This topic may have strayed a bit but its a good one and I've finally got the time to post on it although what I would have posted earlier has changed. I've decided its not worth me trying to convince fundamentalist christians that the Bible isn't the most trustworthy of sources, for a start I'm very underqualified and you know far more arguments than I do. I just don't/can't believe in it and belief is the most important thing, a religion should feel right and make sense (if not logical sense then at least emotional sense).
Still this idea that an athiests morales arent worth anything, now that I can talk about.
I have a very strict idea of what is right and wrong, all decided by me, influenced by various people. Now as there is nothing once we die you could argue that the world is meaningless... wrong. It just means that you have to give your own life meaning.
In a purely logical, intellectual sense I know there is absolutely no difference between me sitting at the computer chatting and me skinning babies alive then eating them. None what so ever. Thats not the point though, there isn't some big list of right and wrongs, only a list of what you like and don't like. The only thing that is important is my life, including everything in my life like the people I get on with etc, if I act in a 'bad' way then my life goes in directions I don't want it too, I lose friends etc
In other words, my altruism is actually just me being selfish. Which is pretty much the same as everyone else. If you believe in a god do you do the right thing because he wants you too? Or because you'll be rewarded with eternal bliss? Or condemned to hell if you refuse?
True altruism doesn't exist, even those who sacrafice their lives for others, get nothing back and don't believe in god are only acting out of habit, possibly some kind of brain washing by hero figures etc. If you are constantly told that jumping on a grenade to save the people in your squad is the best thing you can do and you are trained to do it then it becomes reflex. You don't even think, you just do it.
In the end, your morales are actually just reflexes instilled in you. Your conscience is just your moral common sense, not lying is the same as not putting your hand in a fire. The difference being that the consequences for sticking your hand on something hot is a lot more immediate and so alot easier to learn. Lying often has short term good results, in fact sometimes you never get caught out at all! If you lie alot though your life will be significantly worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I consider your atheistic moral system flawed. The intentions behind morals seem to be irrelevant to me. At the end of the day you and your morals mean nothing, if what you believe is true. At the end of the day, my morals and me mean something, if what I believe is true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If what I believe is true, your morals "mean nothing".
If what you believe is true, do my morals mean something?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either way, if you act good then you go to heaven if one exists, if you act bad you don't. The only difference is that if you believe and there is a god then you get to be smug afterwards <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I'd prefer to spend my sundays in something more productive like sleep (or when unlucky, work <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to bring up pascal's wager, but the religoius people didnt miss anything. Nothing bad came out of believing in the "wrong" religion. If no religion is right, there is no damage done in believing in one of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't believe in a god but still act nicely then you will be forgiven when you die. If you believe in the wrong god? Doesn't that count as a 'false idol' and count as a fairly major sin? Just a thought.
PS. interesting quote Confuzor.
PPS. God can't be proved either way, Father Christmas (I'm English) can. If FC delivers our presents why is it my mom used to by them and put them below the tree? If FC exists then where is his workshop? How the hell do Elves make complex electrical machinery? He isn't a good analogy for go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->God is emotionally affected by the universe, the Bible is full of places where God relates not only with justice and absolute perspective, but also with emotions of affection, anger, and even jealousy.
This doesn't make Him less perfect, yet His state is still changed. Yet, there are also places where He says He will act in such a way as to end whatever affects him. Sin, for example, was dealt a fatal blow, and will be completely distroyed through Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If God is a perfect being, wouldn't that perfection also entail a perfect emotional state? If God is changed, but still perfect, doesn't that indicate multiple states of perfection? If there were multiple forms of perfection, that would allow for things like multiple Gods.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Both scenarios are entirely true, thanks to Christ.
We can see what Godly traits and love are through Christ. He was both God and Man, and thus, we can see God's love through Him. He came down to our level to show us just that.
Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge. Christ brought God, as we previously knew him, down to the level of mankind, without falling into sin Himself.
In short, He shows us all we need to know about God now, in this life. The rest we can learn for ourselves in the next.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both scenarios can't be true. They're mutually exclusive. One is either a supernatural being or one is not. You can't be simultaneously bound and not bound by the parameters of the universe.
If we can't define what God is, than what is God? An unknowable being possessing unknowable attributes in unknowable quantities? Either God can be defined by human language or he can't. If God can be defined through natural language and knowledge, than God loses his supernatural status as he possesses natural attributes. If God can't be defined through natural language, then you have an unknown being.
The end result is either God is a natural being or you don't know what you're worshipping.
that, apparently, is where the soul comes in. Since we are, at least according to many religions, made in the image of our maker, we possess certain qualities of "God". Therefore, while we may not be able to describe God in terms of the natural world, we can say something about he/she/it in relation to ourselves.
that's the theory at least. of course, then there's the argument that man made God in man's image...but that's another issue entirely.
*edit* oh yeah, the part about him being affected by things in our universe - as far as i can tell, the judeo-christian God (i'm not really qualified to talk about the others very much) is only affected (emotionally) by human actions. refer to above.
*edit* one more thing, the reason God is angry/jealous is because we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing. apparently the rest of creation is working like they're supposed to, while we rebelled.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+May 20 2004, 09:01 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 20 2004, 09:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to bring up pascal's wager, but the religoius people didnt miss anything. Nothing bad came out of believing in the "wrong" religion. If no religion is right, there is no damage done in believing in one of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't believe in a god but still act nicely then you will be forgiven when you die. If you believe in the wrong god? Doesn't that count as a 'false idol' and count as a fairly major sin? Just a thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's why I don't like Pascal's wager. It falls apart too easily under a bit of examination. My point was that if no relegion is correct, then we just die. That is the end of it. It doesn't matter what relegion we followed, because death is the end. No harm comes in believing in any particular religion, as they are all equally invalid. I was not using the wager as a justification for religion, but as a way of making a point. If a particular religion is correct, only those people who believe in that one will go to "Heaven" (or that religion's idea of reward, Nirvana for example). All those who ignored it will go to "hell" (that religion's punishment). If all religions are correct, then the world is truly stuffed. There cannot be "One true supreme God" and "many different Gods ruling different parts of nature". You cannot "die once and be judged" and "die and get reincarnated". The contradictions in religion rule out them all being correct, so we are left with just two options. Either non are correct (in which case, it (or anything else for that matter) doesn't matter) or just one is correct (in which case, things just got serious).
I think there is an innate sense of "something else" in people. They like having something to believe in, be it God, Buddha or UFOs. Something to give them meaning to their life. Others get their meaning from material items, but does that actually give them happiness?
I believe that there is something out there. Something I canot explain. Religion is a way to try to get in touch of that something else.
The dilemma comes in deciding which one is correct. You could pick the one that feels right for you, but if you get it wrong, the deity isn't going to let you off because you felt you were following the right one. Unfortunately, there isn't really another way of doing it. You could stick them all on a dartboard and chuck a knife at them, then follow the one it stabs, but that is an absurd way of dealing with a serious problem. All you can do is chose one and hope that either you are correct, or none of them are.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No harm comes in believing in any particular religion...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PPS. God can't be proved either way, Father Christmas (I'm English) can. If FC delivers our presents why is it my mom used to by them and put them below the tree? If FC exists then where is his workshop? How the hell do Elves make complex electrical machinery? He isn't a good analogy for go.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could have chosen a better example, but I thought Santa Claus would be immediately understandable to most people. How about the Easter Bunny, or even gods believed in by other religions? Nobody believes in Zeus anymore, but there is just as much evidence for Zeus' existance(maybe even more) than for the Christian God.
<!--QuoteBegin-CMEast+May 20 2004, 08:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CMEast @ May 20 2004, 08:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Still this idea that an athiests morales arent worth anything, now that I can talk about.
I have a very strict idea of what is right and wrong, all decided by me, influenced by various people. Now as there is nothing once we die you could argue that the world is meaningless... wrong. It just means that you have to give your own life meaning. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But that's what I dont believe is possible East. If everything you do becomes meaningless the minute you die, then unless you know how to live for ever, you simply cannot create meaning for yourself.
You have accepted that once you die you become nothing, null, zero. How can nothing have meaning?
Listen to B33F, he knows the positive, gentle influence of an atheistic society. Take the greatest atheistic society that ever existed - The USSR. Entrenched atheism was the official state religion, hammered home in all forms of education. And what was the result? Loving, caring and sharing under the gentle Russian sky....
Oh, and about atheism and faith - atheism actually takes MORE faith then theism. When the atheist says "There is no God", what he is actually saying is "I'm omniscent, I've looked everywhere, and there is no God to be found". To anyone who tells me there is no God, I ask them if he has checked under that rock, that building, that car, because anywhere he hasnt checked, God could be there.
Its impossible to turn that around on the theist. We say There is a God, and we dont need omniscence to know that - because if there was a God, its entirely possible he has come down and contact us.
To recap - atheism requires more faith then theism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Listen to B33F, he knows the positive, gentle influence of an atheistic society. Take the greatest atheistic society that ever existed - The USSR. Entrenched atheism was the official state religion, hammered home in all forms of education. And what was the result? Loving, caring and sharing under the gentle Russian sky....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And this differes from Eurpoe during the time of the crusades... how exactly?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We say There is a God, and we dont need omniscence to know that - because if there was a God, its entirely possible he has come down and contact us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is also entirely possible that you believe a bunch of bull****, at best theism requires the same ignorance (or faith) as atheism. You would need to be omnicient to know that there is a God, because the existance of God cannot be proven by scientific method.
Here is an interesting thought: only aethists can justify forcing their moral system on others. Why? because their moral systems are designed to keep society functioning, they are, in that sense, universal. An aethist need only justify his actions as by their effect on society.
A theist on the other hand only has to justify their actions to God. Therefore the issue of their morality is entirely between them and their deity. If I kill a child, for instance, it has no effect on Marine01's chances of getting into heaven, so why should he force his morality on me?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And this differes from Eurpoe during the time of the crusades... how exactly?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It doesnt. It doesnt need to. It just goes to show what a load of tripe the "if only there was no religion everything would be great" train of thought is. People, religion or no religion, are selfish and greedy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is also entirely possible that you believe a bunch of bull****, at best theism requires the same ignorance (or faith) as atheism. You would need to be omnicient to know that there is a God, because the existance of God cannot be proven by scientific method.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there is a God, then he could come and reveal himself to us (which is exactly what Christians claim he has done). I dont NEED to check everywhere in the universe to find him if he comes and finds me. If there is NO God, then you'd have to check everywhere in the universe to be 100% sure. Given that no atheist has done that, it takes a heck of a lot more faith to say "There is No God" then to say there is one.
To put it another way, if there is a God, its possible to know that without being omniscent. If there is No God, then its impossible to know that without being omniscent. I reckon that takes more faith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A theist on the other hand only has to justify their actions to God. Therefore the issue of their morality is entirely between them and their deity. If I kill a child, for instance, it has no effect on Marine01's chances of getting into heaven, so why should he force his morality on me?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If only it was that easy. My God has given some rather explict instructions on the value of doing the right thing and the value of people. According to my religion, you, Mr skulkbait sir, are important and valuable, as is that child you are holding. I am instructed to care about what happens to you, and about what you do. Part of the moral system given to me by my God involves how I should treat other people. If I didnt care about people, I would be doing the wrong thing according to God.
God loves you, and has told me to do the same. Personally, I suck at my religion so I dont, but I should.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Listen to B33F, he knows the positive, gentle influence of an atheistic society. Take the greatest atheistic society that ever existed - The USSR. Entrenched atheism was the official state religion, hammered home in all forms of education. And what was the result? Loving, caring and sharing under the gentle Russian sky....<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The USSR was a terrible place to live, though I don't think it was because of the atheism. I think it was because the people in charge, such as Lenin and Stalin, were somewhat twisted individuals. Whether they were in charge of a communism or a theocracy, they would have done the same things.
I say that I think the world would be a better place to live if there was no religion because in the past several thousands of years, many (or most?) wars have been at their heart a war about religion, the Crusades being the best (or worst?) example. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and about atheism and faith - atheism actually takes MORE faith then theism. When the atheist says "There is no God", what he is actually saying is "I'm omniscent, I've looked everywhere, and there is no God to be found". To anyone who tells me there is no God, I ask them if he has checked under that rock, that building, that car, because anywhere he hasnt checked, God could be there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do we need to be omniscient to doubt? Not all atheists make the declaration that "There is no God". Some simply lack a belief in any god. I believe strongly in the methods of skepticism, and I doubt anything that has no evidence to support its existence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am instructed to care about what happens to you, and about what you do. Part of the moral system given to me by my God involves how I should treat other people. If I didnt care about people, I would be doing the wrong thing according to God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about those people who bomb abortion clinics? Are they good, because they indirectly saved some babies, or are they evil, because they killed some doctors?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If there is a God, then he could come and reveal himself to us (which is exactly what Christians claim he has done).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why doesn't he make it indisputably obvious, instead of creating "miracles" that can be plausibly explained by science, and other acts that are only recorded as vague hearsay?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It doesnt. It doesnt need to. It just goes to show what a load of tripe the "if only there was no religion everything would be great" train of thought is. People, religion or no religion, are selfish and greedy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that people in general are selfish and greedy. However, religions do instill certain values, morals, and methods of thought (or lack thereof) that I believe can be detrimental to a free and happy society.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 20 2004, 07:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 20 2004, 07:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No harm comes in believing in any particular religion...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> None of the major religions are inherantly dangerous. It is the distortion of the faith that is the problem. It is not particularly challenging to manipulate a religion (or many other societal structures) if you have both influence and a desire to do so. Considering that people clearly have power within churches (not the same as a religion, btw), and how well people have done with power historically, that's not exactly a stretch.
There is also good to be gained from religion or church. On a simple level, church is just a social network, and falls prey to the same problems that groups of friends do: a forceful or otherwise influential individual can spread flawed, human ideas. Yet, we still have friends. Religion/church can also be useful tools toward helping the needy, spreading good morals, etc. so long as we can keep our wits and a healthy dose of skepticism about us.
However, that is not to say that one must have religion, or that religion is the only source of those goods, but rather that they are helpful.
This is coming from a non-theist, mind you. When it comes to faith, everything is grey.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 20 2004, 05:00 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 20 2004, 05:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The USSR was a terrible place to live, though I don't think it was because of the atheism. I think it was because the people in charge, such as Lenin and Stalin, were somewhat twisted individuals. Whether they were in charge of a communism or a theocracy, they would have done the same things.
I say that I think the world would be a better place to live if there was no religion because in the past several thousands of years, many (or most?) wars have been at their heart a war about religion, the Crusades being the best (or worst?) example. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The USSR and the Crusades have something in common. They were both started by people twisting an otherwise good idea for thier own benefit. Yes, Christianity was used as a scapegoat for the crusades, but, like what you said happened with the USSR, It happened beacue of the people in charge, such as the Kings of England at that time, were flawed human beings, selfish and greedy. They just used relegion as an excuse, but who is to say that that detracts from religion at all? It just shows that it (like everything else) can be warped from something useful and good into something destructive with the power of the human heart.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we need to be omniscient to doubt? Not all atheists make the declaration that "There is no God". Some simply lack a belief in any god. I believe strongly in the methods of skepticism, and I doubt anything that has no evidence to support its existence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But skepticism falls apart under examination. Where do you draw the line when you decide that things cannot be 'known'? If is just when you are talking about things that cannot be touched or validated, such as God? If that is the case, then surely the whole basis of scepticism, which leans heavily on the statement "things cannot be known", is flawed? If things cannot be known, how do we know that that statement is true? It is a logical fallacy. You cannot say "things cannot be known" with any certainty, because that statement cannot be known (proven true or false).
<!--QuoteBegin-The Finch+May 20 2004, 03:57 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (The Finch @ May 20 2004, 03:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Both scenarios are entirely true, thanks to Christ.
We can see what Godly traits and love are through Christ. He was both God and Man, and thus, we can see God's love through Him. He came down to our level to show us just that.
Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge. Christ brought God, as we previously knew him, down to the level of mankind, without falling into sin Himself.
In short, He shows us all we need to know about God now, in this life. The rest we can learn for ourselves in the next.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both scenarios can't be true. They're mutually exclusive. One is either a supernatural being or one is not. You can't be simultaneously bound and not bound by the parameters of the universe.
If we can't define what God is, than what is God? An unknowable being possessing unknowable attributes in unknowable quantities? Either God can be defined by human language or he can't. If God can be defined through natural language and knowledge, than God loses his supernatural status as he possesses natural attributes. If God can't be defined through natural language, then you have an unknown being.
The end result is either God is a natural being or you don't know what you're worshipping. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Who says that a supernatural being must be apart from the natural world? It can make itself known an apparent in the natural world, indeed, even gather together a lump of flesh to control and still remain, in essence, supernatural. God can interfere with the universe all He wants, in fact, the scriptures say He sustains it by his very will.
He can interfere with nature all he wants, and never once be under control of it himself.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+May 15 2004, 04:05 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ May 15 2004, 04:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To lead a meaningful life is not subjective as far as I'm concerned. Either you life has meaning in the end, or it doesnt. According to humanists/atheists, your life has no meaning at all, you are the product of a universal coincidence. You came from nothing, and you are heading to oblivion. So far, no one yet has seriously challenged that idea. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> We hashed this out pretty well in that other thread a while back, but I'll bite.
First of all, the statement "meaning in the end" is an invalid concept to an atheist. Meaning is not something that can be assessed without an intelligent entity to assess it. It's like asking about the volume of a two dimensional shape, or the truth value of the statement "This statement is false."
Secondly, what you are contending is that life itself is insignificant, but only has meaning as it relates to heaven. Is the world around you such a wasteland that you feel it would be worthless without a higher plane to relate it to? As I mentioned before, meaning is a concept that can be defined only with reference to an intelligent entity, so it isn't valid to talk about "meaning" in a vacuum. You have to talk about it meaning something <i>to</i> someone. To derive meaning from my life, I need to pick an intelligent entity to consider. Naturally I'll pick myself. The question of whether my exitence has meaning is then a pretty obvious one to answer, yep it does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its undeniable, if you are an atheist, and you die, then you are no longer culpable for anything you did period, because you cease to exist. You may feel guilty for things you do in life, you may grab a little moral code of your own and live by it, but at the end of the day that means zip - nothing. You die, you suffer the same fate as Hitler and Mother Teresa.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sucks, doesn't it?
It would be a lot nicer if one of the myriad religions could be true. It would probably make the world a bit more pleasant, and would solve a lot of sticky logical difficulties. My life certainly would be a lot easier if I could just devote it to the service of a higher being and be done with it. It would take a lot of difficult decisions out of my hands.
I don't deny that it can be difficult for a person with epistemological and metaphysical leanings to function without believing in a higher plane, but ultimately I think that anything else is just well-wishing. This world and this life is all we've got. I consider that to be true the same way "**** happens" is true.
Getting a little further towards the topic. Personally, I do not believe in any form of spirtuality. I believe that mutual respect is the foundation of any functional human interaction, and should be the basis for all morality.
Personally, I have pretty incontrovertable evidence for what I believe. I don't know how many of you guys are familiar with brain tumors, but they are a pretty humbling to watch develop in someone you know. I will never need any more proof that we are our brains, and nothing more.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 20 2004, 07:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 20 2004, 07:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No harm comes in believing in any particular religion...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Secondly, what you are contending is that life itself is insignificant, but only has meaning as it relates to heaven. Is the world around you such a wasteland that you feel it would be worthless without a higher plane to relate it to? As I mentioned before, meaning is a concept that can be defined only with reference to an intelligent entity, so it isn't valid to talk about "meaning" in a vacuum. You have to talk about it meaning something to someone. To derive meaning from my life, I need to pick an intelligent entity to consider. Naturally I'll pick myself. The question of whether my exitence has meaning is then a pretty obvious one to answer, yep it does. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that in order to derive meaning, something has to be regarded in relation to something else. However, I don't think that just any old thing will do - in order to have real meaning, you must compare it to some fundamental truth. Since I would hardly regard the sum of humanity as a fundamental truth (although some people will disagree), I think that basing meaning on yourself is a flawed method.
Let me back up my statement here. in normal arithmetic, you have the fundamental truth that an operation between two (static) numbers gives the same result every time, presupposing that the same preconditions exist for each operation. this gives meaning to the expression 1+1 = 2, insomuch as the meaning of the concept of "2" is the same as the meaning of the result when you add two iterations of "1." If we did not have the fundamental truth however, it would be meaningless to say 1+1=2, because the next time you performed that operation, the result could be 1+1=3.1870afas12, or "your mom" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Without spamming the complete details, basically this means that without some sort of higher truth beyond our own existence and perceptions, any reconciliation of human life and meaning becomes a bad case of circular logic, and I think we can agree that the other option, which is not having a meaning, is even worse. e.g. "My life has meaning because I interact with other people. Therefore I impose limitations on my interaction by using a moral code. I do this because it benefits [insert one of the following: society, myself, other people]. It benefits [insert above] by allowing it to survive more easily. It is desirable to help [insert above] survive because otherwise it would cease to exist. [insert above]'s existence is justified and desirable because it has meaning. It has meaning because it interacts with other [insert above]."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Getting a little further towards the topic. Personally, I do not believe in any form of spirtuality. I believe that mutual respect is the foundation of any functional human interaction, and should be the basis for all morality. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you define "functional" human interaction, and why is it desirable? Why is it that we have an imperative to help society grow, where no other creature in nature does? If someone raises a child and uses a large amount of physical discipline, would you respect their right to raise their own children, or report them for being abusive?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I have pretty incontrovertable evidence for what I believe. I don't know how many of you guys are familiar with brain tumors, but they are a pretty humbling to watch develop in someone you know. I will never need any more proof that we are our brains, and nothing more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you desire functional human interaction, doesn't this mean that less functional people, e.g. mentally retarded people, should be less valuable to society, and thus expendable?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 20 2004, 07:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 20 2004, 07:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No harm comes in believing in any particular religion...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't use individual examples. There are so many individuals that there will always be extreme cases in either direction. <i>In general</i>, religion leads to a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge, because people are told to believe whatever's written in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or whatever other holy book, just because their priest or preacher said so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But skepticism falls apart under examination. Where do you draw the line when you decide that things cannot be 'known'? If is just when you are talking about things that cannot be touched or validated, such as God? If that is the case, then surely the whole basis of scepticism, which leans heavily on the statement "things cannot be known", is flawed? If things cannot be known, how do we know that that statement is true? It is a logical fallacy. You cannot say "things cannot be known" with any certainty, because that statement cannot be known (proven true or false).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you misunderstand skepticism. Saying that nothing is certain does not mean that all things are equally uncertain. Where to draw the line is a subjective matter. Skepticism itself is subjective.
\Skep"ti*cism\, n. [Cf. F. scepticisme.] [Written also scepticism.] 1. An undecided, inquiring state of mind; doubt; uncertainty.
That momentary amazement, and irresolution, and confusion, which is the result of skepticism. --Hune.
2. (Metaph.) The doctrine that no fact or principle can be certainly known; the tenet that all knowledge is uncertain; Pyrrohonism; universal doubt; the position that no fact or truth, however worthy of confidence, can be established on philosophical grounds; critical investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles.
3. (Theol.) A doubting of the truth of revelation, or a denial of the divine origin of the Christian religion, or of the being, perfections, or truth of God.
Let no . . . secret skepticism lead any one to doubt whether this blessed prospect will be realized. --S. Miller.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree that in order to derive meaning, something has to be regarded in relation to something else. However, I don't think that just any old thing will do - in order to have real meaning, you must compare it to some fundamental truth. Since I would hardly regard the sum of humanity as a fundamental truth (although some people will disagree), I think that basing meaning on yourself is a flawed method.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point I was making wasn't that in order to have meaning the subject must be compared to something else. That would be infinitely recursive. I was stating that in order to have meaning, the subject must be appraised by an intelligent being. In this case I believe my own life to have meaning because I am incapable of anything else, in the same way I am incapable of not believing in my own existence. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How do you define "functional" human interaction, and why is it desirable? Why is it that we have an imperative to help society grow, where no other creature in nature does?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't contending that we do. By functional interaction I meant interacting for mutual benefit. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since you desire functional human interaction, doesn't this mean that less functional people, e.g. mentally retarded people, should be less valuable to society, and thus expendable?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never introduced any concepts of "value to society" or any utility function whatsoever. I was merely describing one neccessary, but not sufficient condition for human interaction.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 21 2004, 07:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 21 2004, 07:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 20 2004, 07:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 20 2004, 07:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No harm comes in believing in any particular religion...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't use individual examples. There are so many individuals that there will always be extreme cases in either direction. <i>In general</i>, religion leads to a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge, because people are told to believe whatever's written in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or whatever other holy book, just because their priest or preacher said so. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> In that case, *you* can't use individual examples either. Think of the average non-religious person. how many can you say honestly have (a good amount of) skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge? If you're unbiased, I will wager that you won't find many.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You can't use individual examples. There are so many individuals that there will always be extreme cases in either direction. <i>In general</i>, religion leads to a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge, because people are told to believe whatever's written in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or whatever other holy book, just because their priest or preacher said so. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In that case, *you* can't use individual examples either. Think of the average non-religious person. how many can you say honestly have (a good amount of) skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge? If you're unbiased, I will wager that you won't find many. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a difference between a person who is nonreligious out of apathy and an atheist. An "apatheist" is generally a normal person who just never thinks about religion.
An atheist, however, is likely to have their ideas and beliefs constantly challenged, which forces them to defend them, which should lead to skeptical thought. I am sure there are many dumb atheists out there. I think I may even have met a few.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 21 2004, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 21 2004, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is a difference between a person who is nonreligious out of apathy and an atheist. An "apatheist" is generally a normal person who just never thinks about religion.
An atheist, however, is likely to have their ideas and beliefs constantly challenged, which forces them to defend them, which should lead to skeptical thought. I am sure there are many dumb atheists out there. I think I may even have met a few. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And you think that there is a lower percentage of religious people who have their faith constantly challenged and forced to defend them? I have an atheist friend who always challenges my faith, although I'm not too good at coming up with counterarguments on the spot.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+May 21 2004, 01:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ May 21 2004, 01:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 21 2004, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 21 2004, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There is a difference between a person who is nonreligious out of apathy and an atheist. An "apatheist" is generally a normal person who just never thinks about religion.
An atheist, however, is likely to have their ideas and beliefs constantly challenged, which forces them to defend them, which should lead to skeptical thought. I am sure there are many dumb atheists out there. I think I may even have met a few. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And you think that there is a lower percentage of religious people who have their faith constantly challenged and forced to defend them? I have an atheist friend who always challenges my faith, although I'm not too good at coming up with counterarguments on the spot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, because there are more of them.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 21 2004, 01:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 21 2004, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 2. (Metaph.) The doctrine that no fact or principle can be certainly known <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So if no pricipal can be certainly know, how can we know that that is the case? Nothing can be certainly known, <i>including that statement</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I would like to thank you for insulting a large proportion of the population of the world. Not bad for 4 sentences.
Secondly, I would like to challenge you on your statement that relegious people are not sceptic, they don't think and they don't know anything. Also the fact that we have wasted our time is interesting. On what facts do you base these claims? Can you back them up? That bit about the world being more peaceful and educated also intriuges me. Do have any evidence to back up your statement?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Who says that a supernatural being must be apart from the natural world? It can make itself known an apparent in the natural world, indeed, even gather together a lump of flesh to control and still remain, in essence, supernatural. God can interfere with the universe all He wants, in fact, the scriptures say He sustains it by his very will.
He can interfere with nature all he wants, and never once be under control of it himself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you missed my point. The point isn't about the supernatural influencing the natural, but rather that the two attributes are mutually exclusive. If God is supernatural, than God is not natural. The same is true for defining God. God can either be described through human language or he can't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've already stipulated that God can't be described through human language. Since human language is what we use to define things, God can't be defined. In which case, God is relegated to the unknowable deity of Agnosticism.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 20 2004, 07:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 20 2004, 07:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No harm comes in believing in any particular religion...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well there are certainly downsides of religion, I still think that in aggregate it is a good thing. This is a huge topic to explore (and an off topic one at that), so I'll limit it to my personal experience. While I would agree that most of the rituals are a waste of time, and that religion beliefs frequently obstruct the progress of science and of our culture, there are undeniable positive aspects. In particular, though the actions performed in a church may be a waste, the community that develops around a church is priceless. You'd be hard pressed to find another group of people that are more willing to sacrifice their personal comfort for eachother, despite being relative strangers.
In addition, religion is a pretty good framework for teaching morality. Though it may be useful later in life to explore various ethical systems and all of their pros and cons, a religious background is a good place to start.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So if no pricipal can be certainly know, how can we know that that is the case? Nothing can be certainly known, including that statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I agree with you. I am not sure I agree with that part of the dictionary definition. I personally think of skepticism simply as doubting and thinking critically about everything. So, for example, I do think about the validity of skepticism. And, from my thinking, it seems to me that skepticism is a relatively safe philosophy/method of thinking, as it leads to reasonable decisions. If a skeptic agrees with a statement/fact, you can often be reasonably sure there is some critical thinking behind that decision.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, I would like to challenge you on your statement that relegious people are not sceptic, they don't think and they don't know anything. Also the fact that we have wasted our time is interesting. On what facts do you base these claims? Can you back them up? That bit about the world being more peaceful and educated also intriuges me. Do have any evidence to back up your statement?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I worded my original statement badly. Religious people in general do think, do know things, and do have a certain amount of skepticism (as most people likely do. A person without any skepticism at all likely has trouble living long enough to reproduce). However, organized religion seems to be about faith, and the idea behind faith appears to be "don't think, just believe". How do miracles happen? Don't think about it, just believe. Also, religious people do know a lot. They know a lot about the Bible or its equivalent and their religion. However, all the time spent acquiring that knowledge could have been time spent reading science magazines, surfing the Internet at sites such as howstuffworks.com, etc. As I believe that all the knowledge gained of religion is wasted knowledge (on the premise that religion is false), the time spent gaining this knowledge is wasted.
As for the world being more peaceful, I really have little to back up this claim, I think. I do know that many of the atrocities, wars, etc, committed in the past several thousand years have been directly or indirectly related to or caused by religion. Religion is what drives people to strap bombs to their chest and run at civillians. Atheists in general seem to be a somewhat less violent group of people.
"The United States is the most religious of all the industrialized nations. Forty-four percent of Americans attend church once a week, compared with 27 percent in Britain, 21 percent in France, 16 percent in Australia, and 4 percent in Sweden. Yet violent crime is not less common in the United States--it's more common. The murder rate here is six times higher than the rate in Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times higher than in Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden. Japan, where Christianity has almost no adherents, has less violent crime than almost any country....Within the 50 states, there is no evidence that a God-fearing populace equals a law-abiding populace. The Bible Belt has more than its share of both praying and killing. Louisiana has the highest churchgoing rate in the country, but its murder rate is more than twice the national average. The same pattern generally holds in the rest of the South..." - Steve Chapman in Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo.
From <a href='http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html' target='_blank'>http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You've already stipulated that God can't be described through human language. Since human language is what we use to define things, God can't be defined. In which case, God is relegated to the unknowable deity of Agnosticism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did nothing of the sort. I described God using human language, in fact. I did not describe God completely, I did not define Him completely, but I did give a picture into what He is like. With enough time searching through the Bible, I could come up with more and more examples of God's character.
Yet, I did not define Him as one defines a function in mathmatics. I did not state, exactly, God's bounds, maximums and miniums, because He has not shown them to me, neither in the Bible or elsewhere. I may not be able to fully know what God is, but that does not stop me from knowing Him.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 22 2004, 03:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 22 2004, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As for the world being more peaceful, I really have little to back up this claim, I think. I do know that many of the atrocities, wars, etc, committed in the past several thousand years have been directly or indirectly related to or caused by religion. Religion is what drives people to strap bombs to their chest and run at civillians. Atheists in general seem to be a somewhat less violent group of people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Religion is used for an excuse, I would say that being an Athiest doesn't make you more peaceful, it just means you have less excuses to go and do something nasty. You can't just say 'I know its bad but God told me to do it so it must be a good thing'.
Its down to human nature, not religion, that things like that happen.
Religion, as Moultano so aptly states, is in general a good thing for people. That doesn't mean that there is a god, just that getting groups of people together under the same banner of love, friendship and another nice things is always going to be good. As long as they don't decide their group is better than everyone elses.
<!--QuoteBegin-B33F+May 22 2004, 04:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ May 22 2004, 04:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "The United States is the most religious of all the industrialized nations. Forty-four percent of Americans attend church once a week, compared with 27 percent in Britain, 21 percent in France, 16 percent in Australia, and 4 percent in Sweden. Yet violent crime is not less common in the United States--it's more common. The murder rate here is six times higher than the rate in Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times higher than in Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden. Japan, where Christianity has almost no adherents, has less violent crime than almost any country....Within the 50 states, there is no evidence that a God-fearing populace equals a law-abiding populace. The Bible Belt has more than its share of both praying and killing. Louisiana has the highest churchgoing rate in the country, but its murder rate is more than twice the national average. The same pattern generally holds in the rest of the South..." - Steve Chapman in Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo.
From <a href='http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html' target='_blank'>http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe a quote from Winston Churchill fits here:
"There are 3 types of lie: lies, damn lies and statistics."
I have no doubt that the figures he is quote are true, but they can be twised to show whatever he wants. For instance, You should ban all ice cream, because during the summer, ice cream sales rise, along with murders. Evidently they are linked.
Sorry. You cannot just find a set of figures, one about religion and one about crime, then put them together and say they are linked. It is going to take some evidence, such as a survey of all the prison innmates, see if they are religious. That would give you a strong basis for argument, not some uncorrelated bunch of numbers.
Though those statistics may be accurate in determining what inmates call themselves, I would like to see data on how many inmates read the bible at least weekly, or who pray daily. Most Americans, if they went to church as a kid, would call themselves Christians or Catholics regardless of how much they practiced their so-called faith.
That is true. Did the study say what they defined as religious? Was it devout religion or just a general "Yeah, I believe in some kinda God"? There is a big difference. You will not find many devout religious people killing people (I am excluding extremists,they are not what I would call devoutly religious).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is that <i>not</i> saying that human language can't describe God?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I described God using human language, in fact. I did not describe God completely, I did not define Him completely, but I did give a picture into what He is like. With enough time searching through the Bible, I could come up with more and more examples of God's character.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Natural language is inadequate to describe the supernatural. All of the words we use have a natural basis. Love is a word we use to describe a condition in material beings. It even carries a biochemical component. Human love isn't God love, so why are you using human love to describe God love?
Moreover, God's character has little to do with his actual existence. What you're providing is God's emotional state, not his nature of being. Saying that God feels love and is merciful isn't the same as saying he's immaterial or omnipotent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, I did not define Him as one defines a function in mathmatics. I did not state, exactly, God's bounds, maximums and miniums, because He has not shown them to me, neither in the Bible or elsewhere. I may not be able to fully know what God is, but that does not stop me from knowing Him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't know God fully, but what you do know you've described through human language. However, human language is bound to the realm of the natural and as such isn't able to describe God's attributes as those are supernatural and supernatural traits must differ in kind from natural traits, not merely degree.
It sounds very much like you're saying that you simultaneously know and don't know what God is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though those statistics may be accurate in determining what inmates call themselves, I would like to see data on how many inmates read the bible at least weekly, or who pray daily. Most Americans, if they went to church as a kid, would call themselves Christians or Catholics regardless of how much they practiced their so-called faith. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is true. Did the study say what they defined as religious? Was it devout religion or just a general "Yeah, I believe in some kinda God"? There is a big difference. You will not find many devout religious people killing people (I am excluding extremists,they are not what I would call devoutly religious).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find this interesting.
How can somebody who believes in God not be religious? Further, how can somebody who believes that Christ is the son of God not be a Christian? How is such a belief "so-called faith" and not faith?
Furthermore, what is the difference between extremists and the devout? What constitutes extremism? What makes one devout? Why are the two mutually exclusive and why do you have the authority to seperate the two? Are extremists <i>fake</i> Christians as opposed to real ones?
Comments
Still this idea that an athiests morales arent worth anything, now that I can talk about.
I have a very strict idea of what is right and wrong, all decided by me, influenced by various people. Now as there is nothing once we die you could argue that the world is meaningless... wrong. It just means that you have to give your own life meaning.
In a purely logical, intellectual sense I know there is absolutely no difference between me sitting at the computer chatting and me skinning babies alive then eating them. None what so ever. Thats not the point though, there isn't some big list of right and wrongs, only a list of what you like and don't like. The only thing that is important is my life, including everything in my life like the people I get on with etc, if I act in a 'bad' way then my life goes in directions I don't want it too, I lose friends etc
In other words, my altruism is actually just me being selfish. Which is pretty much the same as everyone else. If you believe in a god do you do the right thing because he wants you too? Or because you'll be rewarded with eternal bliss? Or condemned to hell if you refuse?
True altruism doesn't exist, even those who sacrafice their lives for others, get nothing back and don't believe in god are only acting out of habit, possibly some kind of brain washing by hero figures etc. If you are constantly told that jumping on a grenade to save the people in your squad is the best thing you can do and you are trained to do it then it becomes reflex. You don't even think, you just do it.
In the end, your morales are actually just reflexes instilled in you. Your conscience is just your moral common sense, not lying is the same as not putting your hand in a fire. The difference being that the consequences for sticking your hand on something hot is a lot more immediate and so alot easier to learn. Lying often has short term good results, in fact sometimes you never get caught out at all! If you lie alot though your life will be significantly worse.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I consider your atheistic moral system flawed. The intentions behind morals seem to be irrelevant to me. At the end of the day you and your morals mean nothing, if what you believe is true. At the end of the day, my morals and me mean something, if what I believe is true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If what I believe is true, your morals "mean nothing".
If what you believe is true, do my morals mean something?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Either way, if you act good then you go to heaven if one exists, if you act bad you don't. The only difference is that if you believe and there is a god then you get to be smug afterwards <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I'd prefer to spend my sundays in something more productive like sleep (or when unlucky, work <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hate to bring up pascal's wager, but the religoius people didnt miss anything. Nothing bad came out of believing in the "wrong" religion. If no religion is right, there is no damage done in believing in one of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you don't believe in a god but still act nicely then you will be forgiven when you die. If you believe in the wrong god? Doesn't that count as a 'false idol' and count as a fairly major sin? Just a thought.
PS. interesting quote Confuzor.
PPS. God can't be proved either way, Father Christmas (I'm English) can. If FC delivers our presents why is it my mom used to by them and put them below the tree? If FC exists then where is his workshop? How the hell do Elves make complex electrical machinery? He isn't a good analogy for go.
This doesn't make Him less perfect, yet His state is still changed. Yet, there are also places where He says He will act in such a way as to end whatever affects him. Sin, for example, was dealt a fatal blow, and will be completely distroyed through Christ.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If God is a perfect being, wouldn't that perfection also entail a perfect emotional state? If God is changed, but still perfect, doesn't that indicate multiple states of perfection? If there were multiple forms of perfection, that would allow for things like multiple Gods.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Both scenarios are entirely true, thanks to Christ.
We can see what Godly traits and love are through Christ. He was both God and Man, and thus, we can see God's love through Him. He came down to our level to show us just that.
Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge. Christ brought God, as we previously knew him, down to the level of mankind, without falling into sin Himself.
In short, He shows us all we need to know about God now, in this life. The rest we can learn for ourselves in the next.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both scenarios can't be true. They're mutually exclusive. One is either a supernatural being or one is not. You can't be simultaneously bound and not bound by the parameters of the universe.
If we can't define what God is, than what is God? An unknowable being possessing unknowable attributes in unknowable quantities? Either God can be defined by human language or he can't. If God can be defined through natural language and knowledge, than God loses his supernatural status as he possesses natural attributes. If God can't be defined through natural language, then you have an unknown being.
The end result is either God is a natural being or you don't know what you're worshipping.
that's the theory at least. of course, then there's the argument that man made God in man's image...but that's another issue entirely.
*edit* oh yeah, the part about him being affected by things in our universe - as far as i can tell, the judeo-christian God (i'm not really qualified to talk about the others very much) is only affected (emotionally) by human actions. refer to above.
*edit* one more thing, the reason God is angry/jealous is because we're not doing what we're supposed to be doing. apparently the rest of creation is working like they're supposed to, while we rebelled.
If you don't believe in a god but still act nicely then you will be forgiven when you die. If you believe in the wrong god? Doesn't that count as a 'false idol' and count as a fairly major sin? Just a thought. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's why I don't like Pascal's wager. It falls apart too easily under a bit of examination. My point was that if no relegion is correct, then we just die. That is the end of it. It doesn't matter what relegion we followed, because death is the end. No harm comes in believing in any particular religion, as they are all equally invalid. I was not using the wager as a justification for religion, but as a way of making a point. If a particular religion is correct, only those people who believe in that one will go to "Heaven" (or that religion's idea of reward, Nirvana for example). All those who ignored it will go to "hell" (that religion's punishment). If all religions are correct, then the world is truly stuffed. There cannot be "One true supreme God" and "many different Gods ruling different parts of nature". You cannot "die once and be judged" and "die and get reincarnated". The contradictions in religion rule out them all being correct, so we are left with just two options. Either non are correct (in which case, it (or anything else for that matter) doesn't matter) or just one is correct (in which case, things just got serious).
I think there is an innate sense of "something else" in people. They like having something to believe in, be it God, Buddha or UFOs. Something to give them meaning to their life. Others get their meaning from material items, but does that actually give them happiness?
I believe that there is something out there. Something I canot explain. Religion is a way to try to get in touch of that something else.
The dilemma comes in deciding which one is correct. You could pick the one that feels right for you, but if you get it wrong, the deity isn't going to let you off because you felt you were following the right one. Unfortunately, there isn't really another way of doing it. You could stick them all on a dartboard and chuck a knife at them, then follow the one it stabs, but that is an absurd way of dealing with a serious problem. All you can do is chose one and hope that either you are correct, or none of them are.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->PPS. God can't be proved either way, Father Christmas (I'm English) can. If FC delivers our presents why is it my mom used to by them and put them below the tree? If FC exists then where is his workshop? How the hell do Elves make complex electrical machinery? He isn't a good analogy for go.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I could have chosen a better example, but I thought Santa Claus would be immediately understandable to most people. How about the Easter Bunny, or even gods believed in by other religions? Nobody believes in Zeus anymore, but there is just as much evidence for Zeus' existance(maybe even more) than for the Christian God.
I have a very strict idea of what is right and wrong, all decided by me, influenced by various people. Now as there is nothing once we die you could argue that the world is meaningless... wrong. It just means that you have to give your own life meaning. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's what I dont believe is possible East. If everything you do becomes meaningless the minute you die, then unless you know how to live for ever, you simply cannot create meaning for yourself.
You have accepted that once you die you become nothing, null, zero. How can nothing have meaning?
Listen to B33F, he knows the positive, gentle influence of an atheistic society. Take the greatest atheistic society that ever existed - The USSR. Entrenched atheism was the official state religion, hammered home in all forms of education. And what was the result? Loving, caring and sharing under the gentle Russian sky....
Oh, and about atheism and faith - atheism actually takes MORE faith then theism. When the atheist says "There is no God", what he is actually saying is "I'm omniscent, I've looked everywhere, and there is no God to be found". To anyone who tells me there is no God, I ask them if he has checked under that rock, that building, that car, because anywhere he hasnt checked, God could be there.
Its impossible to turn that around on the theist. We say There is a God, and we dont need omniscence to know that - because if there was a God, its entirely possible he has come down and contact us.
To recap - atheism requires more faith then theism.
And this differes from Eurpoe during the time of the crusades... how exactly?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We say There is a God, and we dont need omniscence to know that - because if there was a God, its entirely possible he has come down and contact us.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is also entirely possible that you believe a bunch of bull****, at best theism requires the same ignorance (or faith) as atheism. You would need to be omnicient to know that there is a God, because the existance of God cannot be proven by scientific method.
Here is an interesting thought: only aethists can justify forcing their moral system on others. Why? because their moral systems are designed to keep society functioning, they are, in that sense, universal. An aethist need only justify his actions as by their effect on society.
A theist on the other hand only has to justify their actions to God. Therefore the issue of their morality is entirely between them and their deity. If I kill a child, for instance, it has no effect on Marine01's chances of getting into heaven, so why should he force his morality on me?
It doesnt. It doesnt need to. It just goes to show what a load of tripe the "if only there was no religion everything would be great" train of thought is. People, religion or no religion, are selfish and greedy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is also entirely possible that you believe a bunch of bull****, at best theism requires the same ignorance (or faith) as atheism. You would need to be omnicient to know that there is a God, because the existance of God cannot be proven by scientific method.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there is a God, then he could come and reveal himself to us (which is exactly what Christians claim he has done). I dont NEED to check everywhere in the universe to find him if he comes and finds me. If there is NO God, then you'd have to check everywhere in the universe to be 100% sure. Given that no atheist has done that, it takes a heck of a lot more faith to say "There is No God" then to say there is one.
To put it another way, if there is a God, its possible to know that without being omniscent. If there is No God, then its impossible to know that without being omniscent. I reckon that takes more faith.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A theist on the other hand only has to justify their actions to God. Therefore the issue of their morality is entirely between them and their deity. If I kill a child, for instance, it has no effect on Marine01's chances of getting into heaven, so why should he force his morality on me?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If only it was that easy. My God has given some rather explict instructions on the value of doing the right thing and the value of people. According to my religion, you, Mr skulkbait sir, are important and valuable, as is that child you are holding. I am instructed to care about what happens to you, and about what you do. Part of the moral system given to me by my God involves how I should treat other people. If I didnt care about people, I would be doing the wrong thing according to God.
God loves you, and has told me to do the same. Personally, I suck at my religion so I dont, but I should.
The USSR was a terrible place to live, though I don't think it was because of the atheism. I think it was because the people in charge, such as Lenin and Stalin, were somewhat twisted individuals. Whether they were in charge of a communism or a theocracy, they would have done the same things.
I say that I think the world would be a better place to live if there was no religion because in the past several thousands of years, many (or most?) wars have been at their heart a war about religion, the Crusades being the best (or worst?) example.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, and about atheism and faith - atheism actually takes MORE faith then theism. When the atheist says "There is no God", what he is actually saying is "I'm omniscent, I've looked everywhere, and there is no God to be found". To anyone who tells me there is no God, I ask them if he has checked under that rock, that building, that car, because anywhere he hasnt checked, God could be there.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do we need to be omniscient to doubt? Not all atheists make the declaration that "There is no God". Some simply lack a belief in any god. I believe strongly in the methods of skepticism, and I doubt anything that has no evidence to support its existence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am instructed to care about what happens to you, and about what you do. Part of the moral system given to me by my God involves how I should treat other people. If I didnt care about people, I would be doing the wrong thing according to God.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about those people who bomb abortion clinics? Are they good, because they indirectly saved some babies, or are they evil, because they killed some doctors?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If there is a God, then he could come and reveal himself to us (which is exactly what Christians claim he has done).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why doesn't he make it indisputably obvious, instead of creating "miracles" that can be plausibly explained by science, and other acts that are only recorded as vague hearsay?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It doesnt. It doesnt need to. It just goes to show what a load of tripe the "if only there was no religion everything would be great" train of thought is. People, religion or no religion, are selfish and greedy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that people in general are selfish and greedy. However, religions do instill certain values, morals, and methods of thought (or lack thereof) that I believe can be detrimental to a free and happy society.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
None of the major religions are inherantly dangerous. It is the distortion of the faith that is the problem. It is not particularly challenging to manipulate a religion (or many other societal structures) if you have both influence and a desire to do so. Considering that people clearly have power within churches (not the same as a religion, btw), and how well people have done with power historically, that's not exactly a stretch.
There is also good to be gained from religion or church. On a simple level, church is just a social network, and falls prey to the same problems that groups of friends do: a forceful or otherwise influential individual can spread flawed, human ideas. Yet, we still have friends. Religion/church can also be useful tools toward helping the needy, spreading good morals, etc. so long as we can keep our wits and a healthy dose of skepticism about us.
However, that is not to say that one must have religion, or that religion is the only source of those goods, but rather that they are helpful.
This is coming from a non-theist, mind you. When it comes to faith, everything is grey.
I say that I think the world would be a better place to live if there was no religion because in the past several thousands of years, many (or most?) wars have been at their heart a war about religion, the Crusades being the best (or worst?) example. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The USSR and the Crusades have something in common. They were both started by people twisting an otherwise good idea for thier own benefit. Yes, Christianity was used as a scapegoat for the crusades, but, like what you said happened with the USSR, It happened beacue of the people in charge, such as the Kings of England at that time, were flawed human beings, selfish and greedy. They just used relegion as an excuse, but who is to say that that detracts from religion at all? It just shows that it (like everything else) can be warped from something useful and good into something destructive with the power of the human heart.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Do we need to be omniscient to doubt? Not all atheists make the declaration that "There is no God". Some simply lack a belief in any god. I believe strongly in the methods of skepticism, and I doubt anything that has no evidence to support its existence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But skepticism falls apart under examination. Where do you draw the line when you decide that things cannot be 'known'? If is just when you are talking about things that cannot be touched or validated, such as God? If that is the case, then surely the whole basis of scepticism, which leans heavily on the statement "things cannot be known", is flawed? If things cannot be known, how do we know that that statement is true? It is a logical fallacy. You cannot say "things cannot be known" with any certainty, because that statement cannot be known (proven true or false).
We can see what Godly traits and love are through Christ. He was both God and Man, and thus, we can see God's love through Him. He came down to our level to show us just that.
Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge. Christ brought God, as we previously knew him, down to the level of mankind, without falling into sin Himself.
In short, He shows us all we need to know about God now, in this life. The rest we can learn for ourselves in the next.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Both scenarios can't be true. They're mutually exclusive. One is either a supernatural being or one is not. You can't be simultaneously bound and not bound by the parameters of the universe.
If we can't define what God is, than what is God? An unknowable being possessing unknowable attributes in unknowable quantities? Either God can be defined by human language or he can't. If God can be defined through natural language and knowledge, than God loses his supernatural status as he possesses natural attributes. If God can't be defined through natural language, then you have an unknown being.
The end result is either God is a natural being or you don't know what you're worshipping. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who says that a supernatural being must be apart from the natural world? It can make itself known an apparent in the natural world, indeed, even gather together a lump of flesh to control and still remain, in essence, supernatural. God can interfere with the universe all He wants, in fact, the scriptures say He sustains it by his very will.
He can interfere with nature all he wants, and never once be under control of it himself.
We hashed this out pretty well in that other thread a while back, but I'll bite.
First of all, the statement "meaning in the end" is an invalid concept to an atheist. Meaning is not something that can be assessed without an intelligent entity to assess it. It's like asking about the volume of a two dimensional shape, or the truth value of the statement "This statement is false."
Secondly, what you are contending is that life itself is insignificant, but only has meaning as it relates to heaven. Is the world around you such a wasteland that you feel it would be worthless without a higher plane to relate it to? As I mentioned before, meaning is a concept that can be defined only with reference to an intelligent entity, so it isn't valid to talk about "meaning" in a vacuum. You have to talk about it meaning something <i>to</i> someone. To derive meaning from my life, I need to pick an intelligent entity to consider. Naturally I'll pick myself. The question of whether my exitence has meaning is then a pretty obvious one to answer, yep it does.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Its undeniable, if you are an atheist, and you die, then you are no longer culpable for anything you did period, because you cease to exist. You may feel guilty for things you do in life, you may grab a little moral code of your own and live by it, but at the end of the day that means zip - nothing. You die, you suffer the same fate as Hitler and Mother Teresa.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sucks, doesn't it?
It would be a lot nicer if one of the myriad religions could be true. It would probably make the world a bit more pleasant, and would solve a lot of sticky logical difficulties. My life certainly would be a lot easier if I could just devote it to the service of a higher being and be done with it. It would take a lot of difficult decisions out of my hands.
I don't deny that it can be difficult for a person with epistemological and metaphysical leanings to function without believing in a higher plane, but ultimately I think that anything else is just well-wishing. This world and this life is all we've got. I consider that to be true the same way "**** happens" is true.
Getting a little further towards the topic. Personally, I do not believe in any form of spirtuality. I believe that mutual respect is the foundation of any functional human interaction, and should be the basis for all morality.
Personally, I have pretty incontrovertable evidence for what I believe. I don't know how many of you guys are familiar with brain tumors, but they are a pretty humbling to watch develop in someone you know. I will never need any more proof that we are our brains, and nothing more.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Secondly, what you are contending is that life itself is insignificant, but only has meaning as it relates to heaven. Is the world around you such a wasteland that you feel it would be worthless without a higher plane to relate it to? As I mentioned before, meaning is a concept that can be defined only with reference to an intelligent entity, so it isn't valid to talk about "meaning" in a vacuum. You have to talk about it meaning something to someone. To derive meaning from my life, I need to pick an intelligent entity to consider. Naturally I'll pick myself. The question of whether my exitence has meaning is then a pretty obvious one to answer, yep it does. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree that in order to derive meaning, something has to be regarded in relation to something else. However, I don't think that just any old thing will do - in order to have real meaning, you must compare it to some fundamental truth. Since I would hardly regard the sum of humanity as a fundamental truth (although some people will disagree), I think that basing meaning on yourself is a flawed method.
Let me back up my statement here. in normal arithmetic, you have the fundamental truth that an operation between two (static) numbers gives the same result every time, presupposing that the same preconditions exist for each operation. this gives meaning to the expression 1+1 = 2, insomuch as the meaning of the concept of "2" is the same as the meaning of the result when you add two iterations of "1." If we did not have the fundamental truth however, it would be meaningless to say 1+1=2, because the next time you performed that operation, the result could be 1+1=3.1870afas12, or "your mom" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Without spamming the complete details, basically this means that without some sort of higher truth beyond our own existence and perceptions, any reconciliation of human life and meaning becomes a bad case of circular logic, and I think we can agree that the other option, which is not having a meaning, is even worse.
e.g. "My life has meaning because I interact with other people. Therefore I impose limitations on my interaction by using a moral code. I do this because it benefits [insert one of the following: society, myself, other people]. It benefits [insert above] by allowing it to survive more easily. It is desirable to help [insert above] survive because otherwise it would cease to exist. [insert above]'s existence is justified and desirable because it has meaning. It has meaning because it interacts with other [insert above]."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Getting a little further towards the topic. Personally, I do not believe in any form of spirtuality. I believe that mutual respect is the foundation of any functional human interaction, and should be the basis for all morality.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How do you define "functional" human interaction, and why is it desirable? Why is it that we have an imperative to help society grow, where no other creature in nature does? If someone raises a child and uses a large amount of physical discipline, would you respect their right to raise their own children, or report them for being abusive?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Personally, I have pretty incontrovertable evidence for what I believe. I don't know how many of you guys are familiar with brain tumors, but they are a pretty humbling to watch develop in someone you know. I will never need any more proof that we are our brains, and nothing more. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since you desire functional human interaction, doesn't this mean that less functional people, e.g. mentally retarded people, should be less valuable to society, and thus expendable?
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't use individual examples. There are so many individuals that there will always be extreme cases in either direction. <i>In general</i>, religion leads to a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge, because people are told to believe whatever's written in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or whatever other holy book, just because their priest or preacher said so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But skepticism falls apart under examination. Where do you draw the line when you decide that things cannot be 'known'? If is just when you are talking about things that cannot be touched or validated, such as God? If that is the case, then surely the whole basis of scepticism, which leans heavily on the statement "things cannot be known", is flawed? If things cannot be known, how do we know that that statement is true? It is a logical fallacy. You cannot say "things cannot be known" with any certainty, because that statement cannot be known (proven true or false).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you misunderstand skepticism. Saying that nothing is certain does not mean that all things are equally uncertain. Where to draw the line is a subjective matter. Skepticism itself is subjective.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->skepticism
\Skep"ti*cism\, n. [Cf. F. scepticisme.] [Written also scepticism.] 1. An undecided, inquiring state of mind; doubt; uncertainty.
That momentary amazement, and irresolution, and confusion, which is the result of skepticism. --Hune.
2. (Metaph.) The doctrine that no fact or principle can be certainly known; the tenet that all knowledge is uncertain; Pyrrohonism; universal doubt; the position that no fact or truth, however worthy of confidence, can be established on philosophical grounds; critical investigation or inquiry, as opposed to the positive assumption or assertion of certain principles.
3. (Theol.) A doubting of the truth of revelation, or a denial of the divine origin of the Christian religion, or of the being, perfections, or truth of God.
Let no . . . secret skepticism lead any one to doubt whether this blessed prospect will be realized. --S. Miller.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The point I was making wasn't that in order to have meaning the subject must be compared to something else. That would be infinitely recursive. I was stating that in order to have meaning, the subject must be appraised by an intelligent being. In this case I believe my own life to have meaning because I am incapable of anything else, in the same way I am incapable of not believing in my own existence.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
How do you define "functional" human interaction, and why is it desirable? Why is it that we have an imperative to help society grow, where no other creature in nature does?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I wasn't contending that we do. By functional interaction I meant interacting for mutual benefit. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since you desire functional human interaction, doesn't this mean that less functional people, e.g. mentally retarded people, should be less valuable to society, and thus expendable?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never introduced any concepts of "value to society" or any utility function whatsoever. I was merely describing one neccessary, but not sufficient condition for human interaction.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't use individual examples. There are so many individuals that there will always be extreme cases in either direction. <i>In general</i>, religion leads to a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge, because people are told to believe whatever's written in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or whatever other holy book, just because their priest or preacher said so.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that case, *you* can't use individual examples either. Think of the average non-religious person. how many can you say honestly have (a good amount of) skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge? If you're unbiased, I will wager that you won't find many.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the contrary, there are many thoughtful, skeptical, people that also happen to be religious, people who have attained a much higher degree of education than i have (and possibly will ever). I don't see how you can justify this statement.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't use individual examples. There are so many individuals that there will always be extreme cases in either direction. <i>In general</i>, religion leads to a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge, because people are told to believe whatever's written in the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, or whatever other holy book, just because their priest or preacher said so.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In that case, *you* can't use individual examples either. Think of the average non-religious person. how many can you say honestly have (a good amount of) skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge? If you're unbiased, I will wager that you won't find many. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is a difference between a person who is nonreligious out of apathy and an atheist. An "apatheist" is generally a normal person who just never thinks about religion.
An atheist, however, is likely to have their ideas and beliefs constantly challenged, which forces them to defend them, which should lead to skeptical thought. I am sure there are many dumb atheists out there. I think I may even have met a few.
An atheist, however, is likely to have their ideas and beliefs constantly challenged, which forces them to defend them, which should lead to skeptical thought. I am sure there are many dumb atheists out there. I think I may even have met a few. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you think that there is a lower percentage of religious people who have their faith constantly challenged and forced to defend them? I have an atheist friend who always challenges my faith, although I'm not too good at coming up with counterarguments on the spot.
An atheist, however, is likely to have their ideas and beliefs constantly challenged, which forces them to defend them, which should lead to skeptical thought. I am sure there are many dumb atheists out there. I think I may even have met a few. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And you think that there is a lower percentage of religious people who have their faith constantly challenged and forced to defend them? I have an atheist friend who always challenges my faith, although I'm not too good at coming up with counterarguments on the spot. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, because there are more of them.
So if no pricipal can be certainly know, how can we know that that is the case? Nothing can be certainly known, <i>including that statement</i>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly, I would like to thank you for insulting a large proportion of the population of the world. Not bad for 4 sentences.
Secondly, I would like to challenge you on your statement that relegious people are not sceptic, they don't think and they don't know anything. Also the fact that we have wasted our time is interesting. On what facts do you base these claims? Can you back them up? That bit about the world being more peaceful and educated also intriuges me. Do have any evidence to back up your statement?
He can interfere with nature all he wants, and never once be under control of it himself.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you missed my point. The point isn't about the supernatural influencing the natural, but rather that the two attributes are mutually exclusive. If God is supernatural, than God is not natural. The same is true for defining God. God can either be described through human language or he can't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, all the adjectives in the English language cannot even try to describe the depths of God's love and forgiveness. We can express all that God has showed us through Christ, yet we can't define it in its entirety. We can show that it is there, and hint at what it's love means to our lives, but it's impossible to put a number, or a limit on God's love with human knowledge.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've already stipulated that God can't be described through human language. Since human language is what we use to define things, God can't be defined. In which case, God is relegated to the unknowable deity of Agnosticism.
I disagree. There is serious harm from believing in any religion, like a lack of skepticism, thought, and useful knowledge. Plus much wasted time. An Earth without religion would likely be a more peaceful and more educated place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well there are certainly downsides of religion, I still think that in aggregate it is a good thing. This is a huge topic to explore (and an off topic one at that), so I'll limit it to my personal experience. While I would agree that most of the rituals are a waste of time, and that religion beliefs frequently obstruct the progress of science and of our culture, there are undeniable positive aspects. In particular, though the actions performed in a church may be a waste, the community that develops around a church is priceless. You'd be hard pressed to find another group of people that are more willing to sacrifice their personal comfort for eachother, despite being relative strangers.
In addition, religion is a pretty good framework for teaching morality. Though it may be useful later in life to explore various ethical systems and all of their pros and cons, a religious background is a good place to start.
Yes, I agree with you. I am not sure I agree with that part of the dictionary definition. I personally think of skepticism simply as doubting and thinking critically about everything. So, for example, I do think about the validity of skepticism. And, from my thinking, it seems to me that skepticism is a relatively safe philosophy/method of thinking, as it leads to reasonable decisions. If a skeptic agrees with a statement/fact, you can often be reasonably sure there is some critical thinking behind that decision.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, I would like to challenge you on your statement that relegious people are not sceptic, they don't think and they don't know anything. Also the fact that we have wasted our time is interesting. On what facts do you base these claims? Can you back them up? That bit about the world being more peaceful and educated also intriuges me. Do have any evidence to back up your statement?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Okay, I worded my original statement badly. Religious people in general do think, do know things, and do have a certain amount of skepticism (as most people likely do. A person without any skepticism at all likely has trouble living long enough to reproduce). However, organized religion seems to be about faith, and the idea behind faith appears to be "don't think, just believe". How do miracles happen? Don't think about it, just believe. Also, religious people do know a lot. They know a lot about the Bible or its equivalent and their religion. However, all the time spent acquiring that knowledge could have been time spent reading science magazines, surfing the Internet at sites such as howstuffworks.com, etc. As I believe that all the knowledge gained of religion is wasted knowledge (on the premise that religion is false), the time spent gaining this knowledge is wasted.
As for the world being more peaceful, I really have little to back up this claim, I think. I do know that many of the atrocities, wars, etc, committed in the past several thousand years have been directly or indirectly related to or caused by religion. Religion is what drives people to strap bombs to their chest and run at civillians. Atheists in general seem to be a somewhat less violent group of people.
"The United States is the most religious of all the industrialized nations. Forty-four percent of Americans attend church once a week, compared with 27 percent in Britain, 21 percent in France, 16 percent in Australia, and 4 percent in Sweden. Yet violent crime is not less common in the United States--it's more common. The murder rate here is six times higher than the rate in Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times higher than in Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden. Japan, where Christianity has almost no adherents, has less violent crime than almost any country....Within the 50 states, there is no evidence that a God-fearing populace equals a law-abiding populace. The Bible Belt has more than its share of both praying and killing. Louisiana has the highest churchgoing rate in the country, but its murder rate is more than twice the national average. The same pattern generally holds in the rest of the South..." - Steve Chapman in Praise the Lord, Pass the Ammo.
From <a href='http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html' target='_blank'>http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html</a>
I did nothing of the sort. I described God using human language, in fact. I did not describe God completely, I did not define Him completely, but I did give a picture into what He is like. With enough time searching through the Bible, I could come up with more and more examples of God's character.
Yet, I did not define Him as one defines a function in mathmatics. I did not state, exactly, God's bounds, maximums and miniums, because He has not shown them to me, neither in the Bible or elsewhere. I may not be able to fully know what God is, but that does not stop me from knowing Him.
Religion is used for an excuse, I would say that being an Athiest doesn't make you more peaceful, it just means you have less excuses to go and do something nasty. You can't just say 'I know its bad but God told me to do it so it must be a good thing'.
Its down to human nature, not religion, that things like that happen.
Religion, as Moultano so aptly states, is in general a good thing for people. That doesn't mean that there is a god, just that getting groups of people together under the same banner of love, friendship and another nice things is always going to be good. As long as they don't decide their group is better than everyone elses.
From <a href='http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html' target='_blank'>http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/morals.html</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe a quote from Winston Churchill fits here:
"There are 3 types of lie: lies, damn lies and statistics."
I have no doubt that the figures he is quote are true, but they can be twised to show whatever he wants. For instance, You should ban all ice cream, because during the summer, ice cream sales rise, along with murders. Evidently they are linked.
Sorry. You cannot just find a set of figures, one about religion and one about crime, then put them together and say they are linked. It is going to take some evidence, such as a survey of all the prison innmates, see if they are religious. That would give you a strong basis for argument, not some uncorrelated bunch of numbers.
How is that <i>not</i> saying that human language can't describe God?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I described God using human language, in fact. I did not describe God completely, I did not define Him completely, but I did give a picture into what He is like. With enough time searching through the Bible, I could come up with more and more examples of God's character.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Natural language is inadequate to describe the supernatural. All of the words we use have a natural basis. Love is a word we use to describe a condition in material beings. It even carries a biochemical component. Human love isn't God love, so why are you using human love to describe God love?
Moreover, God's character has little to do with his actual existence. What you're providing is God's emotional state, not his nature of being. Saying that God feels love and is merciful isn't the same as saying he's immaterial or omnipotent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet, I did not define Him as one defines a function in mathmatics. I did not state, exactly, God's bounds, maximums and miniums, because He has not shown them to me, neither in the Bible or elsewhere. I may not be able to fully know what God is, but that does not stop me from knowing Him.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you don't know God fully, but what you do know you've described through human language. However, human language is bound to the realm of the natural and as such isn't able to describe God's attributes as those are supernatural and supernatural traits must differ in kind from natural traits, not merely degree.
It sounds very much like you're saying that you simultaneously know and don't know what God is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Though those statistics may be accurate in determining what inmates call themselves, I would like to see data on how many inmates read the bible at least weekly, or who pray daily. Most Americans, if they went to church as a kid, would call themselves Christians or Catholics regardless of how much they practiced their so-called faith.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That is true. Did the study say what they defined as religious? Was it devout religion or just a general "Yeah, I believe in some kinda God"? There is a big difference. You will not find many devout religious people killing people (I am excluding extremists,they are not what I would call devoutly religious).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I find this interesting.
How can somebody who believes in God not be religious? Further, how can somebody who believes that Christ is the son of God not be a Christian? How is such a belief "so-called faith" and not faith?
Furthermore, what is the difference between extremists and the devout? What constitutes extremism? What makes one devout? Why are the two mutually exclusive and why do you have the authority to seperate the two? Are extremists <i>fake</i> Christians as opposed to real ones?