Ritesign

I think a lot of people today are equivocating 'belief in God' with 'belief in and/or support of dogmata', and 'faith' with 'belief in God'. For starters, bashing faith isn't an attempt to prove that God doesn't exist, or that organised religions are wrong, or anything of that sort. I think the definition of faith most of the 'pro atheist' camp address is the "belief that is not based on proof" definition. If you're not going to support (and participate in) a search for truth, because you feel that interferes with faith, you may be well intentioned, but you are actually supporting 'blind faith'. Blind faith in God, logically, makes about as much sense as believing in unicorns simply because you can. However, if you're going to blindly support atheism, you're in the same boat, possibly trading good intentions for an unhealthy dose of cynicism. Ho, hum, what to do, what to do...

The teams:
ATTENTION CRAZED RELIGIOUS FANATICS
(A.k.a. emissaries of truth, scarecrows of Romney Marsh, or those of us who aren't doomed for eternity)
Lo, though, I spake unto thee, while you might not be able to make the logical arguments these truth seeking agnostics demand from you, countless philosophers from the past have resurrected your inane ramblings into polished, coherent documents. And you guys and gals are all about resurrection, n’est pas? Out of the goodness of my heart, or possibly under the direction of some omnipresent being, I will attempt to play the role of your champion of logic. And sorry for calling you fanatics, it will simply draw more of the heathens’ attention.

ATTENTION MORALLY BANKRUPT ATHEIST HEATHENS
(A.k.a. the enlightened, the atheist agnostic alliance (AAA), or the A-team)
Now then, my fellow well intentioned truth-seeking companions, I feel it would be uncharitable of us to “dissect” counterarguments to Penn’s statement without at least helping build up those arguments, as per traditional Socratic dialogue. So, not unlike the two hundred and something brave souls in the new movie, 300, I will be the doomed Spartan to your Persian horde.

The rules:
Try to keep in mind that you’re charged with discrediting all defences of a belief in God not for your own good, but in order to better educate yourselves and the masses, so be as polite as possible. Try to keep your arguments concise, and save time by stating commonly known criticisms of God if you know of any (such as “the problem of evil”). Every step of the way, I will helplessly move to stall what appears to be the inevitable conclusion that an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being does not exist, or, if it does, it cannot possibly be considered “good” according to common definition. Possibly, I will baffle the combatants one and all, and create a defence that cannot be discredited, utterly proving God into existence. (Be warned that this will crash your computer, the server, and the universe as we know it.)

The prize:
If a belief in God is found to be illogical, all participants must spread the word by participating in actions such as but not limited to:
- burning churches
- destroying religious artifact
- assassinate religious leaders
If, however, is it discovered that logically, God most likely exists, rules for round 2, “which (if any) religion is right?” will be drafted.

Anyone willing to take up the sword alongside my cause would be welcome, but please, if you’re simply going to appeal to the church, your gut, or anything else literally or figuratively ‘full of crap’, go preach on a street corner where your talents are needed. May the most accurate, and not necessarily best worded, argument win.

DaveOrion

I'm off to the street corner, lotsa luck! BTW, we've already been through this........and around this......over this.....beside this....... Beware the Flying Spaghetti Monster!!! Peace To All..

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

All praise to Atheos, god of irony.

The idea of god was created thousands and thousands of years ago as mankind left being an innocent animal and became a sentient being. We, humans, had been developing improving methods of hunting and gathering food for many centuries, but had not developed the intellect to be self aware. With our mental development came said awareness and our drive to learn now included the concept of 'self'. In our search to explain our environment, we had to simplify everything as much as possible. We were able to figure out certain thing well enough; seeds can produce edible plants, certain prey moves in herds and requires a different strategy than prey that moves on it's own, women like guys on motorcycles. More complex things, however, were simply beyond our reasonable understanding. Take, for example, Earth's sun. Put yourself in the shoes of mankind all those thousands of year ago, without the benefit of astronomy and physics to explain our favorite mass of incandescent gas. All they knew was a very bright thing came every day, brining heat and light, and left every night, bringing dark and cold. They had no way to know about nuclear fusion or any way to comprehend the scale of 149,600 km. So when the question was asked of the first great minds, they tried to come up with an explanation that made sense. They gave it a persona. The Greeks, for example, thought that the sun was Helios, a supernatural being that rode a chariot across the sky every day. While we now understand, in some terms, what the sun really is, when the philosopher Anaxagoras introduced the idea that the sun was a giant flaming ball instead of Helios around 460 BC, he was imprisoned and sentenced to death for heresy. It was well over 100 years before the idea would be considered by what were then scientists. I wonder what argument a Greek from the 400 BCs would make to explain his faith in Helios. He would say, "I know this to be true because I feel the warmth provided by Helios. I see the chariot cross the sky every day. It is believed by every man, woman, and child I have or will ever know. The knowledge is hundreds, perhaps thousands of years old, and we have documentation of that."

We all, as humans, have an innate want for knowledge. As the first sentient creatures on this planet, we have a desire to move forward. Being in an intellectual vacuum is an uncomfortable state for a human being. Unfortunately, we did not instantly evolve a full knowledge of the universe when we crossed the threshold of sentience. Because of that, we have to slowly develop an understanding by observing and testing, but what tests could have ancient Greeks made to prove that the sun was not theistic, but nuclear in nature? The simple answer is that they couldn't. So, instead of saying 'I dunno', which as an unnatural state for a human, they guessed. Speculation ran wild and in the end the most fantastic, entertaining, or reasonable (in their mind) story survived. Call it fictional evolution. It sufficed for a time until progress was made. Our methods of testing improved and thus our understanding improved.

Now we saw the sun as a great ball of fire that circled around the Earth. Better, I'd say, but still not quite right. Again, our testing improved and our knowledge grew. Now the Earth revolved around the sun. Improvements were made again and again and again, and Helios was left in the proverbial dust, never to be worshiped again (yes, yes, poor Helios). Through scientific progress, it was made evident that Helios was an outdated explanation that was made when not enough evidence could be gathered to offer a theory. Helios went from a worshiped deity to a myth. The problem is, of course, that the blind devotion to the idea of Helios slowed scientific progress. He became a stumbling block. It was only when people could think outside of the Greek mythology that the fantastic idea could be overcome. He went from a stumbling block in advancement to long forgotten. Man had grown from it's infancy, and there were no more need for fantastic toys. It was time to see the world as it is.

In your own experience, you probably remember early childhood. Because you were not born with a full knowledge of the world, you had to strive to discover how the world works...but you didn't do that all the time. No, you probably were like me in that you loved to play with toys. The more amazing and odd the toy, the more interested you were. Hobbits and spaceships and transformers and such stuff probably covered your bedroom floor just as it did mine. Your head is in the clouds until your feet need to be finally planted in the ground. I'm sure that there are a lot of people out there that envy children for their innocence and ability to live in their own imaginations all day every day, but that's not reality. We live in reality and, one way or another, we have to one day face that cold, realistic fact.

Well you and I are like humanity. Religion was given birth at the beginning of our entry to sentience. Science, on the other hand, was not developed until man developed the ability to think rationally. Religion is the science of cavemen (unless you're in a Geico commercial), and science is the religion of the maturity of our species.

It always fascinates me when people present to me an old book of moral lessons and mythology as proof. I've read the Torah. I've read the New Testament of the Bible. I've read the Qu'ran. None of those books is even said in lore to have been written by god. Not only that, but god didn't take any steps to preserve the original writings of his servants. I dare you to go find the original manuscript written by Luke or Mohammad. All we are said to have are copies of copies of copies of copies. So who copied the original manuscripts? Why are there different versions of the same scriptures? Why did someone make the decision that one interpretation was right, and the other wrong? The official stance of the Catholic church: god wanted the original transcripts to perish. Why? "God moves in a mysterious way". Oh, dear. So a church that recognizes that god has seen fit to preserve wood from the cross of Jesus, the coat of Jesus, and the Shroud of Turin, which Jesus is said to have used to wipe his holy face, simply accepts that the manuscripts weren't that important? God prefers a handkerchief over the entire reason he supposedly sent his son to die? Can they also explain why the genealogy presented by Matthew and Luke are in conflict with one another? Poor Matthew. He was presented with two different stories about John the Baptist, one in which John whitenesses the heavens open and a dove comes down, and one where John sends two of his apostles out (two chapters after seeing the heavens open) to find out who this Jesus dude is.

Your faith is based on secondary documents, edited, altered, changed throughout history for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

No matter what religion you're in, you've witnessed your single religion split again and again over interpretations of the word of god.

And in your teachings, the antithesis of god, often satan, always is there to tempt you to turn on god. You're taught to fear turning from religion from early childhood, when your perception of the world is still developing. Of course you'd be afraid of us evil atheists. Of course you might hate us. Some may even envy us. I'll go out on a limb and say I'm a brave motherfucker for deciding to turn on something ingrained into my head since birth. A lot of people on this very sight gathered their balls and turned around and faced their demons only to find that they had been a slave to the echo of a guess that had gone on too long. I gotta tell ya, it's damned liberating.

Does god exist? Fucked if I know. The fact of the matter is, it makes no difference if god exists or not. If you want to worship an idea that was an interim between being born and starting to understand the world, that's your business. Just don't get up in arms when I sleep in on Sunday and get pissed when my daughter has to say, "One nation, under [a fictional crutch, an outdated tool of a society that had not yet developed the intellectual maturity to look at things reasonably], indivisible..." Don't get perturbed when you aren't allowed to teach that one day everything was blinked into existence in a classroom dedicated to science. Don't get fussy when we condemn a leader for making an important decision because "god told me to do it". Don't go crying to Muhammad when we call you insane for strapping bombs to your chest because of a small disagreement over the caliphs who supposedly succeeded Muhammad. Don't shit yourself when we say that belief in god isn't reasonable. And please, oh please, don't pretend like faith has a place in science.

Ritesign

Some people might call that an emotional rant. Some people might call it insightful. Most likely it was an insightful rant. But you know what they say, a rant in any form is worth two in the bush.

So "Have Gun" Will Ravel, what you're postulating is that God is just a concept we use to feel safe and snuggly, and the more we learn through the sciences, the less use we have for God, correct? But what if we assume that God is more of a passive entity, which exists, is responsible for the creation of the universe, but no longer plays a direct role (such as providing light by being a large flaming ball of gas)? Rather God is one hell of a billiards player who lined up one hell of a shot that got the universe into motion and this shot will be responsible for it's ultimate end. Or, without the need to mention creation, God is an entity that has existed since before the universe if such a thing is logically possible, or since it's beginning if that is the logical alternative (since God's omnipotence and omnipresense presupposes logical coherence, thus ignoring criticisms such as "can't God create a rock so large, it can't be lifted" or "can't God create a round square"). Are these not logical possibilities?

As for religions role in society and politics, or the authenticity of scripture, or the validity of extremists, I don't see how these disprove an omni(scient-potent-present) God's exsistence, or make such a belief rediculous. Does it make literal interpretation of scripture as God's word rediculous? Sure, it would appear so. Does it make appeals to God fallacious? Most definately. But does a failure to find God in the sun, or a stream, or on Mars mean that such a belief is absurd? No, especially if you weren't looking in any of those places from the beginning, or they were simply failed hypotheses on the way to a more accurate answer.

(Rant, ignore this if you wish to preserve brain cells)
Lastly, does turning on an idea ingrained in your head since birth make you enviable? No, in most cases, it makes you crazy. Does it make you brave? Maybe, but only if your new belief brings you into a state more dangerous than your previous one. Last I heard, they've called off burning atheists at the stake, so I think you're safe.
"The fact of the matter is, it makes no difference if god exists or not." Oh, and you'd figure that would make a lot of difference about a lot of things...

Infinite_Loser

Hey Will!

Since you get pissed about your daughter having to say the PoA, can I have all your money with the phrase "Under God" on it? I wouldn't want you to have to use something which you protest

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Lizra

God schmod .....Come on out of your closets atheists! We are strong! We are free!
I'm off to an atheist tupperware/candle party! We are going to try some new recipes from Taste of Home, and talk about how good we feel knowing that heaven can accessed any night of the week, right here in our kitchens, in a batch off supreme brownies with walnuts! The kids are gonna love it! Whee!

__________________
Happy atheist

Dilbert1234567

god damn it Will... we agree again... *mutters* snow balls in hell...

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

DaveOrion

Will, the beginning of your post looks strangely familiar...have you been reading my posts??? Thats ok, you can reference my babble anytime ....I do agree with you in part, cept for the 'God' thing! Later...

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

God is an interim concept that acts like intellectual training wheels.
They are possibilities, but not logical. No reason exists to believe in an active or passive supernatural entity. Usually the idea of the passive god comes from an attempt to compromise on faith because one cannot win an argument against agnostic atheism.
They are symptomatic of the dangers of becoming trapped in theism. You can't disconnect ancient theism with today's theism. While the Judeo-Christian god is not an explanation for the sun or the tides, he is much the same an explanation for meaning. While only some theists rely on theism for explanations in nature (creationsim), most if not all theists seek philosophical meaning in god. With this philosophy comes the belief in the existence of god, not as a concept, but as a being. That's where the problems set in again because there is a disconnect (or even regression) with our understanding of reality.
It's brave not only because it's difficult, but because at the beginning of the process, you're under the impression that you're risking damnation. By my understanding, damnation is nothing to sneeze at.

DaveOrion

You don't have to worry about closet atheists in TFP. I think we have 7 different threads regarding this same subject, to one degree or another. The atheists have no problem voicing their opinion. Now trying to get them to stop posting is another story..... I'm kidding!! Lighten Up...its not Judgement Day.....Yet!

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

Willravel

You can have all my $1s.

Ritesign

Just in case you've got me in the wrong camp will, as I stated at the outset, I'm just trying to systematically eliminate both proofs and criticisms of God's existence. Will Ravel For Food, you seem to have a fairly firm grasp on at least the basics of theology. You’re kind of stuck on the concept of organised religions though, and critiquing them instead of critiquing the possibility of God is like shooting fish in a tabernacle. You also might have overlooked Buddhism when commenting about a passive God. But you’ve yet to make any commit any outrageous fallacies, and you’re at least sparking some good debate. I think a lot more damage could be done if you gave defending God’s existence a try, and we had another contender or two meet us at every step. I guess what I’m saying is…
“Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy.”

(And no, you don’t have to believe that what you’re arguing is true. Take Ron Hubbard for example…)

asaris

I'm not sure what you're getting at Will, though it's possible I just haven't been reading your posts carefully enough. What is there, exactly, about belief in God that entails a 'disconnect' or 'regression' with our understanding of reality?

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

We have a thirst for knowledge that is innate, but we also have a fear of the unknown that is innate. The thirst for knowledge is scientific and promotes progress. The fear of the unknown is not reasonable and slows, if not stops, progress. Caution is of course reasonable with the unknown, but fear is counterproductive.

There is no reason to believe that god exists. As I outlined in my previous post, the function of theism is to act as an interim between the dawn of consciousness and the beginning of reason. As such, the continuation of theism has acted and will continue to act as an anchor to reasonable scientific progress. Until evidence of god is discovered or given, the existence of supernatural beings or occurrences is fiction. When we allow fiction to run our lives or have an effect on society we are undoing scientific and reasonable progress. Every time that creationism is taught on equal footing to Darwinism in science classrooms (as a symptom of the belief in fiction), science is stabbed in the back. Of course not all believers are going to suggest that we learn creationism, but what do those believers do when they have to explain the origin of life to their own children? My father is against teaching creationism in public schools, but it didn't stop him from reading to me from Genesis.

I'm not telling anyone to change, as it's not my place. I can, however, explain exactly what I see when I put belief of the supernatural under the microscope. It's dangerous.

Infinite_Loser

Through intelligent reasoning and a logical thought process, I have rationalized atheism:

People fear the unknown. God is an unknown. Man believes himself to be of superior intellect and thus struggles to rationalize his surroundings (At the core of his belief is that everything can be rationalized). Belief in God would be to accept the limitations of man's own reasoning (Which is contrary to his nature), thus shattering his belief system. People who would rather continue to believe that universe can be explained logically become atheists. Those people who accept that man's knowledge of the universe is limited become theists.

I'd be willing to bet that I'm not far off in my assumptions.

(Also, slightly off-topic, but I've always wondered why atheism is most prevalent in non-minorities. I guess, however, that's another topic for another day.)

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

That's not how I would describe god at all. In fact, the idea of god is studied since childhood for most people. Whether you were born into Judaism, Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism, you're probably VERY familiar with god and religion. The concept itself is quite simple: there are one or more beings or entities of supernatural power that have created the universe, and in some cases, have dominion over it. It's not unknown, it's just illogical.

Let's say I stabbed myself in the eye with a fork in front of you to make a point. Would you fear me, or would you think I was nuts?

Also, I feel it's my responsibility to ask you if you're afraid of Zeus. If you're not, then maybe you should ask yourself why you aren't, then simply assume it's similar to my philosophy on god.
Based on all available information, I am in many ways more intelligent than any other species on our planet.
A lack of belief in god has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with recognition of systems and evidence. Everything I've ever witnessed tells me that it's unreasonable to think that god is real. It's that simple.
People who blindly accept fiction without any reasonable explanation are theists. People who seek understanding based on reason are atheists. Atheists hardly believe that we know everything, in fact we're the first to admit that we know very little. What we do know is based on facts and reason. Theists cannot make that claim.
I've not noticed that. In my experience, atheists come in all different races and genders (not creeds, though). Are you in an area that's high in Caucasians?

Infinite_Loser

Oh? So you know that there is no God. To claim the belief in God illogical you first need to claim it false (Or, at the very least, show that there is another plausible explanation for the creation of the universe). My belief isn't illogical. What IS illogical however is to claim that God doesn't exist based on man's limited knowledge.

That depends on the point you're trying to make. Care to elaborate?

Nope, I'm not afraid of Zeus because I don't believe in him. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not saying that you don't believe in God-- You're stating that He doesn't exist. If you want to change your stance from stating that He doesn't exist to not believing in Him, then all will be well with the world >_<

...Or so you seem to believe.

*Thinks that mice and dolphins would disagree with you*

Accepting one's limitations has nothing to do with ego (I don't know how you got that from what I typed out). It simply means that you've reached the edge of human reasoning/comprehension.

I'll ask you a very simple question to illustrate my point: What happens when you die? Does your soul live on? Are you re-incarnated? Or do you simply decompose in a hole?

Let me correct you: People who believe that everything can be explained through a system of logic assumptions are atheists. Anywho, no where did I state that man claims to know everything. I believe I said:

Simply put, you believe that you will know everything one day. Often times do I hear the argument "I can't explain it today but you can't call it God because tomorrow we might have the answer!" which is just a cop out for "I really can't say it's not God because I don't know and I doubt I'll be able to explain it". Remember that tomorrow will never get here because tomorrow is today's yesterday, tomorrow is today's tomorrow's and tomorrow is tomorrow's tomorrow.

The difference between you and I is that I know God exists while you believe He doesn't exist. Of course, for every day that passes in which you are unable to disprove God's existence you only strengthen my faith that He does exist.

Ummm... I'll be frank. You're wrong. Atheists predominantly (I mean overwhelmingly) stem from one group. That's just stating a fact. Go look at a poll on the subject. The numbers aren't even close. And, to answer your question, no I'm not.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

pig

ok - i'll bite on a couple of things getting kicked around here. on the topic of god and the unknown, i both disagree and agree with the sentiments expressed in this thread. it seems to me that god does, in fact, stand for everything that man doesn't have a pretty good theory for. not sure how the world was created? that was god. not sure where man came from, all the steps in evolution? that was god. not sure why you're here in the first place? oh simple stuff simon, that was god. i'm not saying that's a bad thing - whether that makes a specific incarnation of the god concept correct or not is a different matter.

i do not, however, agree that all or even most atheists can't accept that man's knowledge is inherently limited. yes, we will presumably learn more tomorrow than we know today; but even the stuff we know today is only representative of the best theories we've come up with. look at newtonian physics and relativity/quantum. we thought the world was a big game of billiards...oops! not so much. if we ever propose a coherent grand unified theory or if parts of string theory hold up; well, dang it we'll be doing it again. i think many atheists are aware we will never know it all (despite our sacrifices to clarissa), but we wouldn't say that necessitates the god concept in any particular form. if you just want to use god as a semantic placeholder for "i don't know," well fine be me. i don't think this is the outlook of most theists.

this is repeating many of the discussions of this topic here in the first place, but i think that a problem many atheists have with the particular god concept is the following: where did it come from? all things equal right now, what we have in favor of god are books, stories, and traditions. however, if one isn't the type to trust books, stories and traditions - at least beyond anything metamorphical or quasi-historical - then where would the concept of a personified deity come from? why would any particular concept arise from simple observation of the world around us? i think that many atheists feel that the god concept is given unnecessarily equal footing amongst a list of philosophical / metaphysical concepts. where did this particular one come from, and why do people act as though its pretty probable? i feel like this is a big repeat of the unicorn/fairies discussion, but it seems that when that point is made, communication never occurs. theists say "well, see - you can't prove it, so i'm right: god exists." and atheists are thinking to themselves "that's not the bloody fucking point damn it!"

i'll also say that i think there will always be a need for the spiritual and mystical in humanity: some atheists would disagree with that statement, but i personally feel there are types of experiences and knowledge that are inherently non-scientific in nature and could only be dubbed spirituality. i simply don't understand why one would cling to what i consider an outmoded version of spiritual understanding, which is rife with unnecessary historical and scientific baggage.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Ritesign

piggy piggy piggy, can't you see, sometimes your words just hypnotize me. Well said. Do I detect an echo Voltaire in that last paragraph? I don't think anyone you takes the time to think and open their mouth (or more likely, just open their mouth) is arguing that God is a semantic placeholder. I see 'ravel, will ravel' has decided to ignore my invitation to join the dark side. I was hoping to have at least a few people play devil's advocate to their own posts, but I guess everyone here believes they're so indisputably right that they can't even think of how their arguments could be flawed. I thought this topic could be discussed and jested with. The last thing I wanted was more fork related blindness Ravel, though experience would lead me to believe this will always be the outcome of my philosophical debates.
It’s time we all solemnly acknowledge what we know in our hearts and minds…atheists and theists behave equally illogically, fundamental agnostics win the day by being the only group to admit they have no idea what’s going on.
My support for agnosticism is anecdotal at best, but bear with me.

For the sake of this explanation, Pigglet is the smartest human being conceivable for the near future. He is not omnipotent, but simply has a deep understanding of math, history, science and whatever else you’d like.
You challenge Pigglet to ‘prove’ a particular grain of sand that you pick up. A month passes, and Pigglet analyses that piece of sand’s composition, trace its existence back thousands of years by studying weather patterns, and forecast with certainty where it would be in a million years using chaos theory and some other things we haven’t invented yet.
You challenge Pigglet to provide that same information about every grain of sand in an entire beach. “This will take piggy style,” is his response, and a few years later you’re told just about everything about the sand in the nude beach Pigglet studied.
You then issue your greatest challenge, which is to have that information about every particle in the universe. Needless to say Pigglet does not accept this challenge, and states that because so much about the universe will never even be seen, there is no way to substantiate any theory he could come up with. Even given a thousand Pigglet’s and a thousand years, only the most minute fraction of the universe could be explained. The rest would simply have to be left unexplained, or at best explained by flawed theories.

If you concede that our universe is finite, or even infinite to a degree less than the degree God is infinite to, you concede that our universe is mathematically nothing in comparison to God. If even Pigglet had difficulty explaining what was relatively nothing, it follows that if God is omnipresent, it is quite impossible to know anything about God. This does not mean God exists. It does not mean God does not exist. It just means we can never know either way. So you can believe in God, but you can’t say you have any good reason, not matter how you define God (as long as you’re attributing omnipresence to God). You can believe God does not exist but you can’t say you have any good reason (if omnipresence=yes).

You may now return to believing Pigglet is as intelligent as you wish.

roachboy

ritesign:

i am confused.
i smell a straw man.

in your post above (the response to pigglet)

(a) on what basis do you assume the omniverse is either finite or not--it seems arbitrary.
(b) what you are talking about when you ask for a "proof" concerning a material object (grain of sand, elephant, it doesn't matter)--unless you are working with a deductive approach to the world--if you are then there really is no debate.
(c) why, once you call for a "proof," you then proceed to impose a criterion of completeness on what amounts to an account of the history of a material object.
(d) and even less why you imagine the world to be an accumulation of objects. there are lots of problems that arise with this, but rather than twaddle on about them all, i'll leave it here for the moment. see what happens.

(e) your next-to-last paragraph doesn't follow ("if you concede....")
why would you take a position on this question?
why is it interesting, except perhaps as a psychological indicator, a bit of infotainment concerning the approach that you, for whatever reason, find compelling?

at any rate, the paragraph seems little more set-up for a version of pascal's wager.


more generally:
i'll say it:
this "god" entity is first and foremost a name.
its effects are the filling-in of semantic content.
the differing human communities that have constructed themselves around that name function to stylize the contents attributed to it.
there is no way to pose fundamental questions across communities that does not also involve dragging a host of other assumptions (ways of arguing, starting points, defintions of proofs, criteria for fashioning judgments, etc etc)
a deductive approach to thinking cosmological questions (the universe is infinte, the universe is finite--even that the universe is single, which seems itself to be an effect of a name) is eminently christian and is not worth the trouble to argue against---simply because taken out of that context, the approach really cannot get started.

within these communities, social feedback loops substitute for demonstrations of fundamental principles. the demonstrations that come out of these communities presuppose these loops but work to substitute arguments for them. these arguments are invariably rickety in themselves, but are held to regardless, perhaps because they resonate with the social reinforcement patterns that they are really about. but without that resonance, the arguments dont work. they aren;t compelling. this because in the end, what they are about is faith and they originate with faith--they do not structure faith, they do not demonstrate anything about it, the simply map it from one register onto another.

you aren't going to "explain" anything about the world on the basis of statements involving god as a first principle. what you do manage is to outline something of your ideological framework. which can be of ethnographic interest, but that's about it.

and (back to ritesign) you dont get to wave your hands around and exclude arguments by doing so: the semantic effect claim is bothersome for those who believe, but there is no way around it: it cannot be proven or disproven from within a set of assumptions that assumes this god fellow is other than a name--but that is simply a circular problem particular to these belief systems and has nothing to do with judgements about the arguments themselves, who is making them, why they are making them and even less about whether they are accurate.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

archetypal fool

I've got to say, I've been in turmoil over religion recently. I'm an atheist, raised Christian, in a family which is still predominantly Christian. I'm not in turmoil because of anything someone is doing, it's because I'm trying to rationalize why religion exists and why people are so touchy on the subject, and what affect does it have on the world. Would it be a better place without religion? I've come to the following conclusion: Religion has no place in society, not anymore.

Once upon a time, when people were, for the most part, still unruly animals and had no morals or understanding of nature, religion was needed to teach morality and ethics, as well as provide answers to what is nature. That's why the Bible is mostly stories which make you feel good and teach you to be moral (David vs. Goliath = anyone has the power to overcome tyranny and everyone has strength...Noah's Ark = Don't spread immorality, or God will take it personally and end you...etc, etc, etc.). Problems occur when people start taking these stories and making them out to be real life (Grand Canyon = Noah's Ark's trail? Creationism?).

In current times, we have politically powerful people who are deeply religious, and are taking advantage of their power to enforce their morals (a big no-no)...(I'm looking at you, Bush, with your screening of scientific papers and constant oppression of stem-cell research)...Also in current times, anyone with half a mind has ethical morals. Some studies even suggest that morality is an evolved trait (and I can agree and see the correlation). In Africa, where there is still a strong Catholic teaching, condoms are condemned, as are all types of sexual protection, which spreads the HIV innumerably, and needlessly. Do I really need to go into detail about the problems in the middle east, all for the name of Islam? I don't see any physical need for religion in society.

But I do believe that there is a need on an individual level for some sort of spirituality. Every time I hear someone chime in saying that beyond any doubt God does or doesn't exists, I believe they've made an error. The question of God is a philosophical one, not one which can be proven or disproved by science (at least that's what I think). Whether to allow a god to exists in you life or not is a decision everyone must make for themselves, according to their philosophy. God can be anything you define (and this is coming from an atheist). There is, in essence, nothing wrong with believing in a God; in fact, it can lead to many beautiful things, such as art, music, and spirituality. The problems occur when people try to make one God universal (that is, apply to everyone within a religion), or when they try to dictate what that God wants in human terms (such as the Bible or the Qu'ran), or when they try to shove their God (or words of God) into the public sector.

I try to be in the middle, both condoning religion and opposing it. Maybe I try because I know so many Christians who are just good people, and their lives are made happier by the belief God. But in my internal voice, I can't stand it, and I can't understand why someone would believe so much in something intangible. That's why I'm so tormented.

Infinite_Loser
How do you know God exists? Show me God, or prove his existence. If you can't, then realize that, at most, you believe he does exist. But just because you can't show me God or proof of its existence doesn't mean I know it doesn't exist. This is the same argument which always comes up, and you know that if you've ever been in or seen a religious debate (I'm sure you have), and it's because it's the only argument which can be made, aside from the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument.

asaris

I'm willing to accept what you say in your first paragraph, at least for the sake of argument (I'm not really sure the thirst for knowledge is generally innate, but that could just be due to the fear of the unknown). What I take issue with is the step between "The function of theism is to act as an interim between the dawn of consciousness and the beginning of reason" and "As such, the continuation of theism will continue to act as an anchor to reasonable scientific progress." The first thesis is not unreasonable, given your premises, but I'm not sure how the second follows from the first. Perhaps, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you assume that the only function of religion is to explain unknown phenomena. However, religion does not function merely as a poor substitute for science -- it also provides a broader metanarrative. And far from acting as a brake on science, it was this metanarrative that made science possible in the first place, and currently does not work to hinder science. How could it? It operates at a different level, in a different sphere.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

Nice try. I am saying that belief in god is illogical, not that god doesn't exist. One of the worst arguments a theist can make is "you cannot disprove the existence of god". It's a stance of desperation. Agnostic atheism takes the stance that god almost certainly doesn't exist, and that belief that he/she/it does exist is totally unreasonable and illogical. In other words, we don't need to prove god doesn't exist. No evidence exists so suggest that god is real, so the burden of proof lies with the believers.
Why don't you believe in Zeus?
That's why I qualified the statement with 'in many ways'.
How is it reasonable to totally believe in something you admit is beyond your comprehension without a shred of evidence? I believe in the existence of elephants, though I've never seen one, but I have seen photographic evidence and I know people who have seen them.
When I was younger I needed very serious heart surgery. I had a coarctation of the aorta that needed immediate repair. I was sedated, turned on my side and a rib was removed. While under sedation, while the doctor was working, my heart stopped. My blood stopped pumping for around 45 seconds. I was, for all intents and purposes, dead. Did I see unicorns and fairies? Nope. Shiva? Guess again. God? I don't think so. There was nothing. No consciousness. My 'soul' didn't go anywhere or do anything. It was simply as if someone flipped a switch and I turned off. That's what happens when you die. Your body's functions cease and the person you are ceases to be. You go from alive to dead. You don't reincarnate as a mushroom or go into heaven or hell. After death, your lifeless body decomposes. Everything that evidence tells us supports that.
No. I won't know everything one day. It's possible that millions of years from now science will have progressed so far that mankind will virtually know everything, but I can't say for sure. I like how you quote me, but you argue against this "often time i hear" person. I've never said that. What I have said is that it's possible that one day we will discover conclusively that god is or isn't real based on evidence. Science will just keep trucking along either way. Living your life based on something that we may or may not prove tomorrow is illogical, though.
Which is textbook. Instead of thinking rationally about the situation, you instead use your dislike of me and/or my arguments to fuel your unreasonable beliefs. No one can prove or disprove god's existence with any certainty, and yet you believe absolutely he exists. I think that his existence is very, very, unlikely, but I cannot say that he does not exist. So you're trying to present our two stances are somehow in equilibrium on some imaginary scale is wrong. If I said, "god absolutely isn't real": I could understand your being safe in your certain faith as being directly opposed reasonably to my own. That's not the case. My argument is reasonable. Yours has long since crumbled from beneath you.

In other words, if my arguments strengthen your faith, then your faith is rather weak because instead of being inspired by the holy spirit or something, it is faith to spite me. That's childish, and I doubt I can find a place in the bible that reads: "And lo Jesus said onto you, 'Atheists are douschebags, so believe in me to piss them off. It'll be funny.'"
Yes, my experience is absolutely wrong. How could I possibly believe my own eyes when your invisible statistics speak so clearly?

Show me a census done on atheists' race, or admit you don't know what you're talking about. Frankly, I expected more from you than to try and make this a race issue. Just because I am white and you are black doesn't mean that this discussion has anything to do with race.



Ritesign, if you believe my arguments to be illogical, then by all means show me. I played devil's advocate for the first 19-20 years of my life. The nice thing about basing your perception on reason is when you find a flaw, you adapt to it. I've found flaws in my understandings before, and I've adapted and become better for them. Show me where I'm wrong, and I'll simply be right again.

I tried to cite examples. The most prevalent today are things like creationism. I think that anyone who firmly believes in Darwinism should understand that creationism at the very least is a ridiculous misinterpretation of scripture, and at most a sign of religion screwing up and stagnating science again. The problem isn't creationism itself as much as it is that it's a symptom of a systemic problem created by belief in the supernatural. The problem comes when one has to integrate the supernatural into their understanding of the universe. Most people understand that mating between species of the same kin/den/family can lead to severe problems. We know that there are millions of species of animal that covers the planet. And yet Noah had a boat with two of every animal. It's illogical to say the least. When I was a Christian, I had to reconcile things like this by either ignoring them or taking sides. Some people will take the side of science and insist that the story is a metephore. Some will say that it's absolute truth. Some will shrug their shoulders. The problem is that there is a fourth option that agnostic atheists take: Noah isn't real or true. It was an old myth. Because of that, we don't have to compromise at all on truth. It's never that simple for the faithful, because they admit to believing in the supernatural, which by definition goes against reason and science. When someone makes the decision that sometimes science doesn't count, they allow themselves to have an unexplainable perception of reality. That is a HUGE problem for scientific progress.
It may have originally been only to explain unknown phenomena, but it's use grew just as if it were a tool. It now encompasses philosophy more than physical science. If religion were only in philosophy, everything would be fine. The problem is that theists believe in the existence of god, not as a philosophical concept, but as some dude that created the universe. There is still that disconnect with reason there. The 'meta-narrative' doesn't hinder science as far as I understand, but religion isn't just the meta-narrative. That's the problem I see.

asaris

Will, the first argument you make seems to boil down to "In this one specific instance, some religious people are seeking to stall scientific progress; therefore, religion in general necessarily stalls scientific progress." Of course, this is not a valid argument.

Your second argument is that, because religions presuppose the existence of miracles, they necessarily stall scientific progress, because the existence of miracles contradicts science. This is true in one sense, but false in another. If you view the laws of science as immutable truths that cannot be overriden, then yes, religions (at least, Christianity) contradict science. I'll apparently be continuing this later.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

If you'd like, I can compile a more complete list of every time in recorded history that religion has slowed, stopped, or even reversed scientific progress. I must warn you, this will not be a small list and will encompass several major world religions. I simply named the most recent and prevalent as it is easily relatable and common knowledge.

The point I was trying to make follows:
It's not as simple as the rules of science being immutable. In fact, the rules of science are ever expanding and changing. The point is that science grows with and as what we know. When a new fact or law is discovered, science evolves with it and our understanding of the universe broadens.

Religion, theism, theology, whatever you wish to call it, is not the same at all. Religion assumes as fact the supernatural. That is fundamentally opposed to the continuing development of science. In fact, the idea that the supernatural can be assumed correct and/or real is one of the most overt breaches to our understanding of science and the universe, in my opinion.


Imagine, if you will, that the country were flip-flopped. Imagine that the US was overwhelmingly atheist and Christianity only took up 3-12% of the population. Without the support of numbers, I would expect that Christians would be regarded as madmen and summarily dismissed. Frankly, I am virtually certain (as certain as I am that god doesn't exist, in fact) that the reason religion is so prevalent is that children are indoctrinated and that leads to a majority of adults being religious, which has been going on for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years. These two ideas, precedent and a majority, are the only thing that is keeping religion from becoming something of the past. If parents did the responsible thing, allowing their children to make a determination as adults about religion, religion, god, etc. would become ideals instead of beings and reality. In that function, they can more easily be dissected from an unbiased perspective.

DaveOrion

Yes Will, you can complile a list of all the ills religion has cast upon the world, and I could do the opposite......Ok, why not....just to start....

Contributions to Science
Perhaps the area in which Christianity has been the most vociferously attacked in this century has been the area of science. Religion and science are thought by many to be like oil and water; the two simply don't mix. Religion is thought to offer superstition while science offers facts.
It would seem, however, that those who make such a charge haven't given much attention to the history of science. In their book, The Soul of Science,{5} authors Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton make a case for the essential role Christianity played in the development of science. The authors point out four general ways Christianity has positively influenced its development.{6}

First, Christianity provided important presuppositions of science. The Bible teaches that nature is real, not an illusion. It teaches that is has value and that it is good to work with nature. Historically this was an advance over pagan superstitions because the latter saw nature as something to be worshipped or as something filled with spirits which weren't to be angered. As one theologian wrote, "Nature was thus abruptly desacralized, stripped of many of its arbitrary, unpredictable, and doubtless terrifying aspects."{7}

Also, because it was created by God in an orderly fashion, nature is lawful and can be understood. That is, it follows discernible patterns which can be trusted not to change. "As the creation of a trustworthy God, nature exhibited regularity, dependability, and orderliness. It was intelligible and could be studied. It displayed a knowable order."{8}

Second, Christianity sanctioned science. Science "was justified as a means of alleviating toil and suffering."{9} With animistic and pantheistic cultures, God and nature were so closely related that man, being a part of nature, was incapable of transcending it, that is, of gaining any real control over it. A Christian world view, however, gave man the freedom to subject nature to his needs-with limitations, of course-because man relates primarily to God who is over nature. Technology-or science applied-was developed to meet human needs as an expression of our God-given duty to one another. As one historian put it, "the Christian concept of moral obligation played an important role in attracting people to the study of nature."{10}

Third, Christianity provided motives for pursuing scientific knowledge. As scientists learned more about the wonders of the universe, they saw God's glory being displayed.

Fourth, Christianity "played a role in regulating scientific methodology."{11} Previously, the world was thought to work in perfectly rational ways which could be known primarily through logical deduction. But this approach to science didn't work. Planets don't have to orbit in circular patterns as some people concluded using deductive logic; of course, it was discovered by investigation that they didn't. A newer way of understanding God's creation put the emphasis on God's will. Since God's will couldn't be simply deduced through logical reasoning, experimentation and investigation were necessary. This provided a particular theological grounding for empirical science.

The fact is that it was distinctly Christian beliefs which provided the intellectual and moral foundations for the study of nature and for its application through technology. Thus, although Christianity and some scientists or scientific theories might be in opposition, Christianity and science are not.

Contributions to Human Freedom
One of the favorite criticisms of Christianity is that it inhibits freedom. When Christians oppose funding pornography masquerading as art, for example, we're said to be unfairly restricting freedom of expression. When Christians oppose the radical, gender feminism which exalts personal fulfillment over all other social obligations, and which calls for the tearing down of God-given moral structures in favor of "choice" as a moral guide, we're accused of oppression.
The problem is that people now see freedom not as self- determination, but as self-determination unhindered by any outside standard of morality. Some go so far in their zeal for self- expression that they expect others to assist them in the process, such as pornographic artists who expect government funding.

There are at least two general factors which limit or define freedom. One we might call the "rules of the game." The other is our nature.

The concert violinist is able to play a concerto because she knows the "rules of the game." In other words, she knows what the musical notation means. She knows how to produce the right sounds from the violin and when to produce them. She might want the "freedom" to make whatever sounds she wishes in whatever key and whatever beat, but who would want to listen? Similarly, as part of God's universe, we need to operate according to the rules of the game. He knows how life on earth is best lived, so we need to live according to His will and design.

Our nature also structures our freedom. A fish can try to express its freedom by living on dry land, but it won't be free long; it won't be alive long! We, too, are truly free only in so far as we live according to our nature-not our fallen nature, but our nature as created by God. This is really another way of looking at the "rules of the game" idea. But it's necessary to give it special focus because some of the "freedoms" we desire go against our nature, such as the freedom some want to engage in homosexual activity.

Some people see Christianity as a force which tries to inhibit proper expression of who we are. But it is the idea of helping people attain the freedom to be and do as God intended that has fueled much Christian activity over the years. For example, Christians were actively engaged in the battle against slavery because of their high view of man as made in God's image.{12}

Another example is feminism. Radical feminists complain that Christianity has been an oppressive force over women. But it seems to have escaped their notice that Christianity made significant steps in elevating women above the place they held before Christ came.{13}

While it is true that women have often been truly oppressed throughout history, even by Christian men, it is false that Christianity itself is oppressive toward them. In fact, in an article titled "Women of Renewal: A Statement" published in First Things,{14} such noted female scholars as Elizabeth Achtemeier, Roberta Hestenes, Frederica Mathewes-Green, and May Stewart Van Leeuwen stated unequivocally their acceptance of historic Christianity. And it's a sure thing that any of the signatories of this statement would be quite vocal in her opposition to real oppression!

The problem isn't that Christianity is opposed to freedom, but that it acknowledges the laws of our Creator who knows better than we do what is good for us. The doctrines of creation and redemption define for us our nature and our responsibilities to God. His "rules of the game" will always be oppressive to those who seek absolute self-determination. But as we'll see, it is by submitting to God that we make life worth living.

Contributions to Morality
Let's turn our attention to the issue of morality. Christians are often accused of trying to ram their morality down people's throats. In some instances this might accurately describe what some Christians have done. But for the most part, I believe, the criticism follows our simple declaration of what we believe is right and wrong and our participation in the political and social arenas to see such standards codified and enforced.
The question that needs to be answered is whether the high standards of morality taught in Scripture have served society well. Has Christianity served to make individuals and societies better and to provide a better way of life?

In a previous article I wrote briefly about the brutality that characterized Greco-Roman society in Jesus' day.{15} We often hear about the wondrous advances of that society; but do you know about the cruelty? The Roman games, in which "beasts fought men, men fought men; and the vast audience waited hopefully for the sight of death,"{16} reveal the lust for blood. The practice of child exposure shows the low regard for human life the Romans had. Unwanted babies were left to die on trash heaps. Some of these were taken to be slaves or prostitutes.{17} It was distinctly Christian beliefs that brought these practices to an end.

In the era following "the disruption of Charlemagne's great empire", it was the Latin Christian Church which "patiently and persistently labored to combat the forces of disintegration and decay," and "succeeded little by little in restraining violence and in restoring order, justice, and decency."{18}

The Vikings provide an example of how the gospel can positively affect a people group. Vikings were fierce plunderers who terrorized the coastlands of Europe. James Kennedy says that our word berserk comes from their fighting men who were called "berserkers."{19} Gradually the teachings of Christ contributed to major changes in these people. In 1020 A.D., Christianity became law under King Olav. Practices "such as blood sacrifice, black magic, the 'setting out' of infants, slavery and polygamy" became illegal.{20}

In modern times, it was Christians who led the fight in England against slavery.{21} Also, it was the teaching of the Wesleys that was largely responsible for the social changes which prevented the social unrest which might have been expected in the Industrial Revolution.{22}

In an editorial published in the Chicago Tribune in 1986 titled "Religious Right Deserves Respect,"{23} Reo Christenson argues that conservative Christians have been vindicated with respect to their concerns about such things as drinking, the sexual revolution, and discipline in schools. He says that "if anybody's values have been vindicated over the last 20 years, it is theirs." He concludes with this comment: "The Religious Right is not always wrong."

To go against God's moral standards is destructive to individuals and societies. In a column which ran in the Dallas Morning News following the shootings at Columbine High School,{24} a junior at Texas A&M University asks hard questions of her parents' generation including these: "Why have you neglected to teach us values and morals? Why haven't you lived moral lives that we could model our own after?"{25}

Why indeed! In time, our society will see the folly of its ways by the destruction it is bringing on itself. Let's pray that it happens sooner rather than later.

Contributions to Healthcare
Healthcare is another area where Christianity has made a positive impact on society. Christians have not only been involved in healthcare; they've often been at the forefront in serving the physical health of people.
Although some early Christians believed that disease came from God, so that trying to cure the sick would be going against God's will, the opposite impulse was also seen in those who saw the practice of medicine as an exercise of Christian charity.{26}

God had already shown His concern for the health of His people through the laws given through Moses. In his book, The Story of Medicine, Roberto Margotta says that the Hebrews made an important contribution to medicine by their knowledge of personal hygiene given in the book of Leviticus. In fact, he says, "the steps taken in mediaeval Europe to counteract the spread of 'leprosy' were straight out of the Bible."{27}

Of course, it was Jesus' concern for suffering that provided the primary motivation for Christians to engage in healthcare. In the Middle Ages, for examples, monks provided physical relief to the people around them. Some monasteries became infirmaries. "The best- known of these," says Margotta, "belonged to the Swiss monastery of St Gall which had been founded in 720 by an Irish monk; . . . medicines were made up by the monks themselves from plants grown in the herb garden. Help was always readily available for the sick who came to the doors of the monastery. In time, the monks who devoted themselves to medicine emerged from their retreats and started visiting the sick in their own homes." Monks were often better doctors than their lay counterparts and were in great demand.{28}

Christians played a significant role in the establishment of hospitals. In 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea "decreed that hospitals were to be duly established wherever the Church was established," says James Kennedy.{29} He notes that the hospital built by St. Basil of Caesarea in 370 even treated lepers who previously had been isolated.{30}

In the United States, the early hospitals were "framed and motivated by the responsibilities of Christian stewardship."{31} They were originally established to help the poor sick, but weren't intended to provide long-term care lest they become like the germ- infested almshouses.

A key factor in making long-term medical care possible was the "professionalization of nursing" because of higher standards of sanitation.{32} Before the 16th century, religious motivations were key in providing nursing for the sick. Anne Summers says that the willingness to fracture family ties to serve others, a disciplined lifestyle, and "a sense of heavenly justification," all of which came from Christian beliefs, undergirded ministry to the sick.{33} Even if the early nursing orders didn't achieve their own sanitation goals, "they were, nevertheless, often reaching higher sanitary standards than those previously known to the sick poor."{34}

There is much more that could be told about the contributions of Christianity to society, including the stories of Florence Nightingale, whose nursing school in London began modern nursing, and who saw herself as being in the service of God; or of the establishment of the Red Cross through the zeal of an evangelical Christian; or of the modern missions movement which continues to see Christian medical professionals devote their lives to the needs of the suffering in some of the darkest parts of the world.{35} It is obvious that in the area of medicine, as in a number of others, Christians have made a major contribution. Thus, those who deride Christianity as being detrimental are either tremendously biased in their thinking or are ignorant of history.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/threat.html

__________________
Syriana...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

pig

hey dave,

possible to get you to modify your post to include the quotes tags? [ quote=your source]stuff they said[/quote] ?

remove the first space in the quote tag opener. might make the post more easily read. i haven't read through the stuff thoroughly, but from a quick glimpse i'm not surprised by that perspective.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

*Stretches hands*
The idea that nature is real started before Christianity. Plato, for example, disagreed when Parmenides and the Eleatic philosophers claimed that all change, motion, and time was an illusion ... over 300 years before the birth of Jesus. The concept of all change, motion, and time being an illusion was actually explored long after nature's nature was ascertained. I fail to see how Christianity could have effected the world before it existed.
Ah, but how can we be sure they can't be changed unless they are tested? Where in the bible are concepts like Newtonian, Einsteinian, or even quantum physics discussed? And how exactly is nature dependable? The three types of physics I described above are in contradiction with one another, for example.
Science was justified? By whom? Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It's justification lies in it's meaning. It's here to explain the universe. Also, could you explain how we transcend science? By developing technology, we improve science, we don't transcend it.
Is that why abortion clinics are bombed? Or why fossils are destroyed? Or maybe why scientists were jailed or executed?
I'm sure Galileo felt science was being well regulated by Christianity as he sat in prison and had his works banned by the church. BTW, Galilo was one of the first and most prominant supporters of Copernicanism (heliocentric theory of the solar system). I'm enjoying taking apart your arguments.
Dribble.
The keyword is 'outside' standard of morality. The US government makes it's morals clear when it has laws. If it ain't illegal, it ain't governmentally immoral. If all Judeo-Christian morality were put into the government, we'd have a theocracy. Are you suggesting we should live in a theocracy?
I'm sure the Christians that condemned heretics during the inquisition LOVED freedom. I'll tell you what, look up the Curse of Ham. It's entirely possible that Infinite_Loser's ancestors were a victim, just as my ancestors were victims of the Romans.

Enjoy the following versus from the Bible.
"Oh, but Will, those are all from the Old Testament"
Right you are.
...just to name a few.
Oh dear. Throughout its history, the Christian religion has deprived women of their right to be treated as equal human beings. Today, Catholic, Mormon and fundamentalist Christian churches still prevent women from taking an equal place among men in their church hierarchies. These churches also oppose equal rights legislation, the right of women to pursue a career outside the home, and the freedom of choice over their own bodies{1}.

It's Bible time:
The Bible gives the official stamp of approval by god to mistreat and oppress women.
I'm not sure what morality has to do with what we're talking about, but I'll bite anyway. Examples of the high standards of morality in he Bible follow.

Do the Bible:
At this point, I'm guessing that posting quotes from the Bible is moot, either because my point is massively proven or because you choose to ignore parts of your own religious text.
No, it was Stoicism (again, that predated Christianity).
Remember what happened when Rome (democracy, republic, built roads, center of science and philosophy) fell? Europe fell into chaos. There was almost a thousand years of ignorance, disease, and Christianity. The Christian Church was the only centralized institution to survive the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire, and was partially to blame for said fall. I welcome you to read Gibbon on the subject, as I have. Have you ever read about how the Church Council of Carthage in 398 prohibited all Roman citizens from reading anything but Christian books (on penalty of death)? I'm sure you've also read about the death of philosopher Hypatia at the hands of the Christian mob. They hacked her apart, carried pieces of her up and down the streets of Alexandria before burning her remains. Maybe you know of Theodosius II's order to burn all non-Christian books? The last thousand years of scientific thought were burned to ash. {2}

Getting back to the Norse, Christianity destroyed almost all religious and historical texts of my ancestors, the Northern Europeans. Do you want to know why we can learn a ton about Zeus but almost nothing about Odin? Christianity went Nazi on Northern Europe and erased history, again.
HA! Curse of Ham. Look it up.
God's moral standards include slavery, cold blooded murder, genocide, rape, child abuse, sexism, racism, classism, homophobia, and ignorance.
My fingers are getting tired of being right.

The church has been against:
- blood transfusions
- transplants
- vaccines
- stem cells
Only those practices predate the Bible by hundreds of years, again.
How often were monks better doctors than their secular lay counterparts? ll you say is 'often'. Is that more than 50% of the time?
Hospitals existed in Egypt hundreds of years before Christianity, and almost a thousand years before St. Basil.
The only people in America at the time were Christians or oppressed Native Americans.
There are nice atheists and nice Christians. Assuming that their creed has anything to do with their disposition is meaningless. When Mother Teresa helped people, she helped them. God didn't help them. When I volunteer for homeless people, I don't do it because I'm an agnostic atheist. I just do it.

1. http://atheistsunited.org/wordsofwis...dez/women.html
2. http://www.hermes-press.com/DAtruth.htm

Infinite_Loser

Unless I'm crazy (Which I'm not), I'm quite sure that you have made the absolute statement that God doesn't exist on more than one occasion.

Quite frequently you'll hear an atheist use the phrase "You can't prove God's existence!" (Which you have done-- Multiple times), to which you'll evoke the response "You can't disprove the existence of God." I want you to take note of the cause and effect relationship between the two. Is such a response desperation on the part of theists? Nope. It's merely exasperation at having to respond to the same old illogical argument over and over and over and over and over and over and... You get the point.

Or, in other other words, you don't need to disprove God's existence because you believe He doesn't exist based on what you know. Explain to me, if you will, how this is different from my belief that God does exist based on what I know? Really, we can keep going around in a circle if you wish. Your stance is, in your own words, just as illogical as mine.

Odd question, but if this were a court of law would you consider yourself the plaintiff or the defendant?

Because I believe in the Judeo-Christian God. Really, that was a simple question to answer.

Humor doesn't go over well on the internet, it seems...

It's rather simple, Will. My belief in God stems from real life experiences.

...Oh wait! Science can't qualify those (Remember the whole "Science is based on induction!" spiel I went through?) so they obviously don't count. Sorry. My mistake.

I won't even begin to direct you to the numerous studies done on near death experiences. I also won't even begin to tell you what's wrong with trying to qualify other people's experiences based on your own.

That's not the assumption you make when you say that God definitively doesn't exist.

It's not illogical at all. What's illogical is continuing to assert that you don't believe in God based on what we might (*Keyword*) know tomorrow. It's unknown what will happen tomorrow.

Wait wait wait wait...

On numerous occasions I've stated that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God and that any belief stating God's existence one or the other were both illogical (That it, neither is more correct than the other). I'm glad you agree.

As I stated earlier, unless I'm crazy (Which I'm not) I could have sworn that I've seen you state as much in the past. Anyway, for argument's sake, let's just assume that you what you say is true. What do you have to say for your fellow atheists who DO assert definitively that God doesn't exist?

*Points above*

...I believe I've already explained this before. My faith has nothing to do with spiting you. Fairly often I hear that attributing what we don't know to God to be illogical because we might know more tomorrow than we know today. To me, that's a cop (Because 'tomorrow' will never get here) but, you know, I let it go. One can only continue to deny the existence of God based on what tomorrow might bring for so long before they have to acknowledge his existence.

Are you so helpless that you're incapable of looking it up? It's not nearly as hard as you make it seem.

I laughed to myself when I read this because I do believe my initial post stated:

...But I guess you didn't notice that.

By the way, Will, I must ask if you're arguing agnosticism or atheism, as it seems to be the former.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ritesign

The point of this topic was to debate proofs of God's existence/nonexistence. It seems to have strayed into "is organised religion harmful to society," "do religion and science mix" and "who can make the longest post". Can we try and return to the original idea?

pig

il,

depends on who does the defining: many people consider atheism to have several gradations; usually these definitions are within the atheist community itself.

strong atheist: god.does.not.exist.period.
weak atheist: does not believe in god. is not theistic. does not say that god absolutely can not exist. also does not necessarily say that no knowledge about god can be gained.

agnostic: does not believe that the existence of god can ever be determined

so a lot of people put the weak atheists and the agnostics together, because they both lack a belief in god. in fact, they really are kind of separate but related positions. one on the belief or lack thereof in deities, one about whether such knowledge is possible.

now ritesign, what sort of nefarious tricks are you up to...with your sweet sweet words and your tricksy questions? to understand better, are you arguing to mathematically reduce god/gods / mathematical proofs? and are you taking the position that a failure to know everything about god/gods/my shoelaces means that you can't know anything about god/gods/my shoelaces. are you still lining up some satanic litigation here?

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Willravel

I'm an agnostic atheist. I believe in the almost certain fiction of god. That means that while I recognize that god may exist, the probability is so low that his non-existence is a virtual certainty. And we're all a little crazy.
If your position and my position were equally opposed, you'd be right. They are not. You obviously believe in the existence of god. I'd have to equally but oppositely believe that there is no god for the two ideas to be equally opposed. When I say, "Prove god exists", I am asking you to defend your point. When you ask me to prove god doesn't exist, you're asking me to defend a point that is not my own. Most atheists are like me, btw, where they simply think that god is basically fiction. Let me put it in different terms. I think that pokemon are fictitious (and annoying), but if I were to one day come upon a pokemon I could understand that it's possible for this creature to exist. I have no evidence to suggest that pokemon are real now, so I think it's safe to say while I recognize that pokemon may exist, the probability is so low that his non-existence is a virtual certainty.
Defendant, but that's really not important. The fact is that you absolutely believe in the existence of god. I think that's irrational. I've shown, by lack of any evidence, that god almost certainly isn't real, so you're position isn't reasonable.
But the evidence to support the existence of Zeus is the same as the evidence to support god. Why favor one over the other? Why is god more likely than Zeus?
You've met god, then? You've come across some evidence to tell you god is real? I'd love for you to share reasonable evidence that can lead to the natural assertion that the existence of god is a certainty, thus justifying your faith, and changing your faith to science.
I sincerely hope you weren't thinking of listing things like 'a child's laughter' or 'someone reading the Bible and crying'.
Have you ever died? No? Then you're not qualified to tell me my experience was wrong.
Both are illogical. Thank god (pun intended) that I fall into neither of those camps. You, on the other hand, do. Even if I was someone who absolutely believed that god doesn't exist, that wouldn't make your position any more logical. We'd simply both be wrong. Someone else being wrong doesn't make you right.
Let me make this clear: atheism consists of two parties: agnostic atheists, who like myself recognize that god may exist, the probability is so low that his non-existence is a virtual certainty (which are about 98-99% of atheists)... and pure atheists, people who believe absolutely that god doesn't exist (these are the 1-2% that are generally ignored). I don't speak on behalf of pure atheists. I speak on behalf of agnostic atheists.
If your faith had nothing to do with spiting me, then why did you suddenly assert that every time I make an argument your faith grows? That's clearly a weak attempt at taunting, and you're hardly the first person to try and use that to try and make me angry. It's never actually gotten me angry, though it usually ends the conversation because when others make that statement, they have lost all my respect and they're not worth my time. There are plenty of people out there who are more than willing to actually listen to me, and who I am willing to listen to.
YOU made the claim, so I have to look it up? I'm sure your professors love reading your citations.
I know plenty of Mexicans, Arabs, Asians, and yes even African-Americans who are agnostic atheists. I'm having lunch with one today as we go over performance standards for March today at work, in fact.
You were trying to do a hit an run, and I called you on it. You suddenly dropped the race card, then you said, "Oh, but don't worry about it".
I'm an agnostic atheist. I hope that's crystal clear now.

asaris

Well, I want to address the whole "Christianity is good/bad for people" argument. Briefly. I tend to think that on the whole, Christianity has been more beneficial overall than harmful. But this is an article of faith. Christianity, Christians, and Christian theocracies have together had such a large effect on human history, and it's so hard to distinguish between the effect each of these three has had. So any argument about the overall effect of Christianity is going to be long and complex; it's certainly not possible here, and I doubt it's possible anywhere. But I do want to address a couple of Will's specific claims.

Wait, you're citing Plato for the idea that all change motion and time is not an illusion? While it's true that the division of the world into the Cave and the World of Forms is overly simplistic, I'm hard put to believe that it's that far off.

That's a distinctly modern point of view. In the worldview of the ancients, science had no justification. There was simply no reason to do what we know of as science. Aristotle came closest, but he's still obviously quite a long ways away. Charles Taylor has some excellent essays in Philosophical Arguments on this.


What about the Christians that condemned the inquisition? Or those that criticized slavery? It's impossible to deny that, especially with respect to the second, Christians played a leading role in eradicating a particular evil. And it's also impossible to deny that Christians played a leading role in perpetuating these and other evils. This is why I say that you simply can't just say that Christianity has been on the whole a negative influence or a positive influence.

That's not really fair, though I do admire you combining two old canards into a single paragraph. Rome was never the center of philosophy -- as Arendt notes, there was only one Roman who was truly a philosopher, and that was Augustine. Even if you include some of the Stoics like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, there's no one of the rank of Plato or Aristotle or even Descartes. And the heyday of Rome had long passed by the time when Rome fell. There's no reason to believe that Christianity was responsible for Rome's fall -- it was rotting for at least 100 years before its fall, and almost certainly more. Don't forget, Rome was a Tyranny for 400 years before its fall, not the golden land you so nostagicly portray. And the so-called Dark Ages were not the Hobbesian wasteland you want either; the only reason people portray them this way is the mythology of "The Eternal City".

I know you're going to claim that I've just proved your point, that Christianity is not "good for mankind". I'm not going to deny that. But I hope I've convinced you that the other point you're fond of making, that Christianity is "bad for mankind" is equally unverifiable. But let me continue the point I was making above.

Okay, so how does a belief in the existence in the supernatural breach our understand of science? You say that religion assumes as fact the supernatural, while science continually develops. First, you misunderstand religion. While we do have certain tenets we're committed to, like the resurrection, most of us would also say that as time goes on, our understanding of God deepens, so that practices that were once seen as okay are now understood to not be the best way of expressing our devotion to God. (C.S. Lewis has an interesting take on this idea in That Hideous Strength.)

Second, you have an overly idealized notion of science. Science doesn't develop because people become convinced of new views. Science develops because the people who had the old views die off. (I think it's Kuhn who has a good discussion of this. Maybe it's Popper.) Third, even assuming you were correct about religion being either unchanging or significantly more resistant to change than science, that doesn't entail any effect of religion on science. You assert it does, you even promise a long list, but you don't give any reason for thinking this is the case. If I'm just not understanding you, perhaps you could give your argument in logical form? I'm dense enough that I sometimes need help like that. (But please, spare me empirical evidence of a general claim. Even if you could compile an arbitrarily long list, it wouldn't prove your point.)

WHAT!?!?! You mean to say that, because if Christianity were a minority, it would be discriminated against in a way we don't even treat Scientologists, it's not true? That's just insulting.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

Science was important as far back as our hunter/gatherer phase of development. Without science, how could we have developed better spears? How could we have tracked heard patterns? How could we have decided what part of an animal had what use? How could we have made fire?
I'm taking apart an argument, not making one of my own. I'd like to make sure people aren't misled by incorrect or incomplete information. Frankly, I don't care if Christianity is beneficial or not. All that matters to me is that belief in god is illogical. That's the only point that should matter between atheism and theism.
Stoicism had it's roots earlier than Rome, but it was widely accepted by Romans.
You either believe in the rules of science without exception (allowing for development and new understanding) or you partially believe in the rules of science and accept exception (supernatural). The first is me, the second is theists. The tenents you mention are exceptions to the rules of science. When you have exceptions to rules, you are admitting that the rules don't always apply.
God is your religion, science is mine. Science develops because we always are testing and searching. Standard Model was replaced by String Theory, which is being replaced by M Theory...all in less than 30 years. As far as I know, 3 quantum theories in 30 years is hardly a theory per generation.

I mentioned the church being against medicine and physics several times. The fact of the matter is that the Bible was written when science was much younger. As such, scientific facts in he Bible are outdated. Take mollusks, for example. Once upon a time, they were difficult to clean and led to infection and sickness. They were banned in Deut. Now, we have methods of cooking that makes them clean and safe. Likewise, women who are menstruating are said to be unclean and to be avoided. Now, women are able to control any bleeding and are perfectly safe to be around, with no real threat of spreading blood-transfered disease. A more prevalent issue could be abstinence (or even celibacy). It's clear that without protection, STDs could spread easily if left unchecked and there could be unwanted pregnancies. Now, however, it's quit different. Between condoms and pills and spermicide, and other contraceptives, the risk of transfering STDs and becoming pregnant are much lower (though some idiots choose to ignore modern contraceptives). Up until 1930, all Protestant denominations were against contraceptives. The Catholic Church is still against them.

These examples represent what I'm talking about. The reason behind this is pretty straight forward. The Bible was written between about 2500 years ago and about 500 years ago. It was writted and revised in the frame of the time. The problem is that we're missing a half a millennium of scientific development. That's why when things like stem cells, something not specifically mentioned in the Bible, are brought up, people get confused. They try to make comparisons to ancient law that is no longer based in science, and that creates problems. Then when the reasonable argument can't be made, it falls to the ultimate problem: Christian morality. For some reason, people think the Bible has one moral standard by which one can live his or her life. The reality, of course, is that the Bible is all over the place with morality. I wonder how anti-stem cell people would respond when the story of god telling Abraham to sacrifice Issac.
It's true. I would suggest that without precedent and numbers, religion would be nothing more than a whisper. And Scientologists are discriminated against quite a bit, though they bring a lot of it upon themselves.

asaris

I suspect we'll be running around in circles shortly, but...

That's technology, not science. But I'm not sure I can explain the difference if you happen not to see it. Science is a distinctly modern enterprise arising in the late middle ages, in part out of the work of alchemists. With the exceptions of Aristotle (and perhaps Roger Bacon), no one before this era did anything like what we would call science, and Aristotle's scientific method is much different than ours. In fact, 1. looking at Aristotle's natural philosophy isn't a bad way to see how radically different it is and 2. that 'science' was called natural philosophy for quite a long time, even after it split off from philosophy, might reveal something about the way pre-modern man thought about it.

Ok, sure, some theists believe that the rules don't always apply. So what? How does that retard the growth of science?

That's not exactly what I meant. First, I'm not sure that any of those theories have gained general acceptance in the scientific community. Second, I'm not sure that they're sufficiently distinct that moving between them constitutes a scientific revolution. But these are empirical claims, and I could easily be wrong.

First, are you aware of the reasons the Catholic Church gives for its positions on celibacy and contraceptives? I don't always agree with the Catholic Church, but they're usually pretty good about arguing for their position. You probably disagree with their reasoning in these cases (since they're natural law arguments), but given their assumptions, the arguments make at least some sense. Second, I'm not sure how teaching that you shouldn't have sex outside of marriage has anything to do with retarding the growth of science.

Okay, first, the Bible is not primarily a book about how to live a moral life. Second, yes, the story of the sacrifice of Isaac raises difficulties. Third, traditionally, Christians have believed that abortion was okay until roughly the thirteenth or fourteenth week (cf. Aquinas, cited in Roe v Wade). Fourth, embryonic stem cell research is less promising than the main-stream media would have you believe.

But some of the concerns you mention don't seem to have a necessary connection to religion. Surely some moral atheists could have the sort of concern for the unborn that a lot of religious people have. Science often raises moral objections. Sometimes, in hindsight, the detractors of religion love to cite religion as having threatened to stymie research, as in the case of Galileo. Sometimes, the role of religion in ending genuinely unethical research is forgotten, as in the case of vivisection. (Consider that one of the founders of the SPCA in England was William Wilberforce, subject of a recent movie.) But all this shows is that sometimes the practices of science run close along an ethical boundary, and so ethical (or hyper-ethical) people object. So, unless you don't think scientists are able to act unethically in doing research, it seems like this is rather a good thing, not a bad thing.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

Herd patterns are not technology. Also, technology is the application of science, so I don't think the distinction is that important.
By definition, all theists believe that the rules don't always apply, as god is supernatural. Imagine that you mostly believe in the justice system, but when you feel like it, you simply let a murderer go. Same concept. Science is either right or not. If you start making exceptions, then the whole of science loses it's meaning.
string theory, for a time, was quite prevalent. I'm not sure how many new theories are widely accepted in their infancy, but so far as new theories go, string theory was big. Beatles big.
If I'm misunderstanding the reasoning given for celibacy and abstinence, enlighten me. The idea I was trying to convey is that the original reasoning behind them did apply when the Bible was written, but don't apply now. Think about that. A book written hundreds and hundreds of years ago is being used to try and figure out the morality of facets of science. Instead of weighing these things on their merits, people try desperately to apply it to the old book. I've read the Bible perhaps hundreds of times, and I've never read anything about stem cells. People are so afraid of making moral decisions on their own that they have to say, "Thou shall not kill" applies, though I cannot see how. It's the production of a biological machine for the purpous of medicine, not the creation of life. And this is coming from someone with real moral qualms about abortion, and the irresponsibility of the people who have them.
One type of stem cell treatment, a bone marrow transplant, can be used to successfully treat leukemia. Scientists that have a mush better understanding of stem cells than I do have said that stem cells will help in finding breakthroughs in treating cancer, parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, muscle damage, and a dozen other conditions. Most people alive today have lost someone they know to cancer. I, myself, lost my Aunt. It would have been nice to be able to give her a better chance because of stem cell research.
How can anyone deny that the church jailed Galileo and destroyed his work? That's historical fact. Scientists should be monitored for their ethics, but I think that Galileo was jailed for heresy, not for being unethical.

asaris

Galileo is a special case, I think. From what I know (and I don't know much), if Galileo had been a better politician, the Church wouldn't have been after him nearly as much. But it's hard to deny that in this case, the church acted in a way that, at the very least, was likely to retard scientific development. But all that shows is that in one case, the Church acted to retard scientific development. Your claim is that it is essential to religion that it generally retard scientific progress. The one is barely even evidence for the other.

All current treatments using stem cells use adult stem cells, which do not involve the destruction of embryos. Embryonic stem cells are more plastic than adult stem cells; many scientists believe that for this reason, they will ultimately prove to be more useful. But there's also a fair amount of evidence that this makes them much more difficult to use, since it makes it hard to turn them into what you want them to. There are also greater difficulties with rejection in the case of embryonic stem cells than with adult stem cells, at least with respect to some treatments, since adult stem cells can be harvested from the adult requiring the treatment.

How familiar are you with the criminal justice system? Believe me when I say that the 'rules' that apply there have nothing like universal validity, and are rife with exceptions. Just today I was working with case law that postulates an exception "when in the interest of justice". Now, I'm glad that there are these exceptions. The law must be somewhat flexible. I'm just saying that there are no laws in the sense in which science has laws.

You say string theory was prevalent, but that's different from gaining general acceptance. But the more important part of my claim is that these theories don't represent incommensurate systems the way that Newtonian and Einsteinian physics do.

Regarding the Bible and morality (and I think this is quickly becoming a red herring): to a certain extent, I look to the Bible for guidance on how to live my life. But I also look to other moral teachers (like Nietzsche). The Bible mostly tells us what we must do to be saved (believe in Christ and trust in him alone for our salvation), not what it means to live a moral life. The general principle "Life ought to be preserved" is indeed a Biblical principle. But it's a principle common to all systems of morality. I, and many Christians I know, think social policy ought only be determined by these sorts of general principles, not principles which are peculiar to Christianity.

__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Willravel

What I've asked myself about Galileo is: why did the church retard scientific development? I'm sure their decision wasn't made to slow science. I'm sure they thought that their actions were taken to protect the church and thus god, and to punish those who would question their interpretation of god. It's in that thought process that I find the most danger. Now, to be clear, the slowing of science by religion is just an afterthought. The real reason I am an atheist is simply because it's clear to me that god doesn't exist. whether or not religion slows or negatively effects science is secondary to that in my mind....but you have to see that there is danger in the idea that god supersedes the scientific method. Galileo made very strong cases for his discoveries in his writings. Had the church not felt their power threatened, I'm sure that the church wouldn't have cared (as you said:
). The church, and by extension religion, does feel that they are threatened from time to time. When they feel that way, and they have the power, they can lash out. Galileo was unlucky to be born in a time where the church had near absolute power.

I also think you're missing one of my most important points in my argument about the slowing of science: god is not supported by science. So long as people believe in the absolute existence of god, the clear fact that god probably doesn't exist will be held back. It is that function of faith that has always and will, as long as it is around, slow science in at least one way.
Ah, but we can't explore the possibilities of the application of embryonic stem cells until people allow it. If someone wants to make an argument based on purely ethical thoughts, god and the Bible aside, I'd be fine. The problem is that when people are asked to make their arguments, they quote scripture. That's scary.
Ah, but when there are exceptions to the laws of science and law, there are reasons for them. Normally, the burden of proof is on the state, but when a defendant pleads insanity, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant. It makes perfect sense because the claim is normally made by the state (proving you're guilty), but in an insanity case the claim is made by the defendant (proving I'm insane). Likewise normally DNA passes genetic information from generation to generation, but a year or two back, French scientists found that RNA can as well (contradicting Mendel's laws). This can bypass broken or damaged DNA.

There is not a similar reason for the exception to science for god that I am aware of.
You'd be surprised. They work on very, very different principles, but I don't have the time or the training to get in to them. I'd say that this is less important a point to discuss here, so if it's alright with you I'd like to agree to disagree on this in order to avoid moving off topic.
I like the mental image I got of your book shelf with the Bible next to Die fröhliche Wissenschaft. Sort of like having "god is real" next to "god is dead".

It should be made clear that many (more than half, almost certainly) Christians find their moral code mainly from the Bible, just as the Jews do from the Torah and the Muslims do from the Qu'ran. I don't think it's a strawman just because you don't just find your morality in the Bible.

I think that morality should be something ever monitored and ever growing, and as such looking to morality that's hundreds of years old is like teaching trepanation to first year surgeons. It doesn't make sense.


I must say I find this debate very enjoyable.

Infinite_Loser

I had to slightly re-arrange the order of your responses in order to make them easier to respond to.

This is almost like getting in an argument with someone who says that zero isn't the same as one divided by a million. While, statistically, they're not the same the difference between them is so negligible that we call them equal.

On numerous occasions you have stated that the statistical probability of God existing is minuscule that it's safe to assume he doesn't exist. I'm simply asking you to defend that point through scientific reasoning (Which is what you're basing your argument on, anyway).

I've taken the liberty of summarizing your argument.

1.) If God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for that.
2.) There is, however, no good objective evidence for God's existence.
3.) Therefore, God probably doesn't exist.

Correct?

I know that I've said this before, but not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not nor cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case-- It is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more (Wikipedia).

Your position is no more 'logical' than mine.

I don't believe I ever said that one was more likely than the other, but rather that I believe in the Judeo-Christian God more so than I believe in Zeus.

Trying to use science to explain religious beliefs/phenomena is rather problematic, wouldn't you say? Religion explains the 'who' and 'why' while science typically tries to answer the 'how'.

No, I wasn't.

I said that your experience was wrong? Find it. I believe I said that you can't qualify other people's experiences based on your own, which you were trying to do.

The only way to not fall into one of those two categories is to make no conclusions regarding the existence of God either way. Anyway, I don't believe I've ever claimed my argument to be logical (By scientific standards) and I'm perfectly happy to admit that my beliefs contradict what science knows about the natural world. You, however, claim to base your argument on scientific reasoning yet the conclusions you make exist outside the realm in which science is able to estimate (See link above).

Didn't I, like, already explain this?

Your argument against the existence of God relies heavily on the premise that, while you might not be able to disprove God's existence today, tomorrow you might know more than you know today and thus be able to disprove his existence (Stop me now if I'm wrong). Such an argument simply avoids the fact that science will never be able to make claims regarding God's existence one way or the other. With that being said, I believe God to be inexplicable. As I'm sure you're well aware, two contradictory statements (Or in this case, beliefs) can't both be true; Either God can be explained or he can't be explained. The growing inability to explain/rationalize God only serves to support my claim that God is unexplainable.

*Points above*

It has nothing to do with taunting.

You continued the discussion, even though I clearly stated that it was slightly off-topic and better suited for a thread of it's own.

I didn't say you won't find any atheists from different ethnic backgrounds (As you seemingly believe I said), but rather that the majority of atheists do stem from a singular background.

You can't call me on anything when I specifically stated (Before you replied, mind you), "Slightly off-topic, but I've always wondered why atheism is most prevalent in non-minorities. I guess, however, that's another topic for another day."

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

FoolThemAll

Why, though, do you believe most in the Judeo-Christian God? Because that's the God your parents believed in? Because that God appeals to you more? Or is there some objective reason that would remain if you were born into different circumstances?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.