[ebuddy]

To persecute religion is to persecute all of human kind. To persecute Religion for greed, self-service, control, oppression, murder, hatred and stupidity while failing to acknowledge Religion's role in formal education, liberation, language, writing, arithmetic, the arts, architecture, science, philanthropy, health care and medicine, is to indict all of human nature with a very broad and "stupid" brush.

There is no dangerous religion or ideal, only dangerous people. They exist everywhere and of all faiths and even among those of no faith at all.

[Taliesin]

Why not read the thread-title as "Religion says: How can so many be so stupid?"?

For me personally, I'm always amazed about people that actually don't believe that there is God, who created everything.

How can people be so stupid to believe that the universe and life came about out of nothing?

For me, it's crystal-clear, that for something to come out of nothing, there needs to be an omnipotent God achieving that.

So since God created everything, and the sciences work continously on showing in what form and in which relations that creation is made (even evolutionary theory is merely a model to explain how God creates life), and God therefore is the ultimate source for everything, for our life, family, our knowledge and spirit, for our health and income, for our love and joy, for our communication, languages, sleep, dreams... it would be downright stupid not to love and thank God for everything in the highest degree, to feel more love and thankfulness for God than for the own parents, or if you are a patriotically inclined more than for your country.

It really astonishes me to see that much ignorance.

Taliesin

[Graviton]

I don't know if a God exists or not, or what the hell a God is anyway, but I'll tell you one thing, just saying "It was all done by a wizard using magic" doesn't actually explain anything at all.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To persecute religion is to persecute all of human kind. To persecute Religion for greed, self-service, control, oppression, murder, hatred and stupidity while failing to acknowledge Religion's role in formal education, liberation, language, writing, arithmetic, the arts, architecture, science, philanthropy, health care and medicine, is to indict all of human nature with a very broad and "stupid" brush.

Stop with the persecution complex already!

Religion's influence on arts, writing, and architecture can not be neglected (at least some of the money has been well spent). Religion's role in formal education, liberation, arithmetic, science and health care and medicine has been more inhibiting than good overall. Philanthropy is done much better without a religious motive to "save people" as well as helping.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There is no dangerous religion or ideal, only dangerous people.

There is dangerous religion AND ideals. The ignore religion or ideals power to influence people to be bad is to be dangerously naïve indeed.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

How can people be so stupid to believe that the universe and life came about out of nothing?

Because its not that a great a leap from a being who's own creation is unfathomable.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

1) It is useful for survival machines to recognize that the world contains a very important class of entities that all exhibit a shared set properties. We call this set of entities 'lifeforms' and chief among their properties is what we conceive of as 'intentionality'. Since other life forms are among the most useful or dangerous elements in our environment it shouldn't be a surprise that we have evolved neural mechanisms for recognizing and predicting the behavior of these entities in a way that takes advantage of useful assumptions which allow for quick decision making. Since intentional agents can be so dangerous, it makes sense that the neural mechanism that recognizes them has an itchy trigger finger, misfiring inappropriately and misidentifying non-intentional phenomena as intentional agents.

Animism is the clearest result of this tendency. Our cavemen ancestors felt 'evil' presences in the shadows and called them spirits. They felt anger in storms and power in the sun, and called them gods (or the results of them). We did not evolve mechanisms to counter these misfires because they were minimally damaging and protected us from the real danger that may sometimes lurks in place of spirits.

An interesting idea.

About idea 2, are you talking about the Mirror Neuron System?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

An interesting idea.

About idea 2, are you talking about the Mirror Neuron System?

I think you may be the only person who even bothered to read all that. Thank you. I didn't put much time into, so I realize it's a little dense, poorly written and under-explained.

Mirror neurons seem to be part of the system I am taking about. Here's a link about simulation theory:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-simulation/

The ideas in the first section are based on some ideas from Daniel Dennet. If you haven't already, you might consider reading his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon". I haven't read it (it's on the way from Amazon) but I've heard several interviews and it sounds like an interesting book. I've been thinking about this stuff since around 4th grade, so it should be fun to see how my ideas compare to his. The rest of the ideas are 100% mine, although I recently learned I was beaten to the punch by ten years or so by the simulation theorists. I knew the idea was way too simple and elegant to be new.

[Tiresias]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

I've been thinking about this stuff since around 4th grade, so it should be fun to see how my ideas compare to his. The rest of the ideas are 100% mine, although I recently learned I was beaten to the punch by ten years or so by the simulation theorists. I knew the idea was way too simple and elegant to be new.

Don't you hate that?

I swear to God I had planned to write a script almost exactly like the movie Stranger than Fiction. I saw the movie with my wife and we were both like: "Fcuk, that's your idea."

Stranger than Fiction (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was both flattered that "my" idea was deemed worthy of a Hollywood movie, and depressed that it could have been me lighting cigars with hundred dollars bills.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Religion's influence on arts, writing, and architecture can not be neglected (at least some of the money has been well spent).

... because the secular humanists have a massive "give-away" going on of course.

Religion's role in formal education, liberation, arithmetic, science and health care and medicine has been more inhibiting than good overall.

How so? Remember you said that while you're headed to St. ______ for healthcare.

Philanthropy is done much better without a religious motive to "save people" as well as helping.

No one is denied help for not believing. Have you ever been involved in bell-ringing for the Salvation Army or any other philanthropic endeavor for that matter? They don't ask you what your theological perspective is while handing the poor gloves on a cold day. The most I've heard is "God bless you" for dropping money in the bucket. Is that so bad?

Philanthropy is religion my friend. At least it comprises the lions-share of it. I'd be happy to consider any data you can provide to argue otherwise. I'm sure those in need have no problem accepting help from someone regardless of whether or not they're wearing a cross around their neck. You're aware of this right?

There is dangerous religion AND ideals. The ignore religion or ideals power to influence people to be bad is to be dangerously naïve indeed.

You may want to try this again. It seems in your infinite wisdom as a non-believer, you’ve thrown together one whopper of an incoherent rant here. To indict religion, a human construct; for having elements of human nature within it is patently moronic. Fear not though, I'm sure you'll get a pass from your fellowship of super-geniuses.

Any ideal is dangerous when it is used to thrust human agendas like greed, totalitarianism, oppression, and genocide. Most people are religious therefore, religion is used as the primary tool for the above. People are not violent by virtue of the religion alone. Ignorance is exploited by those using religion as a tool of hate and oppression in suppressing education. It's a vicious cycle of human nature. To claim otherwise is not only woefully ignorant, but in your words; dangerously naive.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

I was both flattered that "my" idea was deemed worthy of a Hollywood movie, and depressed that it could have been me lighting cigars with hundred dollars bills.

You're bankrupt either way brother.

[Dakarʒ]

Seriously. You light cigars with 50s. You make joints out 100s.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Seriously. You light cigars with 50s. You make joints out 100s.

[Saetre]

It's happened to me plenty of times. It can be pretty disappointing.

Originally Posted by toothpick_charlie 

Don't you hate that?

I swear to God I had planned to write a script almost exactly like the movie Stranger than Fiction. I saw the movie with my wife and we were both like: "Fcuk, that's your idea."

Stranger than Fiction (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was both flattered that "my" idea was deemed worthy of a Hollywood movie, and depressed that it could have been me lighting cigars with hundred dollars bills.

[Saetre]

Religion is among the strangest of human behaviors and it's just screaming for an explaination. How come everyone is focusing on the tired debate about the merits and vices of religion? Because it's easy?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Religion is among the strangest of human behaviors and it's just screaming for an explaination. How come everyone is focusing on the tired debate about the merits and vices of religion? Because it's easy?

Human nature is inexplicable. At least a tired debate is only mostly a waste of time.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Human nature is inexplicable. At least a tired debate is only mostly a waste of time.

That's a mighty strong statement. Can you back it up?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

That's a mighty strong statement. Can you back it up?

The burden of proof is on those claiming the positive — that human nature can be completely explained. People have been trying for years to do just that and all have failed, so I'd say the preponderance of evidence is on my side.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The burden of proof is on those claiming the positive — that human nature can be completely explained. People have been trying for years to do just that and all have failed, so I'd say the preponderance of evidence is on my side.

First, lets clarify exactly what you are claiming. Are you claiming that human behavior is unexplainable in principle or only in practice? Second, what aspects of human behavior do you consider to be unexplainable? We can already explain the ultimate causes of a lot of behavior using evolutionary theory. The proximal is much harder, but in principle it should be no harder than picking apart the organization of our neural circuitry to see how it works (assuming consciousness is impotent in regards to behavior, which seems very likely, IMO). Lastly, what would be required to "completely explain" something?

I can only think of a couple possibilities that could lead one to claim that human behavior is, in principle, unexplainable. One requires throwing away our current understanding of the laws of the universe. You better have a good reason to justify doing something like that...

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

First, lets clarify exactly what you are claiming. Are you claiming that human behavior is unexplainable in principle or only in practice?

I suppose Laplace's Demon could do it, but we've certainly shown ourselves not to be up to the task.

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Second, what aspects of human behavior do you consider to be unexplainable?

Actually, I said human nature. I'm talking about the aspects that really make us human. Obviously we know why we seek food and water and sex, but the genesis of religion and art and the subtleties of emotion — basically anything metaphysical — has eluded the best thinkers of the ages. We can come up with abstract reasons that don't really explain much and have no hope of being proven, but I don't think that's the same.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

... because the secular humanists have a massive "give-away" going on of course.

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Just because a lot of discoveries were done in a pre-enlightenment world does not mean it was done as a result of religion.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How so? Remember you said that while you're headed to St. ______ for healthcare.

I never do

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No one is denied help for not believing. Have you ever been involved in bell-ringing for the Salvation Army or any other philanthropic endeavor for that matter? They don't ask you what your theological perspective is while handing the poor gloves on a cold day. The most I've heard is "God bless you" for dropping money in the bucket. Is that so bad?

Philanthropy is religion my friend. At least it comprises the lions-share of it. I'd be happy to consider any data you can provide to argue otherwise. I'm sure those in need have no problem accepting help from someone regardless of whether or not they're wearing a cross around their neck. You're aware of this right?

Christian philanthropy has traditionally also been used as a tool to spread religion through missionaries. Even the salvation army has been guilty of this. Not to mention the AA.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Any ideal is dangerous when it is used to thrust human agendas like greed, totalitarianism, oppression, and genocide. Most people are religious therefore, religion is used as the primary tool for the above. People are not violent by virtue of the religion alone. Ignorance is exploited by those using religion as a tool of hate and oppression in suppressing education. It's a vicious cycle of human nature. To claim otherwise is not only woefully ignorant, but in your words; dangerously naive.

There is nothing incoherent between what I said and what you just said. You just admitted that religion can be used as a tool of hate and suppression.
Religious belief are a powerful motivator for rationalising hateful behaviour. There have been no atheist suicide bombers or martyrs.

And finally:

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

religion, a human construct;

Thanks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here. Just because a lot of discoveries were done in a pre-enlightenment world does not mean it was done as a result of religion.

If one can indict religious adherents for atrocities, one cannot deny the religious adherents' role in progress and advancement. You cannot claim one and deny the other. Again, this is a law of numbers and nature, not religion.

I never do

mmkay.

Christian philanthropy has traditionally also been used as a tool to spread religion through missionaries. Even the salvation army has been guilty of this. Not to mention the AA.

While there are examples of missions work being abused for political influence, the lions-share of it has been used simply to ease suffering [with interest in drawing in]. If they are welcomed as in most cases they are, what is it to you? There are people in need and the ones willing to serve them are few. Religion motivates not only suicide bombers, but those to serve in areas we'd likely call them crazy and suicidal for even being in. Missions work has often filled voids the unmotivated ignore. If there were no need for them, they wouldn't exist. It'd be highly enlightened of you to acknowledge this.

There is nothing incoherent between what I said and what you just said. You just admitted that religion can be used as a tool of hate and suppression.

Because that's the truth. The difference between us is when I see atrocity, I don't say; "Damned Religion!" because I understand these as human traits. Nothing more, nothing less. When you see an atrocity you say; "Damned Religion" in what I believe is a wholly simplistic and ignorant fashion. Those who are well-reasoned will acknowledge examples of human behavior throughout any human collective. This is common sense. Religion is used as a tool to influence the masses because the masses are religious. They simply follow. This is not an indictment against religion. It is an indictment against human nature for greed, totalitarianism, oppression, and genocide. BTW; the aforementioned are what most of faith consider evil-natured and contrary to the doctrines of their faith. For every religious "power", there are millions of adherents misrepresented. These are laws of numbers, not laws of religion.

Religious belief are a powerful motivator for rationalising hateful behaviour. There have been no atheist suicide bombers or martyrs.

First of all, this assumes all who claim to believe in a god actually do. This assumes that all who claim to believe in a god feel the necessity to actually act on that belief in some concrete way. An even fewer minority are compelled to act in a violent way. This is a law of numbers and nature, not a law of religion.

Are animals territorial because of their faith? I would think not.

And finally: Religion is a human construct. Thanks.

The Bible does not say; "on this rock I build my Lutheranism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Baptists, etc..." Seeing as you agree that Religion is a human construct, you must also agree that indicting religion for having elements of human nature within it is patently moronic.

Though I must say, this would be the first time I've actually been thanked for laying waste to poorly formulated arguments. There is hope for you.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Okay, then I'll point out that when you said I am not willing to reject my religion as you did, please note that we're talking about two very different religions.

Actually, all religions are essentially the same, aside from the cute costumes of course.

[Graviton]

I try to invent a new religion every day.

Today's religion has a lot to do with British Ale, Chinese food and Test Match Cricket. I might have invisible people creating stuff, but that all depends on how drunk I get.

Metallica (The Cliff Burton years) may feature heavily later on, then Slayer, then the bedtime apocalypse.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Actually, I said human nature. I'm talking about the aspects that really make us human. Obviously we know why we seek food and water and sex, but the genesis of religion and art and the subtleties of emotion — basically anything metaphysical — has eluded the best thinkers of the ages. We can come up with abstract reasons that don't really explain much and have no hope of being proven, but I don't think that's the same.

I don't know what to say. I don't share your pessimism. Three hundred years ago no one would have accepted that we would walk on the moon or be able to wipe out whole cities with the press of a button. Science makes advances. Our inability to solve a problem today, by itself, says almost nothing about our ability to solve it tomorrow.

I can't go much further without knowing more about what you expect from a theory about human nature.

I suspect we may already have many of the answers, and just not know it yet. The problem with religion for example, is not that we have a paucity of theories to choose from, but that choosing between the available ones is tricky. Art isn't really that much of a mystery, either. How do you think metaphysics fits in here? Which emotions are giving you trouble? If you haven't already, you may want to read how Pinker and others describe emotions as 'biological dooms day machines'.

[Atomic Rooster]

How can so many be so stupid?

"There's a sucker born every minute". -P. T. Barnum

That makes billions of stupid people. I've got the gun so I'll keep the pesos.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Why not read the thread-title as "Religion says: How can so many be so stupid?"?

For me personally, I'm always amazed about people that actually don't believe that there is God, who created everything.

How can people be so stupid to believe that the universe and life came about out of nothing?

For me, it's crystal-clear, that for something to come out of nothing, there needs to be an omnipotent God achieving that.

So since God created everything, and the sciences work continously on showing in what form and in which relations that creation is made (even evolutionary theory is merely a model to explain how God creates life), and God therefore is the ultimate source for everything, for our life, family, our knowledge and spirit, for our health and income, for our love and joy, for our communication, languages, sleep, dreams... it would be downright stupid not to love and thank God for everything in the highest degree, to feel more love and thankfulness for God than for the own parents, or if you are a patriotically inclined more than for your country.

It really astonishes me to see that much ignorance.

Taliesin

Your logic is flawed. You are trying to apply assumptions based on our very limited experience as human beings.

We have a beginning and an end, so everything must.

We have a progenitor, so the universe must.

Nonsense, I'm afraid.

The universe is under no compulsion to behave according to your intuitive expectations as a mortal being bound by gravity and time to a single perceptual paradigm. We have already reached outside the boundaries of this very limited frame of reference enough to know that the universe is grander and more confounding than your limited attempts at logic would ever allow it to be. If you look at the scale of the quantum and the scope of the Big Bang, then you'll understand that your assumptions based on life on this tiny pebble are far too small, and so must any anthropomorphic god imagined from those assumptions be too small to be the creator of the universe.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Your logic is flawed. You are trying to apply assumptions based on our very limited experience as human beings.

We have a beginning and an end, so everything must.

We have a progenitor, so the universe must.

Nonsense, I'm afraid.

The universe is under no compulsion to behave according to your intuitive expectations as a mortal being bound by gravity and time to a single perceptual paradigm. We have already reached outside the boundaries of this very limited frame of reference enough to know that the universe is grander and more confounding than your limited attempts at logic would ever allow it to be. If you look at the scale of the quantum and the scope of the Big Bang, then you'll understand that your assumptions based on life on this tiny pebble are far too small, and so must any anthropomorphic god imagined from those assumptions be too small to be the creator of the universe.

For whatever reasons, people can't grasp concepts such as time, other than to believe that it exists only in relation to their limited lifespan. In order to attempt to make any "sense" of their existence, they invent some mythical being to which they can ascribe everything they don't understand, and rationalize their beliefs as some "grand plan" of this being that they shouldn't question.

[- - e r i k - -]

It is what is called Argument from Ignorance.

Invent an unknown to explain what they can't grasp. Basically what religion is all about. That and fear of death of course

[Big Mac]

It is taught in Judaism that in this world, it is necessary for falsehood to compete with truth on a more or less equal footing so that humanity will always have the opportunity to make a truly free choice. In ancient days the falsehood manifested itself as an inclination toward idolatry (sorry, idol worshipping faiths, but that's the view), whereas in modern times the falsehood manifests itself as an inclination toward atheism.

[- - e r i k - -]

Have it ever struck you that Judaism might be the falsehood? It's equally as likely in your view, less from an objective view.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

It is what is called Argument from Ignorance.

Religion does not necessitate ignorance of any kind. I suspect you're ignorant of many theological concepts. I would also challenge a great many on what they truly know of the sciences for example, being used for them as nothing more than affirmation of godlessness when that is by no means the purpose of it.

Invent an unknown to explain what they can't grasp. Basically what religion is all about. That and fear of death of course

I've seen many use science in much the same way. While knowing little about it, they use it as affirmation of godlessness regardless of the fact that the scientific community maintains this is by no means the purpose of it. The fear of death can also be used to live life in a way others would deem destructive for nothing more than to "get another one in" before becoming worm food. It is also possible that one may avoid theological perspective to ignore any potential personal conviction. This does not make faith any more reprehensible than non-faith.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Your logic is flawed.

The logic used in my posting is definitely not a convincing logic, not because of your argument that the universe is too complex, but because it can not prove anything, nonetheless I used it in order to show that the logic of the thread-starter is even worse.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You are trying to apply assumptions based on our very limited experience as human beings. We have a beginning and an end, so everything must.

We have a progenitor, so the universe must.

Nonsense, I'm afraid.

The universe is under no compulsion to behave according to your intuitive expectations as a mortal being bound by gravity and time to a single perceptual paradigm. We have already reached outside the boundaries of this very limited frame of reference enough to know that the universe is grander and more confounding than your limited attempts at logic would ever allow it to be. If you look at the scale of the quantum and the scope of the Big Bang, then you'll understand that your assumptions based on life on this tiny pebble are far too small, and so must any anthropomorphic god imagined from those assumptions be too small to be the creator of the universe.

Isn't that the basic conviction of scientific thought, namely that the universe's behaviour and structure can be understood within human's rationality?

I think, therefore I am.

There is nothing else than the thinking me. If there should be anything else it must first be constructed according to my rationality, my thinking-me creates the universe according to laws and principles I deem worthy, rational and universal.

Isn't that Descarte's philosophy of materialism?

Regardless of how small our life is, in this small part of the universe, we can and we do think about the whole, eventhough only in abstract form.

Religious thought deals mostly not with the physical world, it's not about how God created this world, ie. it's not about the systems used, the principles, the laws and constants, instead it deals with the why, the source, the after, in short with the metaphysics.

Regardless of how complex the universe is built up, and I don't think that we humans, religious or scientific, will ever grasp it fully, we, religious people, can believe and do so, that God created it.

The form of God, if he is a cow, or man-like, like some christians/jews believe, or a sort of force-field with no body, or a spirit, spreading wider than all of the universe(s) or whatever plays no role.

The main characteristic of scientific thought is doubt.
The main characteristic of religious thought is conviction/faith.

In that sense, rabid atheists, are religious in nature, they are fully convinced without the shadow of a doubt, that there is no God, eventhough they have no proof whatsoever, and actually it's unprovable per se.

I think faith or the lack of it, is influenced majorly through social aspects. People that socialise (family, friends, wife/husband...) with religious people tend to become religious, too, people that socialise with atheistic people tend to become atheistic as well. It is a human instinct to behave and think like the group we are mostly involved with, in order to be accepted and happy.

That's why Charles Darwin became atheistic, he said something like that: "How can I believe in God, knowing that if He is true, that all my friends and most of my family will burn in hell, because they don't/didn't believe in Him."

Faith is like a seed, it is in everyone of us, but it needs preaching, communities and good works and examples to flourish, without it will not blossom, become a plant and leave behind multitudes of seeds.

Taliesin

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The main characteristic of scientific thought is curiosity.

Just one of the many things that needed fixing with your post.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It is taught in Judaism that in this world, it is necessary for falsehood to compete with truth on a more or less equal footing so that humanity will always have the opportunity to make a truly free choice. In ancient days the falsehood manifested itself as an inclination toward idolatry (sorry, idol worshipping faiths, but that's the view), whereas in modern times the falsehood manifests itself as an inclination toward atheism.

I prefer the Rastahs. They get to smoke pot and see and dream ko0L things and then...munchie time.

Jews only ate shrooms. They don't give you munchies. And Rabbis sucked the skin off small children's penis' after the foreskin was cut. Do they still do that?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

And Rabbis sucked the skin off small children's penis' after the foreskin was cut. Do they still do that?

As opposed to Cahtolic priest's who... *Don't go there...*

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Religion does not necessitate ignorance of any kind. I suspect you're ignorant of many theological concepts. I would also challenge a great many on what they truly know of the sciences for example, being used for them as nothing more than affirmation of godlessness when that is by no means the purpose of it.


I've seen many use science in much the same way. While knowing little about it, they use it as affirmation of godlessness regardless of the fact that the scientific community maintains this is by no means the purpose of it. The fear of death can also be used to live life in a way others would deem destructive for nothing more than to "get another one in" before becoming worm food. It is also possible that one may avoid theological perspective to ignore any potential personal conviction. This does not make faith any more reprehensible than non-faith.

Indeed, science has nothing to do with disproving God.

However, I think you misunderstood what he was saying about arguing from ignorance. He was simply agreeing that it was fallacious to say "obviously since there is a world, someone must have created it."

That is not obvious. It does not follow. It is an assumption, not an inference.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The logic used in my posting is definitely not a convincing logic, not because of your argument that the universe is too complex, but because it can not prove anything, nonetheless I used it in order to show that the logic of the thread-starter is even worse.




Isn't that the basic conviction of scientific thought, namely that the universe's behaviour and structure can be understood within human's rationality?

I think, therefore I am.

There is nothing else than the thinking me. If there should be anything else it must first be constructed according to my rationality, my thinking-me creates the universe according to laws and principles I deem worthy, rational and universal.

Isn't that Descarte's philosophy of materialism?

Regardless of how small our life is, in this small part of the universe, we can and we do think about the whole, eventhough only in abstract form.

Religious thought deals mostly not with the physical world, it's not about how God created this world, ie. it's not about the systems used, the principles, the laws and constants, instead it deals with the why, the source, the after, in short with the metaphysics.

Regardless of how complex the universe is built up, and I don't think that we humans, religious or scientific, will ever grasp it fully, we, religious people, can believe and do so, that God created it.

The form of God, if he is a cow, or man-like, like some christians/jews believe, or a sort of force-field with no body, or a spirit, spreading wider than all of the universe(s) or whatever plays no role.

The main characteristic of scientific thought is doubt.
The main characteristic of religious thought is conviction/faith.

In that sense, rabid atheists, are religious in nature, they are fully convinced without the shadow of a doubt, that there is no God, eventhough they have no proof whatsoever, and actually it's unprovable per se.

I think faith or the lack of it, is influenced majorly through social aspects. People that socialise (family, friends, wife/husband...) with religious people tend to become religious, too, people that socialise with atheistic people tend to become atheistic as well. It is a human instinct to behave and think like the group we are mostly involved with, in order to be accepted and happy.

That's why Charles Darwin became atheistic, he said something like that: "How can I believe in God, knowing that if He is true, that all my friends and most of my family will burn in hell, because they don't/didn't believe in Him."

Faith is like a seed, it is in everyone of us, but it needs preaching, communities and good works and examples to flourish, without it will not blossom, become a plant and leave behind multitudes of seeds.

Taliesin

Well, sir, you got a hell of a lot more reasonable from one post to the other. Your first was inflammatory, to say the least.

I believe faith is something that every thinking human being needs to get by in the world.

I do not, though, think faith has to have anything to do with belief in supernatural beings handing down directives that look suspiciously like commands from the powered elite in any given society. That's religion, not faith.

I have a deep faith that guides my life. I have faith in the possibility of human progress. I have faith that as we are a young species there is time enough to get it right. I have faith that we can do better, together.

I do not have faith that there is some supreme power responsible for the universe.

On the contrary, I believe we are responsible.

By the way, I'm highly suspicious of your comments about Darwin. It doesn't sound like him to me.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

The form of God, if he is a cow, or man-like, like some christians/jews believe. . .

A comment like that will derail this thread, Taliesin. If we have to spawn a separate thread, so be it, but I'll declare here and now that NO Jew believes God is "a cow or man-like." Please, please cut out the bull excrement.

[itistoday]

This is a great thread. Thank you Saetre and toothpick_charlie (great name btw!) for your insightful comments (they are rare here) and the non-aggressive manner in which they were stated. And welcome to MacNN!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A comment like that will derail this thread, Taliesin. If we have to spawn a separate thread, so be it, but I'll declare here and now that NO Jew believes God is "a cow or man-like." Please, please cut out the bull excrement.

No need to be insulting. There are certainly christians that believe God is manlike in form, they derive it from a part of Genesis, where it's written that God created Adam in his image, and they interpret it to mean that God looks like Adam in form.. and I thought, probably wrongly, that some jews interpreted the Genesis-part similarly.

If that's wrong, then so be it, and I apologise if i have hurt the feelings of any jews.

Taliesin

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Indeed, science has nothing to do with disproving God.

However, I think you misunderstood what he was saying about arguing from ignorance. He was simply agreeing that it was fallacious to say "obviously since there is a world, someone must have created it."

If I've misunderstood what he said, it was because I took the original statement in context with the second statement. Often times someone will start off with a notion that seems fair enough or sufficiently vague, but in their clarification expand to such a degree requiring response.

That is not obvious. It does not follow. It is an assumption, not an inference.

I grant you, faith is not generally an empirical discipline in the same manner as science. However, two different people can examine the same evidence and infer two entirely different things. Presuppositions are often used as filters for conclusion. Another example of human nature, not exclusive to the religious.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Well, sir, you got a hell of a lot more reasonable from one post to the other. Your first was inflammatory, to say the least.

Of course it was inflammatory and deliberately so, as the theistic mirror for the atheist's discourse.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I believe faith is something that every thinking human being needs to get by in the world.
...
I have a deep faith that guides my life. I have faith in the possibility of human progress. I have faith that as we are a young species there is time enough to get it right. I have faith that we can do better, together.

I think faith is put in all of us by God, but we have the free will to direct that faith in whatever way we want, secularists and agnostics obviously direct their faith differently than religious or atheistic people.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I do not, though, think faith has to have anything to do with belief in supernatural beings handing down directives that look suspiciously like commands from the powered elite in any given society. That's religion, not faith.

There is indeed a difference between religion and faith, but I want to answer your unasked question regarding God's commands, powered elites and any given societies:

God wants us, according to the abrahamitic religions, to use our free will to believe, fear, love and thank Him, which means basically to take our spiritual refuge in Him, and to listen to His voice, and what it says and commands, is, to not murder other people, to not steal from other people, to not make false allegations/accusations/witness regarding and to other people, to not commit adultery, and instead to thrive and work for goodness, justice, truth and mercy.

If these commands happen to be on the same line as the powered elites' aspirations, then only the better!

God's revelations to mankind is by the way always codified to be compatible with the structure of the society at the time and place the revelation was made, otherwise it would be quite contraproductive.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I do not have faith that there is some supreme power responsible for the universe.

On the contrary, I believe we are responsible.

Indeed, it is one of the main-point of the abrahamitic religions, that we as humans with free will, are also responsible for our beliefs and deeds, otherwise judgment day would not be possible, for the rest though that is outside the control of mankind, lies in the responsibility of God.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

By the way, I'm highly suspicious of your comments about Darwin. It doesn't sound like him to me.

Doubt and scepticism are good tools to gain new and verified knowledge:

During these two years[1] I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality. I suppose it was the noveltry of the argument that amused them. But I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, the rainbow at sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos, or the beliefs of any barbarian. The question then continually rose before my mind and would not be banished, -- is it credible that if God were now to make a revelation to the Hindoos, would he permit it to be connected with the belief in Vishnu, Siva, &c, as Christianity is connected with the Old Testament. This appeared to me utterly incredible.

By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is suppoted, -- that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become, -- that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us, -- that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events, -- that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eyewitnesses; -- by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many false religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wild-fire had some weight on me. Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories.

But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; -- I feel sure of this for I can well remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeji or elsewhere which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct. I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my friends, will be everlasting punished.

And this is a damnable doctrine[2]

Source: Charles Darwin: Religious belief

Darwin obviously never was an atheist, but an agnostic.

It's also pretty cute and funny, how Darwin thinks that divine miracles were impossible, because the universe had fixated laws, constants and systems.

Of course the universe had fixated laws, constants and systems, because God created it that way, but nonetheless God is not bound by them, and can anytime He wishes ignore them, and which He did sometimes or often in presence of His great messengers.

Taliesin

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

There is indeed a difference between religion and faith, but I want to answer your unasked question regarding God's commands, powered elites and any given societies:

God wants us, according to the abrahamitic religions, to use our free will to believe, fear, love and thank Him, which means basically to take our spiritual refuge in Him, and to listen to His voice, and what it says and commands, is, to not murder other people, to not steal from other people, to not make false allegations/accusations/witness regarding and to other people, to not commit adultery, and instead to thrive and work for goodness, justice, truth and mercy.

If these commands happen to be on the same line as the powered elites' aspirations, then only the better!

God's revelations to mankind is by the way always codified to be compatible with the structure of the society at the time and place the revelation was made, otherwise it would be quite contraproductive.

Indeed, it is one of the main-point of the abrahamitic religions, that we as humans with free will, are also responsible for our beliefs and deeds, otherwise judgment day would not be possible, for the rest though that is outside the control of mankind, lies in the responsibility of God.

Doubt and scepticism are good tools to gain new and verified knowledge:

Source: Charles Darwin: Religious belief

Darwin obviously never was an atheist, but an agnostic.

It's also pretty cute and funny, how Darwin thinks that divine miracles were impossible, because the universe had fixated laws, constants and systems.

Of course the universe had fixated laws, constants and systems, because God created it that way, but nonetheless God is not bound by them, and can anytime He wishes ignore them, and which He did sometimes or often in presence of His great messengers.

Taliesin

Well, that sounds like Darwin. Your paraphrase was, um, uncharacteristic of him.

I actually wasn't implying any questions. I understand the basic theologies of the major extant religions, just as I understand the superstitions of the ancient Greek and Roman mythologies.

You've just got to try to understand, it is so terribly hard to take any of it seriously. That's what the OP was trying to express--poorly, granted. To those of us who weren't indoctrinated it all looks the same. You speak so seriously about what God wants. I understand it is important in your life and I try to respect that about religious people, but from a purely objective standpoint it seems clear you are being deluded.

Firstly, for your own ends. It must be very comforting to believe some of the things that religion would have you believe. I can particularly see the value of believing in an afterlife. Who can't? But I'm unwilling to simply embrace a belief because it would be comforting in the absence of all reason and evidence.

But your rationalization of the "powered elite's" stake in the populace's belief is pretty telling too. It fits with your image of God needing us to "fear" and "love" him. You describe a pretty frail ego for your all-powerful deity. Why would God need these things from us? Your god sounds like a father-figure trying to assert his authority. Does such feeble grasping for power really fit with a sweeping omnipotence? Or is it better fitting with an archaic society's attempt to fit a chief-type figure over all the cosmos just as they intuitively understood an authority figure to be necessary in human affairs?

I realize there's not much point in saying all this. Religion and your brand of faith are outside reason and beyond dialogue. I should've learned a long time ago not to bother. It is so confounding, though, for those of us who see all religion from the outside to watch people expend so much energy trying to make it all sound reasonable when it can't ever be.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A comment like that will derail this thread, Taliesin. If we have to spawn a separate thread, so be it, but I'll declare here and now that NO Jew believes God is "a cow or man-like." Please, please cut out the bull excrement.

He meant man-like. And the Old Testament Bible certainly does describe an anthropomorphic God. I'm too lazy to do a search for all the examples of physical traits ascribed to God, but I distinctly remember his hind quarters being referenced in Exodus.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Well, that sounds like Darwin. Your paraphrase was, um, uncharacteristic of him.

Of course it was, cause I read it years ago and worded it from my memory, therefore I put the qualifier (he said something like) before it.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I actually wasn't implying any questions. I understand the basic theologies of the major extant religions, just as I understand the superstitions of the ancient Greek and Roman mythologies.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

You've just got to try to understand, it is so terribly hard to take any of it seriously. That's what the OP was trying to express--poorly, granted. To those of us who weren't indoctrinated it all looks the same. You speak so seriously about what God wants. I understand it is important in your life and I try to respect that about religious people, but from a purely objective standpoint it seems clear you are being deluded.

Hmm, seems to me like you have crossed the line of doubt and scepticism and entered the realm of certainess, I'm amazed, have you got somehow a proof that God doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by Helmling 

Firstly, for your own ends. It must be very comforting to believe some of the things that religion would have you believe. I can particularly see the value of believing in an afterlife. Who can't? But I'm unwilling to simply embrace a belief because it would be comforting in the absence of all reason and evidence.

How can there be reason or evidence about the afterlife? Reason and evidence needs verification, and surely that is not very easy to achieve don't you think?

By the way the belief in the afterlife is both comforting and frightening, depending which side of the afterlife you will make, paradise or hell.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

But your rationalization of the "powered elite's" stake in the populace's belief is pretty telling too.

Why? Isn't it good and desired that the elites of a society believe and act in the same moral standards as those that they govern.

But while it would be good, experience has shown that the elites and powers of a society seldomly did.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

It fits with your image of God needing us to "fear" and "love" him. You describe a pretty frail ego for your all-powerful deity. Why would God need these things from us? Your god sounds like a father-figure trying to assert his authority. Does such feeble grasping for power really fit with a sweeping omnipotence? Or is it better fitting with an archaic society's attempt to fit a chief-type figure over all the cosmos just as they intuitively understood an authority figure to be necessary in human affairs?

God surely doesn't need us to believe, love, thank and fear Him, it's not for His pleasure, it's merely asked from us for our own good, so that we follow Him and become merciful, just, truthful, repenting, humble...

Like I already said, God's revelations always fitted within the thinking of the society at those times. Of course when you take for granted that God doesn't exist, then it can as well be that the societies merely modeled themselves their God-figure, but that is a question of point of view.

Originally Posted by Helmling 

I realize there's not much point in saying all this. Religion and your brand of faith are outside reason and beyond dialogue. I should've learned a long time ago not to bother. It is so confounding, though, for those of us who see all religion from the outside to watch people expend so much energy trying to make it all sound reasonable when it can't ever be.

Trust me, it's just as confounding to see the atheists expending so much energy to make their belief reasonable, when it can't ever be.

Questions of belief can never be proven 100%, be it the belief of God's existence or the belief in God's non-existence.

Everyone can choose instictively and irrationally whatever suits him best, and we will have all to wait till we die to see behind the curtain, or not.

Taliesin

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Trust me, it's just as confounding to see the atheists expending so much energy to make their belief reasonable, when it can't ever be.

Questions of belief can never be proven 100%, be it the belief of God's existence or the belief in God's non-existence.

This is a bit of a strawman. Very few atheists claim to have as much certainty as you say. Most atheists just see the very obvious problems with each extant religion and reject them each in turn. We don't sit around all day trying to prove that no possible conception of god can exist. As you say, that cannot be done.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

There are certainly christians that believe God is manlike in form, they derive it from a part of Genesis, where it's written that God created Adam in his image, and they interpret it to mean that God looks like Adam in form.. and I thought, probably wrongly, that some jews interpreted the Genesis-part similarly.

Rather than describing Adam's physical form, the words "In His image" and "after His likeness" are interpreted by Judaism to refer to the mental qualities of Adam that are part and parcel with his Godly living soul.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

This is a bit of a strawman. Very few atheists claim to have as much certainty as you say. Most atheists just see the very obvious problems with each extant religion and reject them each in turn. We don't sit around all day trying to prove that no possible conception of god can exist. As you say, that cannot be done.

Probably, but instead of rejecting the religions, they should have tried to improve them. Religions have a divine source and spirit, but they are also a human construct and need engaged and thinking people to progress and adapt to changing times and situations.

Nonetheless, the groundwork, the basis of religion, namely the existence of a personal and only one God, who created (how, if evolutionary or otherwise needs analysis) everything, and who will recreate humans on judgment day and decides who will be granted eternal life in paradise or eternal punishment in hell, and the moral framework (not to murder, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to make false witnessing and instead to strive for goodness, mercy, truth, justice and love, to repent sins and pray for forgivance), is an eternal message.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Rather than describing Adam's physical form, the words "In His image" and "after His likeness" are interpreted by Judaism to refer to the mental qualities of Adam that are part and parcel with his Godly living soul.

Interesting and thanks for the clarification.

Taliesin

[red rocket]

Critical Section - Religion vs IQ

Intelligence & Religion

Paraphrased from The Effect of Intelligence on Religious Faith, Burnham P. Beckwith, _Fre