in the shadows" and formulating rituals to appease them.
> 
> Fundamentally, it comes down to the fact that we're scared of the dark, and we're prone to making up stories about stuff we don't understand. This has probably been a very valuable trait, in that it has helped create social structures that make us *vastly* more powerful as groups, and it hasn't cost us much (believing in bogey men or thunder gods generally does not get you killed, and does occasionally turn out to be close enough to 'true' to give you an edge).
> 
> ...


So if my wildass theory has merit, then no matter what, a great number of humans will always seek some form of spiritual fulfilment. Be it in the form of deity worship or some other form of intangible, metaphysical spiritualism. We can never eliminate it.

If that is the case, than the two distinct groups (the spirituals and the non-spirituals) will always be at conflict with each other. The specifics are irrelevant.

The problem is further complicated when the 'spirituals' develop conflicts within their own group or with other 'spirituals' and of course with the 'non-spirituals'.

But even if we were somehow able to eliminate all spiritualism from the human species, I have serious doubts that human conflict would end. Perhaps in minnes' 500,000 years...but then only because we would no longer be around. 

...and my vote is for the insects.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

kps said:


> But even if we were somehow able to eliminate all spiritualism from the human species, I have serious doubts that human conflict would end.


Your doubts are warranted. The greatest conflict in the history of the world was essentially the result of two competing atheistic, non-spiritual ideologies (though the NSDAP did sometimes draw upon proto-Germanic mysticism). Hitler spoke and wrote often of going after the Christians, following resolution of the 'Jewish Question'. Violence is just human nature; it's not predicated on any beliefs.


----------



## Mckitrick (Dec 25, 2005)

Sonal said:


> Not being a dick seems to make my life a lot easier and more peaceful, so I think I will stick with it. I'm not perfect, however, so whatever happens, happens.


I'm with Sonal... Don't be a dick. Seems to work well for me.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> For some values of "valid." I certainly find Jedi as valid as (although somewhat less entertaining than) Christianity, or any other Abrahamic religion, and it certainly makes as much logical sense. But if you mean "philosophically defensible" when you say it's valid, I'd like to hear more of your reasoning.


Valid was in quotation marks for a reason bryanc. 

At any rate what I mean is, all beliefs are just that... beliefs. They lack "proof" and therefore can be as "valid" as any other belief that lacks proof.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

dona83 said:


> FYI, the word "**** sapien" is an evolutionist term, the church will not acknowledge that word.


Is it? I was under the impression that one needn't believe in evolution to find taxonomy useful. Doesn't it pre-date the science of evolution?


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

bryanc said:


> So you're saying that God's a big wanker?
> 
> ...
> 
> So the dude who knows your every thought is unhappy because you don't call him on Mother's day? I've always thought of the Christian god as a sadomasochistic SOB, but not so much as the windging Jewish Mother... I guess it's good to put all the unpleasant stereotypes in one metaphorical basket.


Bryan, if you were wondering why your attempt at rational discussion is "probably vain", maybe it's at least partly to do with this kind of flippant/sarcastic response to the religious.

I agree with the substance of nearly everything you have to say on the matter, but your way of saying it sometimes lacks the civility needed for the kind of discussion you say you want to have. And in a discussion such as this, "sometimes" can easily be the proverbial teaspoon of feces that turns a barrel of wine into a barrel of feces.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MazterCBlazter said:


> So until then, have lots of kids, encourage them all to do the same and everyone strive to own and drive the biggest SUV you can all finance.


I'm for fewer kids and more SUVs.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

wslctrc said:


> 6. Yes I believe in Heaven and Hell


What about Paradise? Bryanc asked about Paradise, not Heaven.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Indeed, I'd credit religion as the defining characteristic of our species. Which is going to make it difficult to shake off. My hope is that our civilization spawns the species that makes **** sapiens extinct; **** sapiens sane (the literal latin translation for rational is 'sane') *should rapidly extinguish it's less rational forbearers, just like we eradicated our less technologically adept ancestors*.Cheers


And who says atheism isn't dangerous. Sounds like a quote from Mein Kampf.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacGuiver said:


> And who says atheism isn't dangerous. Sounds like a quote from Mein Kampf.


I though it sounded kind of Vulcan-ish. Especially the bit about less-rational forebears. That's what they did, didn't they?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


>


Of course! Casinos! Must... gamble...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacGuiver said:


> And who says atheism isn't dangerous.


I don't know. Who?

As I've said before, the danger of wide-spread atheism is that many people aren't mature enough (morally) to be trusted to behave once they're aware that there is no invisible police man monitoring their thoughts and actions. While I think the idea of such magical monitors is so wildly implausible as to be absurd, I'm quite happy that most of my fellow humans live in fear of such mythical agents. This, of course, has no relevance to the philosophical validity of religion, but it does help us understand the ubiquitousness of these sorts of beliefs in human cultures.

Cheers.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Yes religion keeps people in line. It is designed to control people. Keep them docile and labouring during peace time, and ready to fight for the Godly cause during wartime.


Well, I don't think it was "designed" (people aren't that clever), but yes, those are among the adaptive traits organized religion provides. A nice example of group selection.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

bryanc said:


> I don't know. Who?
> 
> As I've said before, the danger of wide-spread atheism is that many people aren't mature enough (morally) to be trusted to behave once they're aware that there is no invisible police man monitoring their thoughts and actions. While I think the idea of such magical monitors is so wildly implausible as to be absurd, I'm quite happy that most of my fellow humans live in fear of such mythical agents. This, of course, has no relevance to the philosophical validity of religion, but it does help us understand the ubiquitousness of these sorts of beliefs in human cultures.
> 
> Cheers.


I don't know, but it seems to me that atheists seem to have a religion or at least operate as if they have one. They have a dogma, they have a belief, they have numerous books and writings, they even have meetings and T-shirts........ so they choose to believe in not believing............ they seem to have dreadful holidays however.......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> I don't know, but it seems to me that atheists seem to have a religion or at least operate as if they have one.


Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.



> They have a dogma


What dogma?



> they have a belief


No, only a lack of belief.



> they have numerous books and writings


Some atheists have written books, but there is no consistency among what atheists believe... You can find atheists like me, that are agnostic skeptics, or atheists who believe in reincarnation and the supernatural power of crystals. All atheism is is the lack of a certain category of beliefs.



> so they choose to believe in not believing


Maybe some do. I don't. I don't get to choose what I believe. I am compelled to believe what I believe by reason and evidence. Where those are lacking, I have no beliefs.



> they seem to have dreadful holidays


:lmao:

That's a fair cop.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> > they seem to have dreadful holidays however.......
> 
> 
> :lmao:
> ...


Not really. You ever notice how Judeo-Christian-Islamic holy days fall pretty much on the same dates as some ancient pagan festivals celebrating natural phenomenon?

So who says that atheists can't celebrate a natural phenomenon like the winter solstice?

Call it Christmas, call it Hanukkah, call it whatever...it's all the same ancient rituals adopted to suit the occasion.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Yes religion keeps people in line. It is designed to control people. Keep them docile and labouring during peace time, and ready to fight for the Godly cause during wartime.


Neither the Bible nor the Quran condone wars and fighting, yet we fight wars anyway in the name of God. Mankind can't be trusted.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Call it Christmas, call it Hanukkah, call it whatever...it's all the same ancient rituals adopted to suit the occasion.


The rituals are obviously variable, but I've enjoyed drawing my Christian friends attention to the obvious pagan origins of some of their holy days. Bunny rabbits and eggs don't make much sense for the Christian celebration of Easter, but once you realize the Christians have co-opted the ancient pagan spring celebration of Oestra, the moon-goddess of fertility, the symbology becomes obvious. 

At Christmas it's all I can do to restrain myself when I hear someone (usually a sanctimonious old lady) bemoaning how people have forgotten the "true meaning of Christmas" on a radio call-in show... I alway want to call in and say something like "I agree with the previous caller; bring back the drunken orgies!"


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Some atheists have written books, but there is no consistency among what atheists believe... You can find atheists like me, that are agnostic skeptics, or atheists who believe in reincarnation and the supernatural power of crystals. All atheism is is the lack of a certain category of beliefs.


You can say the same about Christians, and yet, surveys like the one you posted seem to treat all Christians as the stereotypical right-wing bible thumping fire-and-brimstone type.

I don't know, I've seen a lot of these "I just want to understand" and it comes out more like a thinly veiled attempt at "I just want to rip this to pieces." Not saying that's your intent, bryanc, but it does seem to have some of that flavour.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

bryanc said:


> At Christmas it's all I can do to restrain myself when I hear someone (usually a sanctimonious old lady) bemoaning how people have forgotten the "true meaning of Christmas" on a radio call-in show... I alway want to call in and say something like "I agree with the previous caller; bring back the drunken orgies!"


You're upset that a little old lady is unaware that Christmas has its roots in arcane pagan festivals stamped out 1500 years ago?


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

Which is why Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Jesus' birth at all, they do hold yearly memorials for his death at Easter, sans bunny and eggs and what not.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Bryanc, have you ever been to an atheist's group meeting ...... go to one or two then get back to me if you don't think they have a dogma, book, or even a belief structure............


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> You can say the same about Christians, and yet, surveys like the one you posted seem to treat all Christians as the stereotypical right-wing bible thumping fire-and-brimstone type.


I think the questions I've posted all address basic tenants of theology common to most, if not all, Abrahamic religions.

I certainly don't think all Christians are the same (heck, every Catholic I know think's the Pope is an idiot), but the core beliefs of most of these faiths are so incomprehensibly irrational to me that I was interested to hear how apparently rational people interpret them.



> I've seen a lot of these "I just want to understand" and it comes out more like a thinly veiled attempt at "I just want to rip this to pieces." Not saying that's your intent, bryanc, but it does seem to have some of that flavour.


It's true, I do like arguing about this kind of stuff. And perhaps as a result of having done quite a bit of 'late night debating' over the years, I'm prone to taking a somewhat provocative tone. But I really am interested in a genuine debate.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> You're upset that a little old lady is unaware that Christmas has its roots in arcane pagan festivals stamped out 1500 years ago?


Not upset - highly amused. When I said "it's all I can do to restrain myself" it was because I find it so funny.

On a tangentially related topic, I've met several people who've made a career out of comparative theology. They're all atheists now. Most of them started out as adherents of some religion or other, but one could argue that if they had been of strong faith, they wouldn't have gone looking at other religions. But I think understanding how religions have developed and evolved over the course of human history makes it very hard to avoid the conclusion that they're all purely human fantasies. Which is not to say they don't have value (indeed, I think the nature of our fantasies tells us much more about human nature than most 'scientific' research).


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> Bryanc, have you ever been to an atheist's group meeting ...... go to one or two then get back to me if you don't think they have a dogma, book, or even a belief structure............


I've never even heard of "an atheist's group meeting" (unless you count scientific research conferences... the vast majority of scientists I've met are atheists).


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

bryanc said:


> I've never even heard of "an atheist's group meeting" (unless you count scientific research conferences... the vast majority of scientists I've met are atheists).


Yeah, we have a number of them around here .... that's why I say when you go to those it's more like a "church" meeting than not.... check them out I'm sure there must be some in your area......


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Rps said:


> ... that's why I say when you go to those it's more like a "church" meeting than not...


I don't doubt it. I've been to some Linux users group meetings that had a very 'churchy' feel to them. Most people are very prone to tribalism. If they can find a basis on which to define "them" and "us", that will often form the basis of a group, and that will then evolve in to codified rules/books/dogma and lots of other crap. That doesn't make atheism a religion any more than not being good at math is a religion.



> check them out I'm sure there must be some in your area......


I doubt it. New Brunswick is very religious.

Cheers

[EDIT] I just did some googling, and the closest I could find to an atheists group is the UNB undergraduate freethinkers society. I can't tell if they ever have any meetings, or if it's just a web-page that allows them to draw on the Student Union club fund.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> I think the questions I've posted all address basic tenants of theology common to most, if not all, Abrahamic religions.


I think some of them assume a fairly literal interpretation of the Bible/Qua'ran/Torah, which is not common among individual adherents, and some of the language used is certainly on the inflammatory side. ("thoughtcrimes"?)



bryanc said:


> It's true, I do like arguing about this kind of stuff. And perhaps as a result of having done quite a bit of 'late night debating' over the years, I'm prone to taking a somewhat provocative tone. But I really am interested in a genuine debate.


I don't find that the Socratic method of always conducive to furthering one's understanding. Sometimes, yes, but often it devolves into two sides ridiculing each other.

I enjoy this type of discussion myself, but more often than not, it gets ugly quickly.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> I think some of them assume a fairly literal interpretation of the Bible/Qua'ran/Torah, which is not common among individual adherents


Fair enough, and someone who is a theist but does not accept these interpretations could certainly answer, "I don't accept that interpretation; here is what I think these passages mean..." or even "I believe in God but don't accept the truth of the Bible/Qua'ran/Torah, so these questions are not a problem for me."



> and some of the language used is certainly on the inflammatory side. ("thoughtcrimes"?)


How would you describe thoughts that are punishable sins?



> I enjoy this type of discussion myself, but more often than not, it gets ugly quickly.


One of the things that is very nice about ehMac is that disagreements rarely get ugly. I'm perfectly happy to argue my side, and if other's disagree, I'll consider their case. If I can't refute it, I may have to change my beliefs. And if others don't find my arguments compelling, they're obviously free to disagree.

I guess I should say that if you find these kinds of arguments upsetting or otherwise stressful, please don't participate.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Fair enough, and someone who is a theist but does not accept these interpretations could certainly answer, "I don't accept that interpretation; here is what I think these passages mean..." or even "I believe in God but don't accept the truth of the Bible/Qua'ran/Torah, so these questions are not a problem for me."


True enough, but questions that start with those inherent assumptions tend to put people on the defensive, rather than opening things up for genuine understand.



bryanc said:


> How would you describe thoughts that are punishable sins?


As just as you put it: a thought that is a punishable sin. Same meaning, less of an inflammatory inference. 

Jainism, as it happens, looks at your thoughts, words and deeds. 



> One of the things that is very nice about ehMac is that disagreements rarely get ugly. I'm perfectly happy to argue my side, and if other's disagree, I'll consider their case. If I can't refute it, I may have to change my beliefs. And if others don't find my arguments compelling, they're obviously free to disagree.
> 
> I guess I should say that if you find these kinds of arguments upsetting or otherwise stressful, please don't participate.


Who said anything about upsetting or stressful? Boring and ineffective (assuming the aim is to further overall understanding) is more like it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> Boring and ineffective (assuming the aim is to further overall understanding) is more like it.


I've always found testing my ideas against the critical attacks of others a productive and largely enjoyable experience. Perhaps this is my scientific bias. When I make observations about reality, I formulate hypotheses, design tests of these hypotheses, collect data, revise my hypotheses until I think I've got a good understanding of something, then I try to publish it and/or present it at meetings. During this process, my colleagues try to find faults with my data, interpretations, logic, and generally try to shoot my ideas down anyway they can. If my ideas are able to withstand these attacks, they may have some merit.

The questions I've proposed here are intellectual attacks on what I see as some of the fundamental philosophical flaws in the dogma of religions with which I am most familiar. Either people can answer these questions and defend their positions, in which case I may have to change my opinions on some of these issues, or they can't. (Alternatively, people may answer and defend their positions in ways that are satisfactory to them, but not to me, in which case we will simply have to agree to disagree, because in such a case we would clearly be using incompatible systems as the basis of our beliefs. This is what I expect to be the case most often, but I'd be happy to be wrong).


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The questions I've proposed here are intellectual attacks on what I see as some of the fundamental philosophical flaws in the dogma of religions with which I am most familiar. Either people can answer these questions and defend their positions, in which case I may have to change my opinions on some of these issues, or they can't.


I think this may be the big error of your approach; you are approaching religion from a purely academic perspective. It's easy to mock and question ideas when those ideas are impossible to prove. Check out some of the Mr. Deity podcasts I mentioned earlier for a light-hearted but very thought-provoking examination of some of the perplexing issues Christianity fails to address, but yet we carry on anyway. These podcasts are short but brilliant and available for free from the iTunes store. I completely agree with you on academic grounds, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel. If the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, how did BigG measure days before that? And where was the light coming from in the beginning? 

But these are not questions of Faith. Religion is the history and traditions, both of which are man-made and obviously fallible. Faith has to do with believing on something you can't prove, like aliens or the Loch Ness monster or telekinesis. Or God. I like the quote by Ed Norton in the movie Keeping the Faith: "Faith is a hunch that we're all connected somehow." 

If you set up the argument by simply baiting people with religion questions, and then attempt to refute each of their answers, that is not really a discussion or even a debate. What is missing is the element of genuine listening, without thinking about what your next argument is going to be before the other person is even finished their sentence. And matters of faith are very personal; they go to the core of our being. Who I am to say your beliefs are wrong and mine are right? Our faith is what helps get us through the day.

Arguing religious points can be fun but is ultimately meaningless. A good discussion about faith I welcome any day.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> I think this may be the big error of your approach; you are approaching religion from a purely academic perspective. It's easy to mock and question ideas when those ideas are impossible to prove.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you set up the argument by simply baiting people with religion questions, and then attempt to refute each of their answers, that is not really a discussion or even a debate. What is missing is the element of genuine listening, without thinking about what your next argument is going to be before the other person is even finished their sentence. And matters of faith are very personal; they go to the core of our being.


Well said, and thank you. 

bryanc, you are trying to apply scientific rules and principles to something that is not scientific. If science cannot be approached through religion, why would religion necessarily be approachable through science?

We are more than our rational selves. Imagination, creativity, emotions, beauty, humour--these are things that can be understood to a point through scientific methods, but not entirely, and certainly they lose something in trying to be defined solely through rational means. It's like explaining a joke--it's no longer funny at that point. 

I'm not trying to pull a "well it's faith, stop asking questions" card, because I think that limits discussion. But I do believe that to understand something, it's often more effective to do so from a position of openness and acceptance rather refutation and the elimination. 

Rather than trying to understand through this one method, why not try another?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Agreed. There's more - far more - to this world than a dry adherence to so-called rational thought.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Max said:


> Agreed. There's more - far more - to this world than a dry adherence to so-called rational thought.


No. Bryan is right on that count. There is only what the 5 senses can detect. He treads heavily but he speaks the truth.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chasMac said:


> No. Bryan is right on that count. There is only what the 5 senses can detect. He treads heavily but he speaks the truth.


So you are suggesting that there are only five senses. Science and other animasl prove you wrong.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

screature said:


> So you are suggesting that there are only five senses. Science and other animasl prove you wrong.


How so? I should inform my kid's science teacher on the update.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

chasMac said:


> How so? I should inform my kid's science teacher on the update.


Yes really. How about infrared? How about echo location? How about subsonic and ultrasonic sound? Sonar? etc., etc., not to mention time space perception, which no creature on the earth can perceive but is theoretically possible.

You could argue that all of these are adjuncts and extensions of the senses we have, but to suggest that no other senses are possible is logically impossible to defend.

You can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell neutrinos but we can "detect" them using science.  So given the appropriate sensory apparatus a given hypothetical organism should be able to "sense" them.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

screature said:


> Yes really. How about infrared? How about echo location? How about subsonic and ultrasonic sound? Sonar? etc., etc., not to mention time space perception, which no creature on the earth can perceive but is theoretically possible.
> 
> You could argue that all of these are adjuncts and extensions of the senses we have, but to suggest that no other senses are possible is logically impossible to defend.
> 
> You can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell neutrinos but we can "detect" them using science.  So given the appropriate sensory apparatus a given hypothetical organism should be able to "sense" them.


And the old man who cannot hear his wife calling from the next room proves she doesn't exist? You are getting caught up on the failings of our own senses. The examples you mention can be detected using the five senses given the proper instruments through which we heighten our sensory perception. Can this be said of something which cannot be logically proven to exist? Can you prove the existence of god, ghosts or spirits if privy to the proper tools? BTW, I realize there are more than five senses (a quick search reveals that pain is its own sense - nociception - and heat, and balance [honestly, to me, all simply corollaries of touch - but I'm no expert]). Unfortunately for my part I used a colloquialism when I oughtn't have.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

I'm going to try to respond to your posts more specifically, but I first want to say that I thank you and really appreciate your contributions.

My OP was intentionally provocative, and some of you have called me out on that; me culpa. But I won't apologize because my intention was to instigate some interesting discussion and the past few posts have achieved that.

Now. I'll try to continue addressing (hopefully sufficiently respectfully) the points you've made.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> but this is like shooting fish in a barrel.


You're obviously right, yet the topic remains a perennial firebrand. This is almost a subject for a separate thread. Logically, empirically, even aesthetically, modern philosophy has abandoned religion as a ground for fertile discussion; it's too easy to refute (or at the very least, discredit or repudiate). So why does it remain so prevalent in society?

Science can never prove that religion is not true, but the more we learn the more pathetic the religious world view becomes. And the more desperate the efforts of organized religion to elevate ignorance and simple-mindedness to an ideal.

It seems that these are cultural trends that are bound for tragedy.




> Faith has to do with believing on something you can't prove


I'm a scientist; I can't prove anything. The only irrefutable fact I have to work with is my own existence (thanks René).



> like aliens or the Loch Ness monster or telekinesis. Or God.


Or the invisible dragon in your garage; I'm open to any of these ideas, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... if you tell me it's been raining where you live, I'd be easily convinced by a picture of some wet streets, but if you want to convince me that you've got a dragon in your garage, you'll have to do better than scorch marks on your driveway.



> "Faith is a hunch that we're all connected somehow."


It is trivially easy to show thermodynamically that we're all connected somehow... but that doesn't mean that praying that someone you don't like will suffer ill fate will work, or visa versa.



> And matters of faith are very personal; they go to the core of our being. Who I am to say your beliefs are wrong and mine are right?


Well, if you can show me where my beliefs are logically inconsistent, or refutable by factual observation, or even philosophically problematic, I'd be happy to consider your arguments.



> Our faith is what helps get us through the day.


Well, good for you, I guess. I have no faith to help me through the day... I have to work with reason and evidence.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Sonal said:


> If science cannot be approached through religion, why would religion necessarily be approachable through science?


I'm not asking that it should be. Science is that small subset of philosophy that can be addressed by empirical measurement. I'm perfectly willing to accept that many important and valid aspects of the universe are sufficiently obscure to us that we cannot yet formulate empirical hypotheses about their nature. But that does not justify becoming completely irrational about them.

Philosophy rightly prizes logic, parsimony, and rational positions.



> We are more than our rational selves. Imagination, creativity, emotions, beauty, humour--these are things that can be understood to a point through scientific methods, but not entirely, and certainly they lose something in trying to be defined solely through rational means. It's like explaining a joke--it's no longer funny at that point.


I'm in violent agreement with you. Insight, imagination, inspiration and the irrational spark of creativity is not only what I prize most in myself, but also what I hold most dear in my friends (heck, this is what I like about dogs). But I don't suppose that this element of "personality" requires some kind of magic or supernatural explanation.



> it's often more effective to do so from a position of openness and acceptance rather refutation and the elimination.


Fair enough. I respect that. But you do your thing and I'll do mine, okay? I'm a scientist; my expertise is in falsifying flawed hypotheses, not in accepting and cultivating ideas that have no merit. We're complementary. If you think that the tens of thousands of years religions have had to come up with some ideas that withstand some critical scrutiny is not enough and that I should leave the poor beleaguered dominant beliefs of our society alone, feel free to tell me to back off.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chasMac said:


> He treads heavily but he speaks the truth.


I ain't even got the hobnail boots out yet...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> So you are suggesting that there are only five senses. Science and other animasl prove you wrong.


I'll admit that there is some pretty good evidence of a sense of magnetism in some animals... but the fact remains that there is no rational basis to suppose that nature is fundamentally more complex than we already know it is.

While it is always attractive to add complexity - more variables - it is intellectually lazy to do so until it is demonstrated to be necessary. If you remove the constraint of unnecessary complexity; anyone can explain anything, and no actual understanding of reality emerges from the process at all. 

Occam's Razor is underestimated; it is the crux of real knowledge.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> How about infrared?


vision.



> How about echo location?


Hearing 



> How about subsonic and ultrasonic sound?


Hearing 



> Sonar?


Hearing 



> etc., etc., not to mention time space perception, which no creature on the earth can perceive but is theoretically possible.


Link? I'm not aware of any theoretical underpinnings for direct perception of T/S warping... or are you simply referring to sensing acceleration?



> You can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell neutrinos but we can "detect" them using science.


Only by converting their effects into modalities our senses can detect.

But I don't dispute your point that, in principle, senses could exist that detect aspects of our universe that our senses cannot directly perceive. But I don't see how that pertains to the discussion; if some creature existed that could directly perceive neutrino flux, how would that be philosophically relevant?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

screature said:


> Yes really. How about infrared? How about echo location? How about subsonic and ultrasonic sound? Sonar? etc., etc., not to mention time space perception, which no creature on the earth can perceive but is theoretically possible.
> 
> You could argue that all of these are adjuncts and extensions of the senses we have, but to suggest that no other senses are possible is logically impossible to defend.
> 
> You can't see, hear, touch, taste or smell neutrinos but we can "detect" them using science.  So given the appropriate sensory apparatus a given hypothetical organism should be able to "sense" them.


That's a wee bit of a stretch.

I think you have some 'splainin' to do, because you're still using your FIVE senses, regardless; ie: your sense of sight to see a representation of infrared on a screen, not actually SEEING infrared with your own eyes. :lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> ...But I don't dispute your point that, in principle, senses could exist that detect aspects of our universe that our senses cannot directly perceive. But I don't see how that pertains to the discussion; if some creature existed that could directly perceive neutrino flux, how would that be philosophically relevant?


This is the point I am making and it is only an aside to the discussion.

We use instruments to "detect" that which is otherwise undetectable to us using our five senses. Yes granted the examples I provided were poor and didn't illustrate where I was coming from very well. My bad.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Well, good for you, I guess. I have no faith to help me through the day... I have to work with reason and evidence.


That's interesting. You do have faith in science, reason and evidence to explain anything worth explaining. So you do have faith, just not in religion. Maybe that gets you through the day, and even the night as well. 

If one day you were sitting in front of a little French cafe and the neighborhood a few blocks over suddenly defied gravity and folded over on to itself, like in the movie Inception, you might have to ponder a larger world view, one where gravity doesn't apply for instance. 

My own take is that just because an explanation is a work of the imagination doesn't make it any less valuable. Humans are storytellers. It's part of our charm.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> That's a wee bit of a stretch.
> 
> I think you have some 'splainin' to do, because you're still using your FIVE senses, regardless; ie: your sense of sight to see a representation of infrared on a screen, not actually SEEING infrared with your own eyes. :lmao:


Just to play devil's advocate once again, what makes you so sure there are FIVE senses? Maybe there's just one sense with many different facets. Animals will instinctively seek higher ground for example when they sense an impending Tsunami. Leia feels a twinge of discomfort when her twin brother Luke is in danger. It makes sense to me that our compartmentalizing our senses into five discrete categories may be nonsensical. I say this with great sensitivity, in a sense. Does this make sense?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

fjnmusic said:


> You do have faith in science


No, I am compelled to believe in science because of reason and evidence. Even my belief in logic/mathematics is not 'belief without evidence' because these systems of making predictions demonstrably work.



> If one day you were sitting in front of a little French cafe and the neighborhood a few blocks over suddenly defied gravity and folded over on to itself, like in the movie Inception, you might have to ponder a larger world view, one where gravity doesn't apply for instance.


Yes, I absolutely would. That would be extraordinary evidence that my basic conceptual framework was flawed. What I don't understand is people who make these wild leaps to supernatural explanations *without* any such extraordinary evidence. It's quite surprising to me that people will choose supernatural explanations when mundane explanations suffice (or when no explanation is necessary at all because we don't even know what was really observed and it can't be reproduced).



> My own take is that just because an explanation is a work of the imagination doesn't make it any less valuable. Humans are storytellers. It's part of our charm.


I like stories as much as the next guy. I just don't seem to have as much trouble as many keeping fantasy separated from reality.

Cheers


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

A question relevant to the discussion but a bit of an aside....

Without a God what constitutes "Evil"... Where does it come from and why/how does it exist? Does not "evil" exist only because life exists?

Without a God is the concept of "evil" not meaningless.... unless we as human beginnings as the authors of laws that define the limits of behaviour relative to ourselves and therefore what constitutes good and evil in our own terms mean that we consider our self to be God in terms of normative behaviour?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Exactly what we choose it to be.

Are you so dependent on a skydaddy you require that kind of outside guidance?

Evolution has provided us with a set of rough "what is fair" 

Monkeys Show Sense Of Fairness, Study Says

we are primates - we share that innate behaviour and that has been shown to exist even in preverbal children.

From there humans have codified behaviours considering damaging to others and to the social fabric....some codified "laws" from the past we would consider criminal today.
Some codified "laws" in other societies we in the west consider consider criminal.
Stoning for adultery for instance.

Yes it is relative to mores that emerge from the social fabric of the times and lately to our understanding of human nature ( sexual preference for instance. )

When we start to take sole responsibility for maintaining a peaceable society and viable sustainable planet and not rely on nonsense from the past we'll be better equipped to move forward in dealing with real issues facing our prolific species.

Yattering about invisible entities best left to charlatans and fools.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Without a God what constitutes "Evil"... Where does it come from and why/how does it exist?


This is an interesting question, not because it is difficult to answer, but because the question itself illustrates one of the profound failings of theology as an underpinning for morality.

Before I discuss secular ethics, I'd like you to ask yourself "is something ethically 'good' because it is something God approves of?" Is it possible for God to be evil? When God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, was that a "good" thing to do? (And the fact that He sent an angel to spare Isaac at the last second is irrelevant; this is like someone coercing a child into torturing a cat, but substituting a fake, robotic cat without the child's knowledge). If God spoke to you today and commanded you to do something you considered morally wrong, would you do it?

Particularly back in the middle ages, some ethical philosophers have taken the position that, yes, anything God says is "good" by definition, even if we can't understand why. This strikes me as unmitigated bullsh*t. Even if I believed in a god, and thought he might only be testing me, if He commanded me to kill my son I'd tell Him to get stuffed. Far better to burn in hell than to worship an evil God.

Modern ethical philosophers have largely taken the position of 'consequentialism' (and I'll apologize in advance to those of you who know this stuff... I'm not trying to be patronizing... feel free to expand on or correct anything you think I've over-simiplified or got wrong).

An action is ethically good or evil because of the intended consequences. Therefore an agent can only be ethically culpable for their choices to the extent that they can be expected to predict the consequences of their actions. This is why children have limited ethical culpability.

What makes consequences good or evil depends somewhat on which philosophers you read, Mill's Principle of Utility is a fairly broadly accepted starting point: Something is good if and only if it brings about more pleasure than pain; and something is evil if and only if it brings about more pain than pleasure. The nice thing about the PoU is that you don't have to do a lot of arm-waving to demonstrate it's true; we all desire pleasure and avoid pain, so Mill doesn't have to justify the basis of this ethical system; it's hard-wired into our nervous system.



> Does not "evil" exist only because life exists?


Partially, but not entirely. Life is probably necessary (but self-concious artificial intelligences capable of experiencing pleasure and pain and capable of predicting the consequences of their actions would be non-living ethical agents), but not sufficient for the existence of 'evil'. Plants, sponges, bacteria, and all other non-sentient life can exist without any ethical aspects.

Also, here's a thought experiment from one of my undergrad ethics courses; Imagine you're the only living thing in the entire universe. Would killing yourself be 'evil'?



> Without a God is the concept of "evil" not meaningless


I would argue that the existence/non-existence of God is irrelevant to the meaning of "evil." Moreover, with respect to the concept of 'morality' (which ethical philosophy takes to mean "a code of conduct that compels ethical behaviour when one believes they are either not being observed, or are otherwise safe from repercussions."), belief in gods essentially eliminates the possibility for morality. If one believes they are under constant surveillance, it becomes impossible for them to behave morally. The only exception to this is if an agent chooses to act in contravention of what they believe to be the observing god(s) wishes on ethical grounds.


So, in a nutshell, God not only has nothing to do with good and evil, belief in God makes morality difficult, if not impossible.

Cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> When we start to take sole responsibility for maintaining a peaceable society and viable sustainable planet and not rely on nonsense from the past we'll be better equipped to move forward in dealing with real issues facing our prolific species.


Nicely put.

I am very much aware of the historical value of organized religion (though I do believe that, had the Church not existed, some other organizational structure would have emerged), and I certainly would not want to obliterate the artifacts, art, music, literature, etc. it has given society, I truly believe that modern society needs to let go of these ancient superstitions. I've said before that religions are like safety blankets that have gotten old, dirty, and which our society should have out grown by now. We not only no longer need them, we are constantly tripping over them as we try to do more grown-up things (like stem-cell research, or managing our population).

I've said earlier in this thread that, even if I could wave a magic wand and make religion go away instantly, I wouldn't do so, because I think many of the adults in our society aren't mature enough to behave morally (i.e. their behaviour is constrained not by their own morality, but rather by their belief that an invisible police man in the sky is watching them). So this is another important aspect of our society that needs work. In order for us to evolve as a society beyond these bronze-age mythologies, we need to ensure more of our citizens develop greater philosophical maturity. I'm not sure how to achieve this, but it would seem more and better education would be an obvious starting place.

Cheers


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> Exactly what we choose it to be.


I agree. The question was asked rhetorically based on bryanc's question 4.:



> 4. How do you rationalize Epicurus' dilemna with your omnipotent god: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"?


I know bryanc was asking it based on a theistic perspective and not on a deistic one because he wanted to focus on disproving the omnipotent aspect of god. But I believe the omnipotent component is limiting to the philosophical discussion of God's existence/non-existence, because it is human beings that came up with the idea that if a god exists he is omnipotent and it is only certain religions that ascribe to such a belief.

I believe that good and evil are human conceptions that do not exist in nature (e.g. the myth of the garden of Eden). So it is only our "laws" (whether they be civil or religious) that define/create the concept of good and evil. So either with a non-omnipotent God or without a god at all, it is human beings that are the authors of evil as it is a human abstract concept and not a manifestation of the material universe that merely exists or that a god created. 



MacDoc said:


> Are you so dependent on a skydaddy you require that kind of outside guidance?


It is interesting that you would ask such a question in such a confrontational manner when I have never expressed that I have a belief in a god and in fact have said in this thread and other philosophical threads that I am agnostic. Did you just parachute into the thread at this point and in your rather arrogant presumption assume that I believed in a god because I asked a rhetorical question pertaining to his existence/non-existence? Seems so, No need for the 'tude dude. 



MacDoc said:


> ...Yattering about invisible entities best left to charlatans and fools.


Again, no need for the 'tude dude.  BTW, Seems like you just fit yourself into your aforementioned groups by joining the discussion. However I disagree, thinking about and debating issues surrounding the fundamental nature of our existence has been conducted by the greatest minds humanity has to offer throughout the ages.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> ....So, in a nutshell, God not only has nothing to do with good and evil...


Exactly my point... remember it was posed in the form of a question... playing a bit of devils advocate. 

So here is your answer to your question 4. when you remove the omnipotent aspect of God from the equation.



> 4. How do you rationalize Epicurus' dilemna with your omnipotent god: "Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"?





bryanc said:


> ...belief in God makes morality difficult, if not impossible.


Only if your concept of god is theistic.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I know bryanc was asking it based on a theistic perspective and not on a deistic one because he wanted to focus on disproving the omnipotent aspect of god. But I believe the omnipotent component is limiting to the philosophical discussion of God's existence/non-existence, because it is human beings that came up with the idea that if a god exists he is omnipotent and it is only certain religions that ascribe to such a belief.


Fair enough. Certainly a simple solution to the "problem of evil" is that God is not omnipotent, and simply cannot do anything about it. I certainly agree that the existence of evil does not disprove the existence of any gods of limited powers. Furthermore, I've met people who profess to be Christians who've taken that position; that their God is constrained not to interfere with the consequences of our choices, however evil they may be, and have agreed that this constitutes a limit on His power, breaking the definition of omnipotent.

[edit to add:] I've also met people who've taken the position that god is not benevolent; and that god is not omniscient. Any or all of these breaches of the standard Abrahamic characterization of God solves the problem of evil as well. This paradox is only a problem for people with orthodox views of God.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

:clap::lmao::lmao:Good one, CM.


----------

