The Problem with Religion
The late, great George Carlin probably said it best: " Religion has convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn't want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. "
That simple, yet comically (and philosophically?) profound statement illustrates some problems generally associated with religion. These problems do not apply to all people practicing a religion or having a belief. But they can and do apply to some. While religion can do some good and benefit people to some degree, I will focus mainly on the problems of religion itself.
First, religion makes statements of "truth" without actually supporting them with anything empirical. The easiest example is the claim that "god exists!" But there is no evidence or proof of any god/s existing outside of someone saying they do. Some even go so far to claim their god, beliefs, and/or religion are "true" and all others are false. That's just a downright arrogant statement. If someone makes a claim for something, especially an outrageous claim, would you not want some kind of evidence? So why are claims of god generally accepted, no questions asked (or explanations offered)? That segues into the next problem of religion:
Second, religion requires the suspension of rational or critical thinking. This is easily seen with biblical stories, especially if someone takes such stories seriously or literally. Religious myths like young (or flat) earth creationism, the Great Flood, or Intelligent Design are not only lacking any supporting empirical evidence, but they are either logically impossible or even discredited by current scientific knowledge. So accepting religious myth requires the rejection of established science and logical contradictions, which is both irrational and intellectually dishonest. It's saying mere stories are elevated above or taken more seriously than reality. People are often introduced into religion (especially at an early age) by family, or accept it to fill some emotional need, or perhaps as a psychological disorder. Either way, it becomes irrational which requires blind acceptance over evidence and rational thought.
Third, religion declares either punishment for disbelief (or the wrong belief/religion) or reward for belief. Never mind that some religions even invoked actual punishment and torture for a lack of or "false" belief and thought. This is essentially intellectual and emotional manipulation (and possibly even abuse) to play on peoples fears or desires. Some people also invoke a Pascal's Wager , which in itself is a logical fallacy and an irrational position. After all, promising someone an eternal heavenly reward for believing and following a religion's tenets does seem appealing. And the threat of eternal damnation in Hell for not believing or following (the "correct") religion is certainly a scary thing to contemplate. But people also blindly accept the "reality" of such consequences, no questions asked either. It's certainly a great way for religion to impose obedience and control over people and to discourage them from looking elsewhere for answers.
Fourth, religion can cause one to become sanctimoniously arrogant or have a superiority complex. How often do we see certain theists proclaim moral superiority because they have a belief in god, or believe god is the source of morality? The idea of god being the source of morality raises logical contradictions itself, but I digress. Some theists will even go so far to declare atheists or non-believers are inherently immoral or amoral because they do not believe in a god. That's quite a smug attitude, in my opinion. Or some honestly believe their religion is right and all others are wrong. Or they try to use religion as some kind of justification for various things. One example is when people declare they will pray for somebody (regardless if the other party wants it or not) who dissents from their religious way of thinking, with the intention of causing some kind of change or conversion for someone to align more with their belief or way of thinking.
Fifth, religion is about dogma over science. Throughout history and even today, religion has been resistant to science. Science seeks to discover new knowledge and answers to problems and questions. Religion generally goes with "god did it" as an explanation, which is not really an explanation for anything. We see this with religious pushback against sound scientific principles such as evolution or the Big Bang, where some theists advocate and even attempt to impose ID or creationism, respectively. Some might flat out reject scientific evidence or explanation for no other reason than because it contradicts someone's personal beliefs. Or they think they can "foil" science by invoking logical fallacies like an irreducible complexity style argument. Religion will often not accept evidence which contradicts its dogma, but neither offer any evidence to support it. Where science wants evidence, religion wants blind acceptance. This harks back to religion's declarations of "truth."
There are other problems associated with religion and if anyone wants to discuss them, feel free to bring it up and discuss below.
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
Your thoughts?
There are no problems with God or religion. The problems lie with sinful man and how we relate to them now. In the modern era the problem is with arrogant mankind who thinks that we have evolved beyond a need for God and can put ourselves in his place. Some chose to worship objects or the creation instead of the creator. Others bow down before logic and reason and worship them like the French did. Others think science as we know it now calling themselves pro science think there is no all powerful or supernatural and that they can put an all powerful all knowing forever existing deity into a box of their own construct and accuse all others of being pseudoscience or believing in some sort of conspiracy theory quackery and thus we and our beliefs and sources to back them up just dismissed out of hand. Religion is real and there is no ultimate future without it. Those are my thoughts.
That's a matter of opinion. But if that's what you think, then address the points in the article highlighting the actual problems. Simply declaring there are no problems is unconvincing and a cop out.
Or maybe some have outgrown the need for god/s or religion.
Freedom of religion and religious practice and all that, right?
Some appreciate logic and reasoning and don't treat it like a threat. It's illogical to "worship" logic and reason, as they are not religious concepts.
Go ahead and present your objective, empirical evidence for the supernatural or all powerful. I'll wait.
Now you're not making any sense and that entire statement seems more emotional and irrational.
No one said it wasn't. The article (which you apparently didn't bother reading) only focuses on the problems with religion.
Again, mere opinion.
Great. Next time, try addressing the actual points made in the article rather than your borderline proselytizing and irrational nonsense!
I’ve said all I’m going say on this thread and stand by every word of it
Fine, goodbye!
I changed my mind. Bye now!
Should I automatically take offense to this since the French were specifically called out here? That's pretty presumptuous considering I come from a long line of French ancestry; and oddly enough, most were born and raised strict Catholic. It wasn't until my mother and her siblings rejected the belief that if they ate beef on Fridays that they'd burn in Hell or that because they had "premarital" relations [according to what definition of marriage, I always pondered] that they'd spend the afterlife in eternal flames next to the child rapist / murderer [because that's what those Catholic rituals, let's face it that's what they are, tell us will happen], that organized religion went away from our family. Generally speaking, the leaders of Catholicism don't want you to question things.
I think there are several flaws in organized religion and the stories written in the "good book(s)." Why shouldn't we ask questions regarding the gravity in which breaking one of the 10 commandments really means? Why are they all assumed equal? The fact that "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor" is assuming that "thy neighbor" does not have free will and that the two people are not single and decide to be married before "coveting" so to speak, I find questionable. God gave "man" free will, did he not? He labels us all sinners from birth and we're expected to repent for sins we have yet to commit. That's like me, someone that's never murdered anyone or ever plan to, repenting and suffering because it's assumed that I will, even if I don't or won't. Seems silly to me to make assumptions based on the simple fact that we're all labeled sinners from the moment we're born. If we're all sinners from the moment we're born, what happens to those that are stillborn or only take a breath or two and then die from complications? Does that mean those babies deserve a place in purgatory since they didn't have the chance to be baptized? What kind of God is that? That's why people like me ask questions of religion that have yet to be answered. I prefer to believe that MY God wouldn't punish an infant for not having a chance at life before it's taken. I like to believe that MY God is far kinder and more forgiving than the Christian God and one that doesn't judge a murderer the same as someone who had premarital relations or ate beef on Friday or had a child out of wedlock, again wondering who's definition of wedlock, I'm still unsure.
This is what happens when people view religion as a problem; https://www.newsmax.com/us/catholic-church-arson-burned/2020/07/13/id/976972/
Are you suggesting that Gordy is advocating violence?
Stop trying to make personal the general idea that bad things happen when people in general start to act on the idea that religion is a problem or the problem to some issue.
[[Off Topic]]
[Spare us the obvious off topic cut & paste and address the points made in the article.]
Why are you posting that garbage here? That's a lot of allegations for something that MIGHT BE LINKED to the . . . . . .
Gordy is the sole author of this article. On top of that, you replied to him directly noting that when people view religion as a problem, violence happens.
So I asked you a question: "Are you suggesting that Gordy is advocating violence?"
Now you rephrase to "bad things happen when people in general start to act on the idea that religion is a problem or the problem to some issue". Okay.
Do you consider Gordy's article to be 'acting on the idea that religion is a problem'? Are you suggesting that Gordy should not identify problems for fear that some people will act on the idea and make bad things happen? Should Gordy et. al. just hold their tongues because you are concerned that challenging religions will make too many bad things happen?
In short, what point are you trying to make?
TiG asked a fair question. You're implying that violence is the result of people viewing it as a problem and that, by addressing the problems of religion, then I must be advocating violence, even if by proxy. Let's not forget all the violence religion has perpetrated over the centuries, and even today. Or is that no problem for you?
Really? That’s what can happen when groups think that there’s a problem or problems with religion and act on them. How exactly is putting a portion of an article a skirting of the Coc? Explain the actual intent to violate and who it was directed at? I make no apologies for defending religion on a hit piece seed against religion.
It’s what happens when some people actually act on the problems they are having with religion. Nothing more, nothing less
You make that sound one-sided.
It was off topic.
Your problem is your interpretation of the article as a "hit-piece."
And now you're making a sweeping generalization.
"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself!" --- George Carlin.
“Thou shall keep thy atheism to thyself”
— Sparty On
Is someone trying to convert you to atheism?
Right on!
Works both ways too!
Those who spew anti theism should also follow Carlin’s advice.
Since that's not happening, there's no issue. But that too works both ways: those who spew pro theism should also follow Mr. Carlin's advice, right?
[deleted]
Atheism is a religion so it’s proponents should do likewise
No, it's not. That makes no sense. Atheism being a religion is a contradiction in terms. And you still haven't addressed the notion of it working both ways! Or are you suggesting theists do not have to keep their religion to themselves, but atheists do?
[deleted]
Apparently you do not realize that atheism being a "religion" meant that atheism was just as recognized and protected in the eyes of the law as any religion. Not that it was an actual religion in itself. I noticed you didn't answer my previous questions either. I wonder why?
Very good identification of the problems with religion. Ultimately, religion is a control mechanism — an extremely effective one. With irony I have observed quite a few people complain about authoritarian officials using the pandemic to effect a gratuitous control over the people yet those holding this conspiracy theory of control are also proudly religious. They, it would seem, are too deep into the dogma to recognize the control their religion has over their lives. It is perfectly fine for the church to tell you how to conduct your intimate affairs but no way can government demand you wear a mask during a pandemic.
In the early days when religions were coming of age it is easy to see why they caught on. People saw scary and disturbing things happening and naturally wanted answers (especially answers that gave a procedure one could engage in to help rectify the situation). Religion offers gods with special powers and personalities to explain all the frightening unknowns of life. This yields comfort and people were clearly quite willing to succumb to belief without evidence if the belief is comforting. With indoctrination (which religions have perfected over the centuries) the lock of religions continue from generation to generation. Thus, unfortunately, that comfort (and indoctrination) continues even today in spite of modern knowledge.
I think that might have been how religions started originally and then grew over many thousands of years. As smaller tribes or groups of people came together to live in increasingly larger societies leaders probably felt the need to create what they thought were more universal moral codes, or a moral framework to keep those of different backgrounds from killing each other, to help bind the society together, or encourage cooperation. Such was "education" those many thousands of years ago passed down through generations, perhaps to control, but also to guide and foster a spirit of looking out for one another on an ever larger scale. Indeed many modern cultures are still held together by the moral framework built over many centuries. Western culture was built on a framework of recognizing human individualism (as well as human nature) and political pluralism, including the concepts of democracy and representative forms of government and self-directed economies, all held together by a rule of law that was at least partially influenced by religion.
Oddly enough as populations grew larger and religions diverged and split, or popped up anew, they eventually became the source of discord between peoples, creating more of the problem they were initially meant to solve. Which is certainly an unfortunate consequence, especially since the violent behavior in the name of some religions is actually counter to the moral framework around which the religion was originally built.
While adherence to a specific religion may seem like "control" to some, it is simply a choice to those who follow a particular religion, perhaps more akin to a "lifestyle". Why would it be any different than any other moral framework when it comes to its control over the adherent? The odd thing is that many who claim to follow a religion do not appear to operate as dictated by the moral framework of that religion anyway. The only cudgel religions might use is a threat of eternal damnation, which in today's Western culture really doesn't seem to hold much sway insofar as the behavior of the living. So the idea that there is "control" in that situation that is akin to the control of a king or a government that can impose penalties in the here and now, seems like a bit of an exaggeration.
Many religions are built around the idea that their faith is a wonderful gift to whomever believes. So when some proselytize or wish to share their religion with others, they truly feel they are spreading good news. Indeed many on the receiving end of that don't see it the same way, particularly if said religion involves dogma that is offensive to the moral code of others, which they often do. Certainly those who wish to push it further and have certain religious dogma written into civil/secular law are crossing the line in our modern Western culture which interestingly enough was at least partially guided over the centuries by those same religions. We just need to tell them that we don't wish to pet their dogma, as it has been known to bite.
That depends on the society in which a religion is followed. In theocratic societies, choice may be nonexistent, and cudgels may be literal rather than figurative.
That is certainly true. Perhaps the primary reason for maintaining distance between church and state. I should have been more clear that I was thinking more along the lines of Western cultures, more like ours, as I believe that is what TiG was talking about in the part of his comment to which I was responding.
Look no further than the Middle East for that.
I tend to agree. The line of church and state was quite blurred in Europe a couple hundred years ago. That's why the Founding Fathers wanted that line established here when founding this country. And yet, there are still those who think no such line of separation exists or think this country was founded on biblical or "christian values." It's like they want a theocracy.
Those who follow the 'be kind to others' philosophy inherent in many religions are, I submit, using religion to suit their (good) purposes. Many families choose to send their kids to religious schools because, in the end, they typically help instill good moral values.
But that is not what I am referring to. I am looking at the religion itself, at its core, and not the various modern institutions (and their programs) which have emerged from it. At its core, religions (especially the Abrahamic) are true to their inception — they self-perpetuate based on fear, comfort and indoctrination. This I consider to be control because it does influence behavior. A benign example of this influence is compelling people to return to the church to worship and to make donations. A malignant example are the suicide bombers of radical Islam.
While I think your implication is correct that many would use religion as a lifestyle even if they did not believe the claims of the religion (and I think quite a few religious folks operate exactly that way already) I think that societies would be mostly secular if not for master strokes like:
If you believe, you ...
But if you do not believe, you will be eternally damned to suffer perpetual torment.
Note that all those points also appeal to emotion and/or provide emotional comfort. That might explain why gravitate towards or accept such religious doctrine so readily.
Fear and comfort... odd bedfellows don't you think? How is something that one fears also a comfort? It's interesting to consider that when contemplating the Old Testament one gets the sense that God is to be feared, somebody you don't want to cross. Yet in the New Testament, the message of Christ and his disciples seems to be more comforting with respect to God's love for mankind. Which begs the question did God change, and why?
Fear and indoctrination to create an illusion or promise of future comfort. That formula sounds familiar. A political tactic that seems to repeat itself throughout human history again and again and again. Maybe religion isn't the problem.
Not even just a couple hundred years ago. The mess the royal family of England seems to keep finding themselves in can be attributed in part to the fact that the monarch is also the head of the Church of England, and is therefore bound to uphold its teachings, in her own family, at least. That requirement has led to abdication, the queen disallowing her sister to marry the man of her choice, and some question as to whether Charles would have to abdicate for marrying a divorced woman. It probably doesn't have much effect on the population of England in general, but it certainly affects the personal lives of the nobility.
It is, until you realize that they create the fear, then offer the comfort.
Succinctly:
Scare them to death and offer the best possible alternative. An offer that cannot be refused.
A question I have oft asked but never do I receive a straight answer. Typically, the answer is that the OT is the Old Covenant and that the NT is the New Covenant which supersedes it. I am sure you would find such an answer to be the dodge that it is. Especially since there is no clear definition for what constitutes the OC or the NC.
I am happy to speak of religion as a political tool. That, IMO, has been its purpose from inception.
"You'll burn in hell for eternity if you disobey god. But don't worry, he still loves you." Odd indeed.
God did seem to get a makeover in between the Old & New Testaments. Perhaps as a new religious advertising campaign?
Maybe it is. Or at least, part of the problem.
All while holding out a silver tray for your 'weakly' donation...
Indeed. And then perhaps realize that such tactics aren’t limited merely to religion.
Of course they aren't. But they are an integral part of many religions.
True
Or all while holding out their hand for your vote and/or a hefty campaign contribution...
Indeed.
Please forgive me but I find it difficult to get all misty about that.
Yes, they live lives of privilege, but also lives of restriction. I can look on that with sympathy. I don't think I'd want to trade places with them.
Reminds me of The Godfather. I don't know, I think I'd fear eternal damnation less than a severed horses head in my bed as I slumber.
Quite possibly so. Although politicians don't appear to need that particular tool so much anymore when they can use the same tactics without it, or in fact against it from time to time (i.e. the fear of our Government becoming a theocracy if Catholics are elected)
Gordy has never claimed to be 100% certain those claims are not true.
Crucially, Gordy has not argued that these claims are necessarily false.
Of course not. But some state those claims as if they were 100% true, even without any supporting evidence and based on nothing but mere belief or dogma.
It's logically indefensible either way when a claim of certainty is made. At least until evidence becomes forthcoming. But a claim of certainty warrants a challenge and should be challenged.
That would be the honest position to take. Essentially, that's saying "I don't really know for sure." It's one thing to say "I believe there's a god or afterlife." But it's quite another to state as fact "God exists and there is an afterlife!" Attempting to pass such claims off as truth is intellectually dishonest, even if that is not the intent.
And that is a perfect acceptable and honest position to take.
Fair enough.
As I always say, "Show me the evidence!"
Hmm, that might make for an interesting article.
Certainly some religious claims can be shown to be "false."
You're welcome.
It's those who do claim to be "sure" or certain that is suspect.
In regards to religious claims made, yes.
IMO, all religions share a common negative of being inherently control mechanisms. Some belief systems such as Buddhism are pretty gray when it comes to calling them religions so there is a fuzziness to deal with.
That established, the religions are different and thus have different pros and cons associated with them. I find Islam to be the most troubling of the major religions due largely to the fact that it has not grown much from its ancient (brutal) foundations whereas religions such as the Catholic religion have evolved considerably (in the positive, although they have a ways to go IMO). Judaism has evolved quite considerably.
Many of them, yes. Although we do not know the particulars of some religions in cultures that kept no written record, we do have archaeological evidence (and occasionally written records) that some required human sacrifice (think the Aztecs, Egyptians, and Druids). Any religion that leads to murder is obviously problematic, and the fear it promotes that must be assuaged via human sacrifice is, as well.
More inclusive religions (Wicca, for example) tend to be less problematic, and while I don't find the tenets to be well supported by evidence, the morality to me seems to be sound - whatever you do, good or evil, will be revisited on you threefold. So, it's best to do good.
Well to be fair I think most simply point out that the country was founded by people who believed in biblical or Christian values not that the country was necessarily founded on it. There is a difference. And there is much evidence in the writings of the founders to support the claim, as well as clear evidence that none would have supported a theocracy.
Right or wrong, people who point such things out do so from the standpoint of lamenting what they see as the deterioration of moral character of todays politicians or leaders vs. the founders. Again, morality being subjective, and the focus either being on specific issues or on a broader moral code, one could certainly argue it might be the other way around. Such is the nature of a moral lens.
In any case, few are talking about installing the Pope as president, or holding the entirety of the canon of the Catholic Church up as the law of the land. The fears some have of our country becoming a theocracy due to the sometimes vocal moral views, or the occasional Right to Life marches of the dwindling religious seems a bit over the top or irrational to me. Just my opinion.
Perhaps it is best to do good because one truly wants to do good for the benefit of others, rather than to collect a threefold reward.
Of course. But that three-fold harm thing is quite the deterrent
That is a problem I have with morality based on fear of punishment in general, and that's the morality usually prescribed by religion.
That's an argument many make and seem to think it then applies to the country and its founding as a whole.
The fact that the Constitution establishes a freedom of religion rather than a state religion, or even a religious preference over others, proves that establishing a theocracy or religious based society and system of government and law was never the intent of the Founding Fathers.
And there are those (some here on NT) who defend today's politicians, including those with questionable moral character.
Some would even argue against that.
While installing a theocracy is highly unlikely, there are those, like David Barton and the Wallbuilders, who state that the US is (or is based on) a "christian nation" and/or that the bible should replace the Constitution. While such notions are laughable, what makes them dangerous is that they have a platform to spew their misinformation and negatively influencing others. Especially if such individuals happen to obtain a position of power.
That would be the ideal situation. Do good just for goodness sake. Not because one wants a heavenly reward, avoid damnation, and/or because a religion tells them to be good.
We tend to refute the claims we encounter. There are many Christians here, two people of Jewish background that I know of, three American Indians (I assume of different faiths, but I don't know), and one Wiccan. I don't know of any Muslims here. So naturally, we encounter claims about Christianity and Judaism, due to Christianity's Jewish origins. Since those are the claims we encounter, those are the claims we debate.
I don't think there are many here who are proponents of those religions or their associated claims. So that's probably why they're not referenced or discussed often.
Those are also the claims that are put out there most often by their adherents.
Yup. Back on the Vine, there were a few Muslims, and I did have discussions with them. One I remember was a Muslim woman (convert to Islam) who actually hadn't read the entire Quran, and had no idea that there was scriptural basis within it for the misogyny often seen in Islamic countries. Another was a Muslim man in Pakistan, IIRC, who thought that polygyny was good for women, and recommended it even for non-Muslims, because single women everywhere must be the sexual prey of men. He either was, or pretended to be, under the delusion that single women in the US were at the sexual mercy of any man who came along, with no right to say "no", and would therefore be better off even in a bad marriage than single.
That's just messed up! But such a misogynistic view of women, while probably most apparent in Islam, is not limited to it. Basically, a religion is teaching that women are inferior to or the "property" of the man, or otherwise subjugate women n some way. This is practiced in the Abrahamistic religions to some degree or another.
From what I remember of the conversation, such a view of American women was part of the propaganda to which he was exposed. He actually seemed to be sincerely concerned for single women here, on the basis that we aren't safe, and that marriage would secure our safety.
Yes, that's a primary problem I have with the Abrahamic religions. To some degree, all three are either misogynistic, or have a history of misogyny, based in scripture, that they have overcome. The churches in which I was raised held women to be subservient to men. Men were expected to be loving husbands, but their word within the family was law. I pretty much ignored that part of the sermons, and I think many of the married women made sure their husbands knew they did the same.
It is probably because Christianity dominates the USA and the membership of this site.
Yes! That is an emotionally based premise. It provides emotional comfort or coping. Bu.t I usually apply suspending rational/critical thinking to those who reject sound science or evidence in favor of dogma or emotion. It's like one doesn't even want to question their beliefs, especially when evidence contradicts that belief. Nothing particularly wrong with that unless one tries to posit such beliefs as fact rather than acknowledging that it's only a belief.
I am curious. Do you consider the belief that our dead loved ones are watching over us to be the result of a comforting wish (on your part) or the result of you considering evidence critically and coming to a reasoned conclusion?
Nothing to be sorry for Kathleen. Honest questions are appreciated and encouraged. As I say (and sometimes do), question everything.
Gathering as much information as possible about something is always a good thing.
By all means
I would say that my family's belief structure is closest to Pagan or Wiccan. When I did a college paper on different types of religion and performed several days / hours worth of research, including interviews with people I work with [global company], I came to that conclusion based on my research.
Before I read your response, I said, "A little of both for me."
Thank you.
Ironic indeed.
The perfect control mechanism: being controlled without realizing it. Like a robot and religion is the remote control.
Some people seem to let the church think for them. How many religious people condemn things like homosexuality or abortion just because their religion tells them so?
True. XYZ happens because of this god or that one. A simple, yet satisfying explanation. Some things do not change apparrently.
It boggles the mind that people would remain willfully ignorant of some things in this day and age, all in favor of their dogma.
And in Catholicism, it's taught that we are all God's children and we are all loved. How does that work when you're also then told to condemn anyone that is deemed "different" in society? Isn't that teaching that we're not all God's children and we're not all loved? And why would abortion be a bad thing if that fetus should be sent straight to heaven anyways? Isn't that the goal, to be joined with God in Heaven? These are arguments I've had with my grandmother who was a devout Catholic... well, as she got older, it seemed that she didn't believe as hard as she once had.
Isn't this how societal "norms" were developed in the first place? I mean, why isn't it okay for a woman to be the primary financial provider? Oh yeah... religious white guys deemed the woman should be at home taking care of the husband and children. BLAH!
Indeed. Gays, for example, are referred to as "abominations." That doesn't sound all loving to me and it serves to ostracize a group of people.
Exactly. But pointing out that logical inconsistency will get you a lot argument and contempt.
The Abrahamistic religions are quite patriarchal.
Indeed that is inconsistent with any religion that purports to support the idea of loving others as oneself. The Catholic Church has allegedly softened their stance on that in recent years and now openly welcomes gay people for inclusion in the Mass, but still refers to their orientation as “disordered”. A softer word perhaps than “abomination” but still not all that comforting to a gay person I’d imagine.
But I don't think it's universal among Catholics or Catholic churches.
It's still erroneous and derogatory either way.
Well it is outlined in the universal Catechism of the Catholic Church parts 2357 to 2359 which is global in scope:
As I said, still not very comforting to gay people.
Indeed. In 2358 it is written, " Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided ". Really? See parts 2357 and 2359 for "signs of unjust discrimination". How did the author write that while keeping a straight face (no pun intended)?
In some cases!!!
With some people-- but not with others!
[deleted]
And this can lead to violence. It's easier to justify a war against people you see as evil, even if they're "evil" only because they worship differently from you (generic "you", of course). Consider the Inquisition, Manifest Destiny, or the ongoing mess in the Middle East.
Tis touches on another problem of religion which I didn't address: namely the divisiveness of religion itself. Just look at history to see that: Protestants vs Catholics, Christians vs Muslims, ect.. And that's on the macro scale. But even on the micro scale we can see it. People who don't join a certain religious group or otherwise leave one are viewed as outsiders or ostracized. Atheists are viewed with suspicion or deemed untrustworthy or immoral because they do not subscribe to any particular religious belief.
I think that is simply part of your 4th point in your article with regard to the arrogance or superiority complex that some religious might display. Specifically that their moral framework or code is superior to those of other religions, or especially to those who have no religion. Some can't seem to grasp the idea that one can form one's own moral code or compass without any religion setting that framework for them. Although one could argue that even an atheist's idea of right and wrong, good or evil, was probably formed in their minds from a young age based on centuries of moral framework (some informed by religions) to which they are exposed from birth. The same framework that has led to our modern rules of law and even unwritten expectations of social decorum or civil behavior. In any case, morality can be highly subjective and everyone, religious or not, tends to view the world through their own moral lens. Through my lens, I have known many atheists and agnostics who seem more morally centered to me than many Christians I've known.
They might think they're morally superior.
I've noticed. I have even been asked where I get my moral code from. As if I'm incapable of having morals without religion.
I agree. But some theists actually think morality is not subjective, as they believe morality comes from god. But just ask them if they think slavery is moral or not (god never prohibits or condemns slavery in the bible) and watch the smoke come out of their ears, Lol
I would never think of you or anyone else as incapable of having morals, but I think the question of where you feel your moral code comes from is an interesting one to explore. Some religious people think it comes from their religion, or their God as you pointed out, but is that really true? If that were the case, how does a religious person explain their own immoral behavior when it occurs? Where does that come from?
Perhaps our morals simply come from the culture in which we are immersed from the time of our birth. An amalgam of everything we see, hear, or learn, and based on centuries of different forces (including religions in some cases) that shaped that culture over time. That is certainly how something that seems to be perfectly moral in one culture appears to be grotesquely immoral to those of another culture, or another time, or even in modern times. This is observable in the present time regardless of a person's religion or lack thereof. It appears to involve a combination of nature (innate concern for self preservation - human nature) and nurture (a product of our environment).
The claim I've heard is that god is the source of morality. So if that were true, then the follow up to ask, is slavery moral?
They might claim sin, being human and therefore imperfect, "the devil made me do it," ect..
Exactly. Morals tend to very by the culture. That is why morality is subjective.
Usually our parents or those close to us teach us morality at an early age. Our interactions with others and society as we grow and learn also teach morals.
I think our morality is an emergent property of biological and sociological evolution. Our biology includes factors which influence how we behave. For example, the amygdala will raise a fear response if it detects the presence of an individual with a skin color different from one's own. This is done with very coarse optical, audible and olfactory senses (like trying to see a pixelated image) and no doubt is responsible for the flee response which likely saved the lives of many of our ancestors. It is the frontal cortex, once it has had time to process its sensory information in context of a much more sophisticated base of information, that overrides the amygdala and shakes hands with a person of a different race.
Our morality is instinctual and logical based mostly on survival and comfort. Killing children directly affects our instincts which have perpetuated our species. But killing adults who we see as harmful to our local group is okay.
Sociologically, as we moved from hunter/gatherer into agricultural communities the notion of property emerged. Something substantial of value (the agricultural fields and products) now existed that had to be defended against theft. This further evolved our morality.
To me we can trace the evolution of our species and see how the moralities that exist today could have come to pass. Importantly, we can also understand why we have differing relative moralities. We can understand, for example, why some cultures consider honor killings to be just and moral when we see them as barbaric. Relative morality is a product of sociological evolution and thus the various cultures of the world are 'species' of more ancient cultural mores and values.
This is a gross oversimplification. There is plenty of evidence that argues for the existence of God, at least for those who approach the question without materialist assumptions. An example of this is the claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This claim can logically only be held by materialists, who claim that only the material universe, and the laws that govern it, exist. This is an extraordinary claim in itself because it isn't really testable, empirically. Since this is so, it is not a truth claim, it is a faith claim. So, not only can the materialist not prove that claims of God are extraordinary, they can't even empirically prove their own position, although they can provide evidence.
This is laughably false and can only be believed by someone who's suspended rational or critical thinking. Or, is a materialist. "It's impossible for someone to be swallowed by a great fish, be puked up on a beach three days later and live to tell about it!" says the materialist. But, if there is a God who created the universe then it is reasonable to assume that this God can control it as well. And if God can do this, then what prevents Him from doing something miraculous? Last I checked, no one has proven that God doesn't exist. Since this is so, it is possible the story is true.
Further, for such a claim to stand, one would have to explain how people of religion who are top scientists in their field, Nobel laureates, holding prestigious chairs in scientific fields are not, in fact, rational or critical thinkers. It doesn't really sell it to say, well, they don't think rationally or critically concerning religion. Who's going to buy that? It just makes the person making such a claim sound petty. The fact is, a great number of people of religion, especially Christianity, are great rational and critical thinkers. You should try reading some of their books. I can recommend some.
Although "punishment" and "reward" are valid, I think of it in terms of "consequences". In any case, I'm curious as to why anyone would find this an actual problem. The reasons you give don't seem very valid, in my opinion, since reward or punishment is pretty much our lives from birth to death. If you do not eat right, you suffer. If you do, you tend to be healthier and happier. If you don't study in school, you're not as likely to do as well in life as someone who does. If you lie, not many will trust you. If you tell the truth, you will have the trust of many. If you work hard, you tend to get farther than those who slack off.
I can keep going but life is a series of rewards or punishments for the things we do. Why should the ultimate point to life be any different? Further, I find it quite comforting that what we do in life matters. I am pleased that rape matters. I'm pleased that feeding the hungry matters. I am pleased there are consequences for both. I am pleased that life is not pointless. That there is a Being to whom it matters. More, a Being who knows what matters and chooses to reward those who choose what He thinks matters.
I've heard people say a number of times that God is cruel because he wanted to keep knowledge from us. That isn't true. God didn't want to keep knowledge from us, except the knowledge of good and evil. The reason, as history has so amply proven, is we can't handle the knowledge. The only knowledge of good and evil we really have is that it exists. We certainly suck at knowing what is good and evil, except in terms so large we can't miss it, and even then we still often get it wrong.
And so our history is filled with evil. But God, in His mercy, says, "I know what is good and right. You can be forgiven and I'll show you the way. And, although it will be hard, in the end, evil will never trouble you again". So, really, the choice of either reward or punishment is up to us. Those who think otherwise really just want their desires to be right, whether they are or not, and not face consequences for them. That's why they think it's cruel.
Well, you got one right, at least. We certainly see a lot of this one. The only thing I would argue with is that it isn't religion that causes it. After all, look at Richard Dawkins. He certainly is sanctimoniously arrogant and has a superiority complex. It certainly wasn't science that caused that.
Totally wrong in every sense it could be. Atheists like to claim there is some sort of battel between religion and science. This is propaganda put out by atheists. The battle is between theists and atheists. This is so because most Christians have no issues with science. What they have issues with is some interpretations of science by atheists. In other words, the atheist says the science says X and if the theist disagrees, then the atheist claims the theist hates science. The reality is most often that the theist disagrees with the interpretation of the science by the atheist.
Another gross oversimplification. Since our belief is not only did God create everything, He sustains everything. In that sense, God did do it. All of it. Every moment of it. That doesn't mean we don't believe science can tell us how it's done. As I have pointed out before, there's no way to tell the difference between lightning striking where it did because of the laws materialists believe in or that it struck where it did because God actively made it strike there at that moment and place. If every particle in existence acts the way it does at any given moment because God wills it to at that moment, it would just seem like the natural laws materialists think is responsible. Or, it could be that there really are the laws we think their are that governs the universe in the manner we observe and doesn't need God's constant attention. Still, they're there because God created them. How could you prove otherwise? You can't prove God didn't do it.
What laws allow us to do is say, based on what we've observed and the experiments we've made, there's every reason to expect that the sun will rise in the east for the foreseeable future. It says nothing about why those laws exist or in what manner. Are they just part of a Godless, uncaring universe that just happened to turn out this way? Is it a set and forget sort of thing God did or does God make everything work the way it does from moment to moment? What experiment are you going to conduct to get an answer?
What is not true about "God did it" is that we think anything we don't yet understand is just a case of "God did it" and it can't be understood. We don't really know why galaxies are moving faster than what the known mass of visible matter can account for. We don't just say, well, because God did it. We know it's possible we'll find out. The difference between us is that, for us, we think in terms of learning what God did to account for the movement of the galaxies. That is, we attribute whatever we discover to the work of His hand, not a factor of a random universe.
Have a nice night : )
What you are doing is a common twist of what is claimed. The claim is NOT that the material universe is all that could possibly exist. Rather, the claim is that -based on the evidence- all that we can detect thus far is the material universe. It is not a claim of impossible, rather an observation of 'never evidenced'. And when you return with your rebuttal of 'it is impossible to evidence that which is not part of the material universe ... that we are limited in our tools and senses' I will agree with you. But then the question goes to you as to how you can claim that there actually is something beyond the material.
Note: this is like those who claim that atheists claim there is no god when in reality atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god ... the condition of not yet being persuaded that a god exists. Only the extreme gnostic atheists go one step further and claim there is no god. That claim, by the way, is irrational if by 'god' they mean sentient creator rather than a specific, personal, highly attributed god such as that of the Bible.
You define 'God' as the god of the Bible. That literary character is self-refuting and thus does not exist.
God (of the Bible) is defined by the Bible. This God is deemed true (and existing) because the Bible is deemed divine (at least those parts that define God and portray God speaking). That is, God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is divinely credible. The critical problem with this reasoning is that God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, omnipresent, eternal and omnibenevolent. All one need do to demonstrate that God cannot exist as defined by the Bible is show a contradiction in the definition. One glaring contradiction starts off in Genesis where God exacts punishment on Adam & Eve and all their progeny because they disobeyed Him. Since God is omniscient He knew (even before he created Adam & Eve) that they would disobey Him. He nonetheless created them accordingly (wired with the cognitive abilities of His choice) and placed them in a situation of His making knowing full well what they would do. If God is omniscient then He knowingly set up Adam & Eve to fail knowing also that He would then effect a curse on them and their progeny. In this example omniscience directly contradicts omnibenevolence.
Throughout the Bible, God (the character) is routinely learning bad things about His creations. An omniscient (especially if omnipotent) entity cannot logically learn, regret, be surprised. We can explore all sorts of examples where biblical accounts directly contradict the biblical definition of God. A character with contradictions in its very definition does not exist.
Now, that said, there may indeed be a creator entity. No contradiction in the abstract notion of a deity who created everything. But when we move to a fully attributed god such as the Abrahamic God, the definition of said god proves that it does not exist as defined; it is self-refuting.
Not really. It's actually quite accurate, as you demonstrate here. The key is in the highlighted portion of your statement. As I have asked you before, what would such evidence look like? For all you know, the only reason the universe exists and anything happens the way it does from one moment to the next is that God wills it to. Yet, while giving a nod to what's "possible", you just go right back to materialist standard of, "based on the evidence". In other words, you keep going back to what you claim is a lack of evidence without knowing what evidence would look like. Kind of circular, don't you think?
So basically, because there is no currently known way to evidence the supernatural, you deem it 'circular' when a person notes that they are not convinced the supernatural exists due to a lack of evidence.
Again, given you admit that there is no evidence, what convinces you that the supernatural exists?
See, my position is that supernatural (defined as the realm of God), has no persuasive argument of its existence. I do not declare that it therefore does not exist. Rather I do what is rational and hold that I am simply not yet convinced that it exists. There is nothing circular about that.
This documentary chronicles the tongue-in-cheek religion of Pastafarianism, and the fact is they have exactly the same amount of supernatural evidence of their deity existing as any other religion on the planet, so this is really an expose on all religion. If people find this silly, then why aren't other religions seen in the same light?
Now there's the "TRUE" religion!
So ya got nothin'.
Explain that then to Ken Ham and his band of science spinners at Answers In Genesis. Explain that to the Discovery Institute and its Trojan Horse attempts to portray Intelligent Design as science as a counter to bio-chemical evolution.
It is organizations like these which support the observation of religion vs. science. There are, however, organizations like biologos which tries to explain religion in terms of non-compromised science. The good guys.
No group of people are homogenous. There exists a range in any of them. The same thing can be said of atheists. From what I've read, quite a few scientists who are also atheists wish Dawkins would stop talking. The point is that Gordy's generalizations are pretty useless for a serious discussion, given that they're mostly just popular stereotypes. It actually just comes across as if he needed to feel superior and was looking for an echo chamber to make that happen.
I did not claim that. My point was that the battle is not between everyday religious people vs. everyday scientists. The 'battle' is due to religious organizations misrepresenting science to preserve their religious views; not between atheists and theists ... the people themselves. If there were no organizations trying to discredit evolution (for example) then there would be no controversy. If there were no organizations trying to teach kids that the Earth is 6,000 years old and other notions that fly in the face of modern knowledge but rather simply taught kids morality, etc. there would be no battle between religion and science.
Note how you just went personal and derogatory against Gordy. And it flies in the fact of the evidence since Gordy is always out there in the public forum and certainly not someone who would need to hide in an echo chamber. Let's focus on the content, not the people.
Excuse me, TiG. My apologies. Apparently, only Gordy gets to be personal and derogatory.
Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one.
Not sure what you are referring to, but NOBODY should go personal and derogatory. It is one thing to state actual facts based on what an individual has expressed in comments. But to presume Gordy needs to feel superior and seeks an echo chamber to stroke his ego is simply uncalled for.
If that's what you really think, then why are you here?
Not at all. They are basic assessments and also observed in discussion or practice.
How about addressing the points made in the article rather than making things personal!
Specify precisely where I went personal or derogatory! If you think that's the case, then by all means point out and flag the offending statement!
So you don't think certain religious organizations have misrepresented science for their own agenda? Or that their views are just as valid as actual scientific views? A well known "battle" is the evolution vs creationism/ID debate, especially when it came to its introduction in schools. You disagree that wasn't
a religious organization attempting to misrepresent science or impose their own ideas in lieu of science?
Okay with me. My key focus, thus far, has been on the demonstrable fact that the God of the Bible, as defined in the Bible, is a contradiction and thus cannot exist as defined.
A sentient creator might exist (for all we know) but the God character defined in the Bible does not. Per @6.1
There's nothing derogatory in this statement:
That reads to me like an honest assessment of the thought process behind the seed. It's also an honest statement about a reaction to the seed. I think that's a legitimate approach and one worth considering. Furthermore, this analysis is supported by the rest of Drakkonis' observations.
Declaring it to be personal and derogatory - without more support - strikes me as an attempt to shame the speaker into silence. Perhaps that is because an uncomfortable truth has been revealed. Just because people see things differently than you, that does not mean they are trying to be disrespectful.
Then that assessment is wrong!
What reaction? People can reply as they please (within CoC boundaries of course).
And his observations have been refuted.
Claiming I an trying to feel superior or looking for an echo chamber is making the discussion personal. I am not the focus of the topic.
Then let's discuss the differences rationally and civilly.
See, I thought TiG was making an honest assessment too.
If I were to accuse you of engineering an echo chamber so that you could make yourself feel superior, you would not find that to be a derogatory personal comment?
You can then insult anyone and simply claim it is your 'honest assessment'.
And now you try to attack me personally ... suggesting that I am in some way trying to censor Drakk. Even when my comments show that I am posing challenges for him to address.
In my experience, the secular side of the argument tries to encourage thoughtful discourse and dissuade personal attacks, intellectual dishonesty and any other tactic that would deflect from the points of disagreement.
Note how this thoughtful article now has comments dealing with meta instead of the points Gordy made.
Yes-- and his name is Bill Maher! He just keeps hitting 'em out of the park!
Such as?
I presume you are referring to the supernatural? There is nothing to suggest there's anything outside the material universe as we experience it. The extraordinary claim is the one stating or even implying there is something outside the universe. That may even be the case. But there is no evidence to support it. So such a claim cannot be a declaration of truth.
So a claim of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity that exists (and presumably created the universe and everything in it) is not an extraordinary claim to you? What exactly qualifies as extraordinary to you?
What do you mean?
Actually, yes, that is impossible. That can be scientifically analyzed and scrutinized too as to why such an occurrence would be imposible.
You're starting from the assumption that there's a god and is actually capable of this.
A logical fallacy. One cannot prove the non-existence of something. Last I checked, no one has proven god exist (despite claims of certainty).
No, it's not. Even considering this story is true is the perfect example of how religion requires the suspension of critical and rational thinking.
No one ever said theists couldn't be intelligent or scientists and such. But scientists do not invoke god as a scientific explanation for something. They might believe god plays a part. But they seem able to keep religious beliefs separate from scientific inquiry. Dr. Francis Collins is an example of this.
I'm referring to those who reject what is known and evidenced in favor of dogma. Evolution vs creationism/ID is an example. Evolution is a perfect explanation for what we have observed and has objective, empirical evidence to back it. But some theists will outright reject evolution in favor of dogma and creationism, saying evolution is false or "pseudoscience perpetrated by godless scientists," or such things. To me, rejecting sound evidence and scientific principles in favor of one's own beliefs is quite irrational, especially when those beliefs are emotionally driven and lack any evidence.
Semantics.
The problem is it's used as a means of control and manipulation to coerce or force obedience. Such "consequences" cannot even be demonstrated but are imposed for even the most minor of infractions.
The point isn't about reward/punishment in life, but rather in an afterlife. And much of that punishment/reward system is based on adherence or obedience to its specific religion. We have Muslim suicide bombers killing "infidels" because they think they will be rewarded in the afterlife. So do you not see how utilizing such a system, which only takes effect after you die, is problematic?
Good and evil are not difficult concepts. But god essentially wanted to keep us ignorant. And religion tries to do the same thing to a certain extent. But knowledge in itself is not a bad thing and it is something we collectively try to acquire. Well, most of us anyway.
While god does nothing about it.
I've listened to him speak and read some of his works. He doesn't come off like that. He can be blunt in his assessment of religion and in challenges to religious claims. But he maintains a logical and rational composure.
I would disagree.
Young Earth Creationists certainly seem to have an issue with science, especially when it doesn't suit their narrative.
It's not about the interpretation. It's about the evidence. A proper scientist will follow the evidence to where it leads, not to where they want it to go. A theist might do the exact opposite: start with an assumption and make the evidence fit.
That is nothing more than a belief and unsupported assumption. Just replace "God" with fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes and it's no different.
Again, you're starting with the assumption that "god did it," when there is nothing to suggest that to be the case.
Again with the logical fallacy and baseless assumption. You can't prove that fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes didn't do it either. Neither can you prove that god did do it or anything else. You simply believe that god did. Belief does not equal fact!
Laws are simply explanations to actions or natural phenomenon that is observed. Asking why they exist is a philosophical question. Some people just like to invoke god as an easy answer.
Could be.
There are many things we still do not understand or that is unknown. But many invoke god as an explanation for something not known or understood. Instead of simply and honestly saying "we don't know," some will say "god did it" or "god works in mysterious ways," which are just intellectual cop-outs. For example, in scientific discussions, I've had theists (who believe god created the universe) ask what happened before the Big Bang or how did the Bang happen. They are quick to invoke god as the cause. It's an emotionally satisfying "god did it" explanation that requires no further thought and sufficiently addresses a mystery for them.
That's why we have to concepts of dark matter/energy. While we do not yet know what they are, we now they are there based on the math. But it's disingenuous to say or assume it's god in some capacity.
In other words, "god did it!" You pretty much prove my whole point.
The fact that we exist.
That we are intelligent beings.
That the universe appears to be fine tuned for life.
That we have a sense of morality.
To name a few.
No. I was referring to the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Basically, it's nonsense to anyone who doesn't hold to a materialist bias. The main reason it's nonsense is that they have no basis for determining whether or not a claim of God is extraordinary other than it doesn't fit within the unproven assumption that there is nothing beyond the material. Basically, it just rests on an individual's decision not to believe without materialistic, empirical proof, even though they can't define what that proof would look like or think of how to test it. So, really, what was done in order to avoid having to face the holes in their own logic they came up with something that sounded profound, like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", without any proof whatsoever that it was true, in order to avoid giving the issue any real thought.
That there is no God. That's certainly more extraordinary than saying there's no evidence of God. I think, since the overwhelming number of people throughout history have believed in God or god or gods in one way or another, most would not find a claim of God extraordinary.
What I mean is, a theist and an atheist can look at the same phenomena and say it is evidence for their position but neither can empirically prove their point. Fine tuning of the universe, for instance.
You're absolutely correct, as long as you stay within a materialist framework. But the moment one supposes God, you're wrong. It isn't impossible at all, unless you can prove otherwise.
To give you an illustration, imagine the game, "Call of Duty." The game, which is a program, represents the universe. It is not possible that the avatars will do anything outside what they are programmed to do from within the program, such as suddenly stop fighting to play a round of golf or wander off to get their nails done at a salon. However, the programmer can make those things happen.
Doesn't matter, since I was pointing out the flaws in your position, not trying to prove mine. I already know I can't prove it.
Context matters, you know. Unless one can prove God doesn't exist, God is certainly a possibility. Therefore, it is possible that someone could survive three days in a fish. In order for it not to be possible, one has to prove God, or something like Him, doesn't exist in order to remove the possibility.
You've left yourself with quite a problem. It seems reasonable to say that any critical or reasonable thinker would agree that a God capable of creating the universe we observe would certainly manage to keep someone alive for three days in the belly of a fish. In order to sustain a claim of suspending critical and rational thinking, you have to say there's no possibility that there's a God who could make such a thing possible. Now, you could say it, but can you prove it?
I think the best you can do is fall back on your materialism and simply insist that science doesn't allow it, which to me seems like a suspension of critical and rational thought. Certainly a refusal to think outside the box you've made for yourself.
Not as separate as you seem to think. Collins is like most Christians. Most Christians understand science pretty well. They know, had they the training, they could calculate the orbital flight path of a satellite without once invoking God, while at the same time, praising Him for the amazing system He set up that allowed us to make such calculations. I assure you Collins is no different. To put it another way, when Christians do science, they see it as a method of examining God's handiwork. Collins does, too. In that way, his science isn't different from his beliefs.
Pretty much all Christians are creationists. Not all of them are the kind you're thinking of. That is, while you might find various opinions of how God did it, pretty much all of them will tell you God created us and that it wasn't the random process atheists think it is. You can probably find Christians that say they believe in evolution easily enough but what they really mean is that evolution is how God created man. They don't mean what you do, a unguided, random process. All of them believe that God intended to create us.
Of course, you're mostly referring to the YEC types. While my personal opinion is that they are likely wrong, due to a too literal reading of the Bible, to definitively state that they are seems unwise to me. I say this because it seems to me in order to definitively state they are wrong is to attribute too much omniscience on ourselves. I generally go with the common scientific age of the universe and leave it at that, since I see no real practical point to the argument.
If one doesn't think about it, I suppose. If one does, one sees that the focus changes from external to internal. That is, reward and punishment is imposed from without. Consequences, while still usually externally applied, focuses on internal choices.
Not necessarily. Depends on your point of view, don't you think? It seems, from what you've written here, yours is not very rational, considering you describe our own societies to a large extent. Laws do exactly what you describe. They exist to coerce and force obedience. Of course there are significant differences between our societal systems and God's. For instance, ours coerces and forces way more than God does. Ours forces us to pay taxes, drive according to the laws of the road, demands we don't steal and so on and there's millions locked up or executed for disobedience. Whereas God's laws are constantly broken and usually nothing happens. In other words, you aren't forced to go to church, worship God, give to charity, love your enemies or any of those things. So I have to wonder what you feel has been imposed. I mean, if God were really what you describe, why are you still breathing? yeah, I know. He doesn't exist. Or, He's not what you think, maybe?
But perhaps you speak of Judgement Day. My guess your problem with that is you feel God, should He exist, has no right to judge you, especially in light of what you feel the Bible reveals about Him. Nothing I could say will change that for you. Mostly because I don't think that's the real issue for you (and all who feel as you do). I think the root of it is you don't want anyone to be god of your life but you. You don't want to give up the desires of your heart for what He wants for you. Just my opinion.
But speaking for myself, I don't see it the way you do. I don't believe God in order to avoid Hell. I don't see it as coercion, I see it as Him getting me to see the truth in the same manner any parent would their child. I see Him sparing no effort, not even His only Son in order to bring me into His kingdom. Why would a cruel, unjust God do that?
Yes, I see it as problematic, which is why Christianity is so obviously the true religion, because it isn't what you are describing here. No one can live a life good enough to get into heaven. You don't get there by good deeds.
In the Old Testament, when the Temple still existed, there was one day out of the whole year when the Chief Priest was allowed into the holiest part of the temple, where the ark of the covenant was kept. The process of purifying the Chief Priest took something like a week. There were special garments, rituals, cleansing baths and stuff I don't remember. Finally, on the seventh day, the priest was finally ready to stand before God in the holy of holies.
There was a prophet who God gave a vision to of that day. He was standing in the holy of holies when the chief priest came in to offer the sacrifice. What God showed the prophet is what God saw. What he saw was the priest, who'd spent the whole week being purified for this moment, covered in feces from head to toe. All that effort, all the rituals and purification and he still looked like filth in his sin. That's how He sees all of us in our sin.
Now, I'm really not trying to proselytize here. There's a point I want to make and if you bear with me, I'll get to it. But, from God's point of view, we are all evil all the time. All we can think about is doing more evil all the time. This is in contrast of how we think of ourselves most times. We compare ourselves to others in order to feel good about ourselves. We think some variation of, well, at least I'm no Jeffrey Dahmer. But we're so used to being what we are, we can't even begin to understand how God sees us or what's really so bad about us anyway?
So, the point is, if we're really that bad in God's eyes and He's what you think He is, why are any of us still alive? Not only are we not good enough to merit heaven, we can't even begin to think of how to attempt to be. So, doing good deeds counts for nothing because we aren't even doing them for the right reasons. Even our good deeds are contaminated by the filth of the sin we can't escape because it's literally a part of us.
And, most importantly by an infinite amount, why would a cruel, unfair God come and die for our sins? To make it as if they had never been? Why would He do that for a creation that manifestly doesn't deserve it if He were so cruel? For free! He tells us we live in darkness, meaning we can't see the truth of our situation, and promises He will bring us into the light if only we will believe in what His Son did for us. Not, if you believe in my Son and do the right things.
No other religion is like it. In Christianity, God does it for you. In all others, you have to earn it. Doesn't that make more sense? The One who created you is the one who does the work of making you clean?
So, in the end, it's really one's own choice. The consequence. Each makes their own choice as to where they end up. After all, considering what you feel about my God, you wouldn't want to spend eternity with Him.
Seriously? Then why is there such a fight over abortion? Why is there so much discord throughout all of human history? Why is it, with all of our effort, every society falls apart eventually? How is it we fight so much about what is right and what is wrong?
What is your basis for saying so? God said do not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't say we'd never acquire the knowledge. It may be that God would have eventually brought us to the point where we could have handled the knowledge without sinning. And there's not one thing in the Bible that suggests scientific knowledge was taboo. The opposite, actually. God wants us to see the work of His hand. The first thing He did was show all the animals He created to Adam to see what he would name them. God not only wanted him to know but to participate by naming them.
No, it's not, and God has no problem with it.
Untrue. He made you and I. We have agency, if we choose to use it. Most do, one way or another. Some for Him, some against.
That's all I have time for tonight. Probably won't hear from me for a few days, if at all. My weekend is only 21 hours long and then back to work. But, if it isn't clear by now, I don't think your article was very thoughtful. I think you treated the subjects shallowly, which I find ironic, since you claim religion cuts off critical and rational thought. As far as I can see, such a claim is just shorthand for "there's no empirical evidence". Your criticism of religion was pretty harsh and demeaning, so I have not felt the need to restrain my criticisms of your arguments. While you may think I'm being personal, I feel I'm only responding in the tone you set.
None of these are evidence of God (especially the Christian God).
Our existence does not point us to the answer for how we came to be. It is evidence that a complex life form is possible. Science has given us a major hint as to how we came about via biochemical evolution, but we still do not know the origin of the first cell. That lack of information does not point to God; it is simply 'we do not yet know'.
Our intelligence shows that it is possible for intelligent beings to exist. It gives no clue as to the origin. (see above)
Science has learned about the many factors of physics that all work together to allow a universe such as ours to exist. Consider each of these factors to be a dial that can be set to a range of values. Given these factors, it is estimated that there are 10500 possible universes that could result if one enumerates all the various settings for all these dials. That is a staggering number. The odds of any one particular universe resulting given these possibilities is 1 in 10500 and thus extremely, extremely rare.
Theists claim that this means that some sentient intelligence of immense power set these dials at the extremely precise settings to allow carbon-based beings to exist on Earth. Yet they fail to recognize that if those dials were set at different values, there might be silicon-based beings in awe that the dials of the universe were finely-tuned just for them.
In short, this universe is likely the only one where we would exist. The odds of our universe existing are the same for any other universe. But one universe did have to emerge (the dials had to be on some setting). It just so happens that we won the lottery and can now kid ourselves that all of this was done just so that we could exist. I am afraid there is zero evidence supporting that hypothesis.
see TiG @5.1.5
My answer also explains why we can observe relative morality; why different cultures have different mores & values and why cultures at different times in history have different mores & values.
Is not proof of anything other than that we exist. It's not like we're "special" or anything.
We evolved into intelligent beings through our neurological evolution and development.
Are you kidding? The universe is quite hostile towards some life, especially human life: extreme heat, cold, radiation, ect.. However, life is composed of the most common elements in the universe. The human body itself is composed of about 60% water. So we're mostly made of hydrogen (the most common element in the universe), oxygen, carbon, and other common elements. All the ingredients to make life is there in the universe, so it's not surprising there's life in the universe.
A social development and one that differs among various cultures.
Not at all. But take away "extraordinary" then. Same thing. A claim requires evidence. But the more outrageous the claim, the less plausible it seems unless there is evidence.
Saying there is something beyond material is the assumption. But there is no evidence to substantiate that claim.
Extraordinary claims is what brings the challenge for proof (or evidence).
There is no evidence to suggest there is a god. Of course there could be a god. But until empirical evidence is presented, then there is no reason to assume, much less be convinced there is a god. However, claiming that there is/is not a god with certainty is a logically indefensible position.
No evidence of god is accurate. Any non-objective or empirical "evidence" you give for a god can be applied to anything else, like fairies, leprechauns, or gnomes. To use your first example, "The fact that we exist," is one piece of "evidence" you present to show there's a god. Now just replace god with magical fairies. Do you see how the validity of your "evidence" falls apart? So, "the fact that we exist" is evidence for magical fairies. That statement is just as valid as claiming it's evidence for god.
An argumentum ad populum fallacy. Just because many people believe in a god doesn't make the claim of god existing true. Belief does not equal fact. That's why we need to go by empirical evidence.
Again, replace "God" with magical fairies. Sure, wave a magic wand and anything is possible. But that is also irrational thinking. You're starting with an assumption and trying to make the scenario fit your assumption. If you're going to claim a guy can live inside a fish for several days because of god, then the onus of proof (or evidence to support the claim) is on you. It is not for me to disprove your claim.
A rather poor analogy. The video game world and the real world are two different things. And once the program is complete, it cannot be altered without significantly altering the game itself.
At least you admit you can't prove your claims. But if you can't prove it (or provide evidence), then your claims lack validity and there's no reason to accept them at face value. My position is challenging such claims and requiring evidence, which is the honest position to take.
Of course there could be a god. But since there's no evidence, nor any evidence of anyone surviving living in a fish, there's no reason to assume there is one.
First you have to define god and what this god is actually capable of. Then you have to prove that such a god exists. Magical fairies could probably keep someone alive in a fish for 3 days too, right?
Present the evidence then. Because beyond that, anything else is just a fanciful story and nothing more.
Dr. Collins does not put forth god in his work as an explanation. He personally might see what he views as "god's handiwork." But from a scientific standpoint, he relies on evidence.
You have your Young Earth Creationists and your Old Earth Creationists.
Key word there is "believe," as that's all that it is. But a cursory look at evolution and the fossil record, among other things, will show that evolution is not a guided process.
And YEC's would think you or anyone else who doesn't share their beliefs are also wrong. This demonstrates the point in the article about religion claiming to have "truth" on a subject, even though it offers nothing of substance outside of mere belief.
Still semantics. Reward/Punishment. Positive/negative consequences. Take your pick.
Which kind of diminishes the likelihood of a god existing.
It's not about what I feel. I alluded in the article that some religions have historically imposed coercion methods and punishments like torture and such for those breaking religion's tenets or beliefs. Essentially, force compliance with the religion or else. The idea of an afterlife reward/punishment system is the same thing.
I'm speaking within the context of religion, not society itself.
No.
That's an arrogant statement to make. And one which many religions make too. That also proves the point about religion claiming to have "truth," in that they claim their religion s the "true" or correct religion. Such a declaration is quite pompous too and also causes divisiveness among religions.
Why would a supposedly omnipotent god need to die (require a blood sacrifice) for our sins in the first place. That makes no sense. An all powerful god could simply absolve sin with a wave of his hand. Of course, sin is just a religious concept anyway.
No.
If there were a god, there would be no such thing as choice.
I haven't said anything about how I feel about your god. Otherwise, your statement is just an appeal to emotion.
In a nutshell, humans are emotional, irrational idiots. Much of that discord is also the result of religious strife.
God wanted to keep knowledge away from us, correct? Depending on the belief system, some think is only good/evil. Others believe it is all knowledge. It also implies knowledge is bad and something to be avoided.
Naming an animal is far different than actually knowing anything about them.
That's nice. Prove it! Otherwise, that's just another baseless religious claim and platitude.
Not at all.
I always find it somewhat humorous when believers claim that our existence and apparent complexity somehow requires and/or proves the existence of a being trillions of times more complex by any standard. It's complete loony tunes logic.
The belief in a God is not extraordinary, but the claim that a particular God exists is quite extraordinary. This is a claim, at least for Christians, that there is a sentient entity of unlimited power (omnipotence) and unlimited knowledge (omniscience) that has always existed (eternal) and is perfect and is the very definition of good and loving (omnibenevolent). And this entity has engaged in many interactions with ancient human beings with all sorts of contradictions to its definition such as being surprised or learning (non omniscience), killing everyone other than Noah and family (non omnibenevolence).
The Christian God, with all the specifics of the character, has no supporting evidence. The claim of such a grand entity demands grand evidence yet, in thousands of years, we have nothing other than human beings insisting it is so.
And when one raises this very point it is ignored.
I find it funny that Dr. William Lane Craig, probably the best theist debater today, makes the teleological argument which posits that the presence of apparent design means there must be a designer. Yet he does not acknowledge that this means the designer would necessarily have a designer, ad infinitum. He just glosses over that glaring failure of logic.
I find that most religious zealots out trying to convince everyone that their brand of religion is the "true" religion are much like slight-of-hand magicians. They keep their followers attention off of the glaring hole in their act by exaggerated hand movements in the opposite direction of where you should be looking. The get their followers focused on a single point like describing all the complexities of a human, the eye, the hand, the brain, the "odds", and then magically, their followers completely avoid looking up at the giant flaw in their logic after they've made the giant leap to God and then the ridiculous additional leap to "Abrahamic/Hebrew God of the bible...".
I have time to respond to this. Gordy makes the same statement. The reason your statements are in error is that they are stated definitively. That is, stated as fact. A factual statement would read "I do not consider any of these as evidence of God." I certainly consider them evidence, as do many others.
Nope. To be evidence, an observation must lead to the hypothesis. There is nothing in your list of evidences that designate God. I will illustrate this with examples:
Where does this show that we were created by the Christian God? Our existence could just as easily be used, per your logic, to be evidence that ancient aliens seeded Earth with creatures that evolved into homo sapiens. It could just as easily be used to be evidence that we are in a Matrix-style simulation. You are extrapolating well beyond the evidence and my examples illustrate how that can lead one almost anywhere.
How does intelligence determine a necessary Christian God? What if we were created by Brahma? What if intelligence is simply an emergent property of evolution? What if intelligence, as we see it, is just a tiny little blip difference between us and other Earth creatures and is largely insignificant when compared to the intelligence that is truly possible? That is, what if our intelligence is not actually much of a significant difference from apes and that we are downright stupid when compared to the intelligence that is possible?
The appearance of fine-tuning, as I explained, is just that. What if we just happened to be the lucky universe that emerged? One had to emerge and be the lucky one and those creatures (if they exist) would argue that the universe was fine-tuned just for them.
Why must there be a god to have a sense of morality? Especially since the morality seems to differ per culture. Further, deeming the Christian God to be the source of objective morality when one observes what this character does in the Bible (prime example, never condemning as immoral the owning of slaves) seems to be an incredibly weak argument.
I understand that you consider these to be evidences of the Christian God. But that is simply you making an unsupported statement. You have yet to show how these observations lead to the Christian God and not to other (more plausible and evidenced) explanations.
It is akin to ancient men looking up at the sky and surmising the sun and moon orbit the Earth which serves as the center of the universe. Just because someone can dream up an explanation for observation does not mean the observation is evidence of the explanation. Darwin's explanation for the origin of species was not found to be persuasive until corroborating evidence showed it to be credible and nowadays the level of multidisciplinary evidence finds it to be near certainty.
That is highly subjective, which isn't really evidence. It's more personal opinion. Actual evidence should be objective and empirical and supported by more than mere assumption.
Most religions probably think their religion is the "true" religion. Christianity is a perfect example. The claim has been made here that "Christianity is so obviously the true religion."
In other words, "god did it" and just go with that. Many religions resort to that tactic as well and declare it "truth," which touches on the points made in the article.
Nope?
To be evidence in this case, it just has to be evidence. We exist. The universe exists. We have a sense of morality. We have intelligence.
There is no incongruity in presenting God as the hypothesis concerning these things. Why the universe is as it is. Why we have a sense of morality. Why we have intelligence. Other things that can be added to the list.
All you’ve done with your illustrations is point out that you can produce your own hypothesis as well. None of which has any more empirical evidence to support them than mine does.
Further, these are just examples of physical, natural phenomena which are but a part of the list of evidence, some of which comes from other sources. Subjective experience, including my relationship with God, observations of humanity and reason to name a few.
But really, it doesn’t matter. It is not as if it is necessary to satisfy the criteria you seem to think is needed for one’s belief in God to be valid. What’s important is that I consider them evidence.
That's just making evidence fit your own conclusions.
That's already been addressed and see previous statement.
Subjective experience is just that, subjective and anecdotal and is not really evidence. It is considered the lowest form of evidence. It amounts to little more than an explanation for something being "because I said so."
It matters when one tries to posit their beliefs as fact.
Again, subjective and probably emotionally based.
You focus on the one word? I would ask you to take the following as a summary followed immediately by an explanation.
You could not possibly have missed that.
Evidence of what? The what is the hypothesis. When you fill in the what, then my opening comment notes that the what must be logically determined by the evidence.
Those are all facts. What do these facts evidence? The what is critical in order to determine if these facts are evidence of this what.
How does the fact that we exist, for example, serve as evidence of God? The fact that we exist does not even serve as evidence that we were created. But you take this fact and deem it evidence that:
Yet the fact that we exist is evidence only that the conditions of our environment allow for us to come into existence and live. Let me illustrate this with counter-examples:
Instead of being created by a sentient entity, we might have simply emerged over time (biochemical evolution). If we were created, there is nothing that identifies the supreme entity as the creator; we might have been created by an advanced alien force. And there is nothing in our existence that determines that a supreme entity even exists or that the supreme entity is singular (just one supreme). And clearly sans a singular supreme entity there is nothing in the fact of our existence that identifies this particular supreme entity as the highly attributed Christian God.
The fact of our existence does not, in any way, provide evidence for the Christian God. A fact is not evidence simply because it is compatible with an hypothesis. If that were so, then a fact such as our existence would be deemed evidence for any number of hypotheses such as the existence of an alien species of enormous power who seed planets with (to them) exotic life forms and then later come back and harvest from these planets. To be evidence of the Christian God, your facts need to logically determine your hypothesis ... not merely be compatible with a broad range of hypotheses.
I could do this same exercise for each item you mention but this really should be enough to be clear.
To you and Gordy.
No, I didn't miss it. That's why I provided the actual meaning of "hypothesis" rather than what you posted. Since what I've said quite satisfies what constitutes an hypothesis, I have to wonder what your problem is. Maybe you missed that? So that you don't have to scroll up, I'll post it again.
So, I'm sure you read this but you seem to ignore it and, instead, are trying to impose your own definition. Curious.
But a fact is very much evidence if it is compatible with an hypothesis. We exist. That is a fact. The hypothesis answers the question "why", at which the fact becomes evidence. The evidence that we exist is pretty well established with the exception of certain philosophical viewpoints. The hypothesis is the explanation as to why. So, what exactly is your problem? As far as I can tell, you seem to confuse "hypothesis" with "theory" and "evidence" with "proof".
But again, why does this matter? It is not as if it is necessary to satisfy the criteria you seem to think is needed for one’s belief in God to be valid. What’s important is that I consider them evidence in a chain of evidence that leads me to conclude God. Is there a problem with that?
I explained and gave examples as to why that is not the case.
You offer the fact that we exist. I agree with your fact. Now, what does our existence evidence?
What if I were to immediately tell you that our existence is evidence that we came from the actions of alien species of enormous power who seed planets with (to them) exotic life forms and then later come back and harvest from these planets?
Would you say: 'sure, our existence is evidence of your hypothesis'? The fact 'is compatible with' with my hypothesis so it is evidence of my hypothesis, right?
[deleted] [Criticize the content rather than make things personal]
Yes, that is a fact. How is that evidence for a god?
It's not about what one believes. It's about what one can demonstrate through evidence.
Yes! It is only your own belief and subjective and anecdotal at that. It is not quality enough evidence to establish an assertion as actual fact.
I think I will address another example, the above fact that the universe exists. You suggest that this is evidence that the Christian God exists because it is compatible with that hypothesis.
I offer to you an hypothesis that our universe is actually a particle in a meta-universe; that we are just raw material for a far grander existence. Is the fact that our universe exists evidence of my hypothesis? It is certainly compatible with my hypothesis.
The fact that our universe exists could also, by that reasoning, be evidence that our universe goes through a cycle of emergence, formation, degradation and eventual death (only to re-emerge from a singularity). The fact of our universe existing is compatible with the hypothesis.
This fact is also compatible with the hypothesis that our universe is actually a holographic projection - a grand illusion.
I can keep going but this should illustrate that simply because a fact is compatible with an hypothesis does not mean it evidences said hypothesis.
Well said Sparty!
[deleted]
[deleted]
I agree with your summation of the definition of hypothesis. However, a hypothesis must be testable to ascertain evidence. Your hypothesis is not testable; therefore can never be more than a theory / idea / belief.
"A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories."
Thank you. I honestly don't understand why TiG has a problem with this.
You are correct. I would not normally speak of this in those terms for that reason. I was trying to point out that it actually does fit as a hypothesis, since TiG put it in those terms.
Probably more accurate to say it is unlikely to be more than those things through the scientific method. There's always the possibility that, were we smarter, the evidence and method to test is just staring us in the face but we don't see it. I think that's unlikely for various reasons, but I don't think it can be ruled out.
And, of course, if we Christians are right, it will be more than those things one day.
Thanks for your comment.
I don't; I did not raise a problem with your definition of hypothesis. My focus was on the concept of evidence.
Okay, how much evidence is needed for a hypothesis and what kind does it have to be?
Must be able to test the theory for our analytical minds to be satisfied. There are no tests that us as human beings can create to unequivocally determine that there is or is not a God and how said God operates.
I might ask someone religious, how they have come to be religious and deem that they believe that there is a God? That is a discussion about faith rather than proof of something, however.
More or less correct. An informed Christian is likely to say it's based on a number of things, such as historical evidence, information from the physical world, a few of which I already mentioned. Does the Bible accurately reflect the human condition and explain why we are the way we are. Things like that. Most importantly, hearing His call and accepting the relationship.
I think what disturbs atheists most about all that is that faith is the key. They seem to hate things they have to take on faith, even though a lot of their position is based on faith. (Don't tell them I said that : ) It's not the kind of faith one might have that there is other life out there on other planets. It doesn't really affect anything believing something like that. It's nice to think about but it doesn't really change one's life (although it might if we actually found some). I can't really describe it. It's not really a feeling, although those can be involved. It's like a more or less constant awareness that He's there but nothing overt. But you can lose that awareness if you stop paying attention to Him. He normally doesn't force it, although He knocks me up side the head now and again when I do. Usually it isn't necessary because life doesn't feel as good when I'm not paying attention, if that makes any sense.
As far as proof goes, I think the proof is meant to be in the eating, if you know what I mean. But, obviously, it's only proof to the individual. That is, the individual is convinced based on the evidence they encounter, even though it may only be subjective. But that it's subjective doesn't make it any less true. Sure, I may be deceived, but I'm convinced I'm not. And considering what is in store for me if I'm not deceived, well, I think it would be stupid to reject what I am convinced is true just because I can't empirically prove it. Does that make sense?
Not at all. Atheists are simply not convinced on what is claimed or believed on faith. Most probably want empirical evidence.
That's not an issue of faith. That's an issue of mathematics and probability to establish a degree of certainty.
Sounds more like a state of mind. Kind of a mind over matter thing. And probably more pronounced of one has already been convinced or convinces themselves it's there.
No, not really.
Subjective and anecdotal, which is the lowest form of "proof" or evidence. It's more emotionally based rather than objectively demonstrable.
It doesn't make it actually true either. Basically, it's a "lucky guess" if it turns out to be actually true.
That only further brings the veracity of the belief or claim into doubt.
That's essentially a Pascal's Wager, which is a flawed argument and logical fallacy. And do you not see that you bring your credibility into question when you even admit you could be deceived. Just because you've convinced yourself you're not deceived doesn't mean you're not. It just means you've only convinced yourself (essentially creating your own reality in your mind) of something, but no one else. Also, by convincing yourself you're not deceived means you are less likely to be on alert for signs that you might be.
I spent a lot of time @6.4.14 @6.4.16 and @6.4.19 addressing what constitutes evidence for an hypothesis. Maybe it would be more effective if you explained why my answers did not answer this question.
( Also, I think the question is poorly conceived; it is not a question of 'how much' but rather a question of correctness by virtue of the quality of demonstration provided by the evidence and supporting reasoning. This is why falsifiability and prediction are such important factors.)
The words 'disturbs' and 'hate' presumes emotions that I do not think are there for the average agnostic atheist. We object to the notion that truth can come from faith and the notion that religious faith is even a good thing. Instead, we would argue that if one is truly trying to approach truth, simply accepting what another human being claims as truth is vastly inferior to being convinced based on solid evidence and reasoning. The former is truth by declaration of an authority whereas the latter is truth by demonstration. (In both cases, however, objective truth is never known to be realized. We never truly know if we are 100% correct.)
It is simply wrong to think that skeptics (to be a bit more general) hold something as true based solely on faith. Most skeptics, for example, could be said to have faith in the scientific method. But that faith is more like 'trust based on demonstrated good results' and is very much not 'belief that the scientific method always produces truth'. If the scientific method did not work as well as it does (demonstrably) then it would not have as much acceptance. Religious faith, again and in contrast, is simply acceptance as truth based on the words of a religious authority.
I understand that very religious people think their belief has a spiritual foundation and that this foundation is something they can sense and thus is real to them. This foundation (by any number of names) is their evidence. This is, I am convinced, what causes one to admit upfront that they will not be able to convince another person, but that they know their beliefs are real.
Because none of the definitions of hypothesis supports what you said.
Some examples of hypotheses
If you will notice, there doesn't seem to be any concern with "evidence" in the formulation of a hypothesis. So...
These are both hypotheses and both are likely untestable at our current level of tech and knowledge.
No wonder, seems to me that you have flipped the question from evidence to hypothesis.
Let's reset back to what we were discussing and let me demonstrate (provide evidence) to back up my hypothesis (above).
You are talking about evidence in support of an hypothesis that God exists. You claim there is plenty of this evidence. The focus is on the evidence.
Here you answer Gordy's question by delivering what you consider to be evidence that argues for the existence of God. Seeing this (and disagreeing with you) I offer this:
Your response @6.4.8 (below) was odd in that it simply claims that all my statements are in error. I would have expected you to not make such a categorical declaration and actually quote each error and note why it is an error. The factual statements in my post certainly seem like facts to me. For example:
First sentence argues that our existence (in and of itself) does not offer any explanation for how we came to be. My second sentence (fact) is that our existence shows that a complex life form is possible. This is a fact by definition.
My reply to the above odd statement was:
Note, we are still talking about evidence. We are discussing what it means to have evidence that argues for the existence of God. This post now illustrates how your four examples are not evidence that argues for the existence of God. I went into a paragraph of detail for each of your four examples. Again, we are talking about evidence of God (not debating the meaning of the word hypothesis).
Your reply was:
This is circular and offers no defining characteristics for evidence.
Here you prove to me that you did not understand my point. You are claiming God as the ('the') hypothesis resulting from this evidence but have not shown how the facts you stated determine the hypothesis that God exists. Further you missed the point that the hypotheses that I presented are illustrating how the evidence you supplied can support all sorts of hypotheses. And note again, we are talking about evidence of God; evidence is the focus. Thus I replied with further detail to try to better make my point:
The bullets expose the leaps one must make to go from 'we exist' to 'we were created by the Christian God'. Next I show, with examples, how the very same evidence can produce all sorts of hypotheses. Your evidence is not evidence that God exists but rather facts that are merely consistent with your hypothesis.
Now here is where you shift gears from evidence of God to the definition of hypothesis:
In context of our greater discussion I will offer that my problem is that we were talking about what constitutes evidence that argues for the existence of God. We were not debating the meaning of the word 'hypothesis'; that is not relevant to the discussion.
Next you offer this:
Okay so now we are back to evidence. Here you state that evidence would be a fact that is compatible with an hypothesis. My next post explains why the mere notion of compatibility does not work:
I appended this ...
Notice that this is all about what would be evidence of God. You offer facts that you view as evidence that God exists because the fact is compatible with the hypothesis that God exists. Yet I illustrate that the very same facts can, when compatibility is your criteria, be deemed evidence of many other contradictory hypotheses.
I would have expected you to acknowledge my point (at least). And if you still did not agree, I would have expected you to show how my examples are wrong and thus show how compatibility alone is sufficient to deem a fact as evidence for an hypothesis.
I am surprised, I admit, that you instead focused on the definition of hypothesis when all along we are discussing evidence for the existence of God. How you wish to define hypothesis does not really matter. If you do not want to use the term 'hypothesis' then use something like 'speculation' or whatever you prefer.
Since my prior post was unfortunately lengthy do to the fact that I provided our historical quotes to prove a point, let me summarize my essential (most recent) point to you:
If our existence can be considered evidence for the existence of the Christian God simply because it is compatible with that idea then our existence can also be considered evidence for the existence of an alien super-power that seeds planets with living creatures who will produce goods that the aliens will later return to harvest.
Both ideas are compatible with the fact that we exist. But my illustration shows that the fact of our existence can lead to any number of compatible but entirely contradictory ideas. To be evidence, a fact must determine the idea for which it is considered evidence. A fact that is compatible with, say, 100 various ideas is not evidence for any of them.
To wit, given we exist, that fact is evidence (based on compatibility) that:
Clearly something is wrong here. Compatibility is not a determining factor.
Um, no. I'm sorry but it seems all this is because you misunderstood what I said to begin with.
I'm not trying to sound condescending but Materialist is in there for a reason. It isn't superfluous. If one doesn't limit evidence to what materialists consider evidence there's actually plenty of evidence for God. Put another way, there's no reason to limit what is considered evidence to what materialists limit it to. The only reason to do so if if you believe what materialists believe. That there is nothing beyond nature unless there is empirical evidence of it, or however you would prefer to word it.
I am obviously not a materialist. I believe there is the supernatural. Since I believe this, there's no reason to limit myself to a materialist's constraints concerning what constitutes evidence concerning God. It seems axiomatic that if science has no method of addressing God, then some other method must be used. I'm pretty sure you know this about me by now, so I assumed you understood the statement.
Also, this relates to the reason for saying the argument is circular because atheists will agree all day long that science can't address the question of God but whenever anyone tries to talk about God they ask for empirical scientific evidence.
It appears to me that you didn't get past " There is plenty of evidence that argues for the existence of God " and so the " without materialist assumptions " seems to have not even registered on your radar. Perhaps I should have put it a different way.
I can see why it seemed odd, considering you misunderstood the very first statement. Perhaps the statement...
... makes more sense now? From my perspective, you've been trying to argue what constitutes evidence (according to your system), not realizing that I've been telling you I don't limit myself to that system when it comes to God, but apparently you didn't hear it and I didn't realize you didn't. I thought I was making it plain, like when I said " I certainly consider them evidence , as do many others. " and...
... and...
But what really confused the conversation for me was...
First, because this isn't true and, second, why did we need to talk about hypotheses? From there, it devolved into an argument about what constitutes a hypothesis and, here we are.
Drakk, you posited materialist examples as evidence of God:
Do you hold your examples
to be evidence of God or not? If so then your materialist point is not relevant and we just go by your examples. And, as I noted, if you think our existence is evidence of the Christian God then explain how it is not also evidence of Zeus?
Looks like you want to reset your argument to one which posits that the evidence for God is supernatural .
Your examples then totally misrepresented your point; you should have never provided physical examples of evidence for the existence of God but rather just admitted that it is all 'supernatural'. I would ask that you not pretend that I misunderstood your posts and your examples and just candidly withdraw your examples citing them as misleading to your actual point.
It is absolutely true. I illustrated that. If our existence is evidence of God because it is compatible with the belief then it is also evidence of Zeus and alien seeders. Note that I have repeated this argument several times now and you have ignored it throughout.
You are exactly right. This is completely true, to the best of what I know and understand. No argument whatsoever. I would word it differently, but I get what you're saying. There is only one problem with it, from my point of view. Hopefully I can put it into words. It's not going to have anything to do with what constitutes evidence or what's compatible. Hopefully, by the time you read this you will have read my previous post and that's settled. Instead, I want to talk about what is important about the quote above.
I've read a lot of science fiction. A lot. I've read a lot of interesting ideas in them about "why" or "how". Stuff that was totally out there and stuff that seemed really plausible. I also love science. I've read about a lot of interesting things and ideas and I'm always amazed at how much we've discovered, how we discovered it and how much we still have to discover.
Then there's history. So much of it. So many things have happened. So much before we were even here. Then once we were. Generation after generation. So many great things and so much horror. Trillions of little moments throughout our history that lead one thing to another until we have today.
And then there's just existing, moment by moment. To stand there and marvel at the life that is a tree. The whole universe is busy spinning a way and that tree is there, in that place and that time, existing. Living. Trillions of living things that we're never going to know or see, but they're there. Or standing quietly off to the side and watch people interact, wondering if they're really aware of just what an amazing thing it is to be alive, existing in all of this at any given time.
I'm sure you've seen the movie "Contact" with Jody Foster? Remember the eternal pullback that was the beginning? What an amazing opening to a movie! It was one of the most amazing shots I've ever seen. The only way it could have been better was if it could have included all the things I'm trying to evoke here, and all of history everywhere at the same time. To get a sense of the stupendous scale that is everything. I'm sure I've failed miserably, because who could write something that encompasses something like that? But, hopefully you get it.
And now, we're almost to the point. The big questions are "Why?" and "How?" concerning all that I just put before you. You mentioned an alien super-power as an alternative hypothesis to God. It's possible. There's actually a lot of hypotheses out there, trying to answer those questions. Not just in science but in philosophy as well. Serious and silly ones. I'm sure you're aware.
And now, the point. Is there a purpose behind it all? If the answer is no, then none of this matters. It doesn't matter which hypothesis is true and which is false, unless you personally happen to care. All that has happened or will happen is just matter moving through time for no reason. No purpose. This conversation, and all others, are just filling time with no ultimate meaning. Our movement through time is just effort to make it as long and pleasant as possible, but no other meaning.
But! But if the answer is yes, there is a purpose, then everything matters. Which of the hypothesis is true truly matters. And here's the main portion of my point.
I have only x amount of years in which to decide which is the true hypothesis.
It is not simply an interesting question with which to keep my mind occupied. The answer really matters to me. Is there a supernatural God? So I have to, at some point, make a decision about what I think is true. How do I do that? Well, materialism, or naturalism, or scientism or anything on that side of the scale if you prefer, is a non-starter. The reason is because built into those systems is an arbitrary decision, before the question is even addressed, that only the natural exists. And the justification for this is that there's no natural, materialist way to examine it, so we'll just ignore it. That seems like a mechanic refusing to consider screwdrivers because all he has are wrenches. Those systems won't even allow you to address the question. That seems a bit insane to me.
So, some other way must be found. That requires expanding the definition of evidence a bit, it seems. Of course, you can strongly disagree, but it doesn't matter. You don't have to expand it if you don't want to but there's nothing preventing me for my purposes. I have evidence, even if it is subjective, that satisfies my criteria for believing in God. Millions of Christians will tell you the same.
Been up 29 hours now. Think I will go to bed. Goodnight.
I can't make any sense of this statement. You're going to have to expand it. Since materialism is an ideology, how are these things materialist examples?
I'll read your answer in the morning.
Believe is the operative word here. I too believe in the supernatural, but I cannot prove it [in any form] exists; therefore, I do not claim it as fact. I have several reasons for my beliefs, but again, because I cannot prove it with evidence, I cannot claim it as fact.
In the context of this conversation, belief = hypothesis.
That belief / hypothesis cannot be tested and therefore, cannot be claimed as a fact.
As I always say,people are entitled to their beliefs. But belief does not equal fact.
Agreed.
I read your entire post. This is the only part that continues our discussion so I am only commenting on it. Your entire post, however, is considered.
Implicitly expanding the definition of evidence makes it very difficult to have an effective discussion. All along I have interpreted the word 'evidence' as I always do, something like Oxford : " The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. " Thus I have repeatedly made the point that if one has evidence of a claimed truth, then it must determine the truth, not simply be compatible with it. I have, in result, countered your argument that compatibility was necessary and sufficient by pointing out that compatibility is necessary but not sufficient.
Now you explain that your definition of evidence is expanded (I take that to mean: subject to fewer constraints, less precise) than the conventional usage of the word (and certainly the usage that you know I always have in mind: formal scientific observation determining an hypothesis).
In short, we just walked the same old circle while singing a different song. I knew upfront that you do not have evidence that God exists because in all of history, nobody has delivered any evidence of the existence of any creator entity (much less the fully attributed Christian God). So when you claimed:
And Gordy asked you for examples, your list of examples (all material observations in reality) were ipso facto offered as actual evidence (common usage) that God exists.
What you were really trying to communicate is not evidence, but rather unexplained phenomena that makes you think that there must be a greater power; that there must be a sentient intelligence behind our reality.
Well, okay, nothing wrong with that in my book. I totally understand how one could look at our existence and marvel at the sheer complexity of our species (et. al.) and find that to be a sign of a designer (and that might be true too). I understand how the extremely specific nature of our universe would lead one to think that it was not just 1 out of 10 500 universes (each of which would be 'fine-tuned' too) but that our particular universe was chosen by a deity (and this might be true too). Finally I understand how you might think that the common morality (e.g. killing someone) suggests that we were created with this morality (as opposed to morality being an emergent property of biochemical evolution selected by societal change).
Thing is, this way of thinking only gets you to deism. While not evidence of a deity(ies), it is entirely understandable how one might think that a deity is more likely than not. So I think on this point we see eye-to-eye. And further, I see nothing wrong with this reasoning as long as one understands that it is merely reasoned speculation and that there are many other possibilities that are no less likely.
Here is where this breaks down for me: moving from deity speculation to evidence of the Christian God. The Christian God is so heavily attributed by the Bible and subsequent religious thinking, your approach of ' signs of a designer ' does not even get close to its definition. From the story of creation, Adam & Eve, Noah's flood and downward to the resurrection and all NT stories, there is nothing of evidence that indicates these to be more than the mere musings of ancient men with pens. And worse, the Bible contradicts itself and has produced a definition of God that is itself self-contradictory and thus cannot exist (as defined).
So while I understand and accept deistic speculation (as you have presented here), nothing in this thread (and in past discussions, IMO) resolves the self-contradiction and lack of supporting evidence (after thousands of years of people trying) of the Christian God.
Thus, why do you suppose people still believe the Christian God exists and follow the biblically based religious claims of said God rather than take a deistic approach and try to understand a deistic 'god' by contemplating what this god has ostensibly created? Why not hold that ' there must be something greater ' and marvel at the wonders of and within our universe (especially given the lens provided by modern science)? Why instead do people continue to have their speculative understanding of 'God' be the errant and self-contradictory claims conceived by ancient men? Why do some cling to the Bible even to the point of denying well-founded science (like evolution and genetics)?
We need to be careful of just what we mean when we say something like this. What you've said is both true and untrue, depending.
You can't demonstrate it as fact. But you certainly can claim it as fact. Of course you can, else you don't believe in what you say you do. I'm certain that you would not believe in something you didn't consider factual, would you?
The materialist (or perhaps empiricist would be a better word here, if there is a difference that matters) would have us believe that facts are only things that can be empirically demonstrated. They consider something like belief as something less. However, we all know that science has believed wrong conclusions in the past, even though they had empirical evidence to support the wrong conclusion. When more and better empirical evidence came along, the conclusion was demonstrated to be wrong. So, empirical evidence doesn't necessarily lead to fact, either.
The problem, and it is one factually, is that belief can mean "what a person desires to be true". It doesn't necessarily need to mean that, however. In the case of murder trials, factual evidence is used to determine the guilt or innocence of the individual. However, the verdict of the trial is a belief. One informed by the evidence.
In the same way, unless you believe in the supernatural simply because you like the idea, there are likely reasons, experiences and evidence that has lead you to that conclusion. Because of this, when you said "I too believe in the supernatural" you are communicating that what you believe is factual. That it is subjective doesn't make it invalid. It simply makes it harder to prove. And, also, easier to be wrong. But it most definitely does not mean it is not a fact simply because it is held by belief.
And, whether they understand or accept it, materialists or empiricists, do exactly the same thing. They may claim that their position is not one of belief but one of evidence of the facts (or whatever way they'd put it). Not subjective, in other words, but objective fact. But to a large degree, it is subjective interpretation of demonstrable fact. Whole swaths of scientific empiricists have believed in theories that turned out to be wrong. But, says the empiricist, that's the beauty of science. New information brings us closer to the empirical truth. True enough, but it doesn't change that it is simply belief in that new truth, because it may someday be shown to be wrong, too.
People like to say, "belief doesn't equal fact" and believe they've stated a fact, which is kind of funny when you think about it, because that is a belief. And untrue. The correct way to say what they are trying to say is "belief doesn't make something factual". A belief does equal fact if the belief is in something factual. And not all factual things can be proven empirically.
I believe in God. I try to live my life, in every moment, accordingly. That would probably not be the brightest thing I could do if I did not believe God was a fact. What point is there in your belief in the supernatural if you do not believe it is a fact?
I disagree. I'm about data, research, and experience; not experience alone to determine fact.
2+2=4
2+2 ≠ a belief of 5
I question my own beliefs all the time because I cannot provide the data to make it a fact. I cannot test my theories; therefore, they never go past the THEORETICAL state. I would never state, "It's a fact that my dead grandmother visited us frequently for about a year after her death." I might say, "I suspect and believe my grandmother frequently visited us about a year after her death, because I suddenly smelled her perfume in my son's room where there are no air fresheners." Those are two VERY different statements. I could never prove that my grandmother was here in spirit.
Give me an example of a fact that is known to be correct simply because people believe it is correct (and not due to empirical validation or logical deduction).
And by 'known to be' I am talking about a fact that has been verified via rigourous testing to be consistently true.
You word this as if you wish to connote that science is a belief system (or has a belief system as a component). That is simply wrong. And I am responding only because you are making a point about belief while conflating different usages of that word. For your sentence to be correct you must be using the usage of believe that means 'convinced by the evidence' (scientific) rather than 'accepted as true sans evidence' (religious). The word 'believe' in your sentence is very misleading.
Okay, but that's a bit vague. Was there something specific with which you disagreed?
This makes no sense. The criteria for the answer are mutually exclusive, aren't they?
I think you find it so because the word "belief" or "believe"" only has religious connotations for you. At least when speaking to me. I don't use the word that way. I mean it to mean what it has always meant.
Everything you think is true is an act of believing. If you are presented with evidence that the planets orbit the sun and that evidence convinces you, you believe the planets orbit the sun. It's that simple.
You say I am conflating different usages of that word. Can you give me an example?
Do you consider it possible to have a fact that is known to be true (as much as anyone can know something to be true) based solely on belief? That means no evidence, no deduction based on valid premises ... merely belief. Or are you simply trying to make the point that when someone believes something then it is a fact to them? (If so, my response is: of course, how is that relevant?) Or are you saying that one can believe something that could indeed wind up being a fact? (If so, my response is the same.)
In any case, since we have been talking about evidence for the existence of God, I naturally expect that any side-discussion on facts would be about known facts and not simply what might be factual.
There might be a creator entity. If so, then those who currently believe in a creator entity then would actually believe in a fact even though they do not, as of yet, have any way to actually know that their belief is true. And if there is no creator entity, those same people would believe in a falsehood but, similarly, they do not as of yet know that.
Belief, in and of itself, is thus immaterial to knowledge (and thus truth). The fact that someone believes something does not make it true (or false). It is simply a belief.
So when someone claims to have evidence for the existence of God (the context here), one will naturally expect that actual evidence will be offered. Offering a belief and arguing that the belief seems factual to the believer and might indeed be factual has no probative value. In result, no evidence has been offered.
Yes. I included it in my comment:
Those two usages have different meanings. The scientific meaning is similar to 'follow the evidence to where it leads' whereas the religious meaning is similar to 'I just believe it is true'.
You skipped over my entire comment @6.4.42. This part below (repeated) is something I was hoping you would opine on:
What you were really trying to communicate is not evidence, but rather unexplained phenomena that makes you think that there must be a greater power; that there must be a sentient intelligence behind our reality.
Well, okay, nothing wrong with that in my book. I totally understand how one could look at our existence and marvel at the sheer complexity of our species (et. al.) and find that to be a sign of a designer (and that might be true too). I understand how the extremely specific nature of our universe would lead one to think that it was not just 1 out of 10 500 universes (each of which would be 'fine-tuned' too) but that our particular universe was chosen by a deity (and this might be true too). Finally I understand how you might think that the common morality (e.g. killing someone) suggests that we were created with this morality (as opposed to morality being an emergent property of biochemical evolution selected by societal change).
Thing is, this way of thinking only gets you to deism. While not evidence of a deity(ies), it is entirely understandable how one might think that a deity is more likely than not. So I think on this point we see eye-to-eye. And further, I see nothing wrong with this reasoning as long as one understands that it is merely reasoned speculation and that there are many other possibilities that are no less likely.
Here is where this breaks down for me: moving from deity speculation to evidence of the Christian God. The Christian God is so heavily attributed by the Bible and subsequent religious thinking, your approach of ' signs of a designer ' does not even get close to its definition. From the story of creation, Adam & Eve, Noah's flood and downward to the resurrection and all NT stories, there is nothing of evidence that indicates these to be more than the mere musings of ancient men with pens. And worse, the Bible contradicts itself and has produced a definition of God that is itself self-contradictory and thus cannot exist (as defined).
So while I understand and accept deistic speculation (as you have presented here), nothing in this thread (and in past discussions, IMO) resolves the self-contradiction and lack of supporting evidence (after thousands of years of people trying) of the Christian God.
Thus, why do you suppose people still believe the Christian God exists and follow the biblically based religious claims of said God rather than take a deistic approach and try to understand a deistic 'god' by contemplating what this god has ostensibly created? Why not hold that ' there must be something greater ' and marvel at the wonders of and within our universe (especially given the lens provided by modern science)? Why instead do people continue to have their speculative understanding of 'God' be the errant and self-contradictory claims conceived by ancient men? Why do some cling to the Bible even to the point of denying well-founded science (like evolution and genetics)?
Yes, it's possible, but not very practical. For instance, one could believe, simply because they want to, that there are invisible unicorns running around the planet. It is possible that they are right. Not very likely in my opinion, but I can't prove they aren't.
Neither, although the second one may be true, obviously. What I am saying is, concerning God or the supernatural, one doesn't need to adhere to the empiricist's demand for empirical evidence, especially when such criteria cannot be applied, in order to make a decision about what they believe about it. Since this is so, if one is going to make an informed decision about such things, they must turn to means other than which provides empirical evidence.
Conversely, one can do what the empiricist does and not address the question at all unless there's empirical evidence that satisfies them. But this isn't very honest, really. It's just a decision to believe only what empirical evidence can address. However, there's no empirical evidence that such a belief is true. And really, that's all it is. A personal decision to believe only what can be empirically proven. There's no law that states one must do so.
Which brings us to this...
There are no different usages for "believe". When you believe something it is not somehow a different sort of believing than someone else. It is a verb that describes an act. To suggest otherwise is as ridiculous as saying there's the scientific walk and the religious walk.
And to suggest the "religious" meaning is similar to 'I just believe it is true' is probably the most ignorant thing I've ever seen from you, but typical. Thousands of books have been written explaining exactly why people believe in God but to the empiricist, every sentence in those books reads "There is no empirical evidence."
Lastly, science is not a religion, but there are those who treat it as such. Empiricists, for example.
That is not a fact that is known to be true.
Which would mean there is no evidence for the existence of God. One must change the meaning of the word 'evidence' to have 'evidence' for the existence of God.
Yes, people can believe whatever they want. Again, the context is 'evidence for the existence of God' yet we are left with 'people believe things and to them it is true'. I think we all knew that before this began.
Yes there most certainly are. If a scientist reviews Einstein's field equations for Relativity and the empirical trials that challenged that theory or verified a prediction (e.g. the bending of light by great gravity) then the scientist might quite appropriately state: I believe Relativity is correct. That belief is based on serious, formal scrutiny grounded in hard evidence (that which cannot be just invented by the scientist). It is equivalent to 'I have concluded based on the evidence and reasoning that ...'.
A religious person might believe that the Christian God exists — even in spite of the evidence to the contrary — simply because s/he has been told this is true and it 'feels right'. That is a belief lacking a foundation. Unlike the scientist who cannot simply invent evidence in support of an intended result, the religious person can indeed invent whatever s/he wishes in support of the desired belief that the stories told about God are indeed true.
Very different usages of the word 'believe'.
And now we see the predictable personal crap; and I thought maybe this time would be different.
In my years of discussing religion, one thing that has shown to recur is that in the end, the theist will resort to the equivalent of 'I just believe'. Maybe you do not see that, but I challenge you to explain your belief and not end up with the equivalent of 'I just believe it is true'. By the way the ending statement of: 'I just know I am right but I cannot explain it to you or you are too stupid to understand me' is a non-answer and suggests: 'I just believe it is true'.
Note: I am not claiming that all religious people have no arguments. Not even close to that. I am suggesting that when one challenges the arguments, the inevitable end result is equivalent to 'I just believe'.
I would very much like you to do better. If you can, please do.
No, one doesn't, and this is why I think it really isn't worth my time to continue this. The definition of evidence is...
There's nothing in that definition that insists that evidence must be empirically proven facts. It does not read...
I looked at several dictionary definitions (the one I posted happened to be the first one that came up). Not a one reads this way. Evidence is simply whatever one puts forward in order to support a claim.
You think it is I who is attempting to change the definition, but it isn't. It's you. Your definition is perfectly reasonable, required even, when conducting science. For everything else it is not required to be considered evidence. If you cannot recognize this, then there's no point in trying to have a conversation about it.
Perfect example. What's the point of arguing over this if we can't even agree on what constitutes evidence?
In short, what you did was claim evidence of God but you had your own special (undisclosed) meaning for the word 'evidence'. That is sophistry.
With such a loose reading, then literally anything can be considered evidence if one deems it such. Thus when you say you have evidence of God, you can play a game knowing that you can, when you paint yourself into a logical corner, pull out your Joker card and declare: 'it is evidence to me'. That is your choice, but note that you have then mislead me and others by not declaring upfront that evidence, as you use the term in debate, can be anything that you believe true.
Now, that said, my original point remains true. Our existence, as an example, has no probative value in this discussion. If our existence is 'evidence' for God, then it is also 'evidence' for Zeus or 'evidence' of magical congurings by hidden earthly wizards. To honestly answer Gordy's request to list the evidence for the Christian God, you would have to say that you just believe
As I noted, you know perfectly well that Gordy was asking you for actual evidence for the Christian God where evidence if formal akin to that required by the scientific method. In the past, we have made this clear to you repeatedly. Given our history there is absolutely no way you did not know this. Yet you chose to play a game where you use the word 'evidence' but hold (privately) a loose definition that amounts to 'whatever I believe is evidence'.
I think I just made it clear that I have no interest in discussing this with you at this point. Given your intentional loose definition of evidence it is clear that you do not, indeed, have any evidence for the existence of the Christian God. In fact, you could declare that you have evidence for literally anything. There is not a shred of value in such a discussion.
Note
You skipped over my entire comment @ 6.4.42 . I repeated the important part of it @ 6.4.50 and you skipped that too.
Why?
One can put forth a decent argument for why they believe a deity is more likely than not. But to argue that the Christian God is more likely than an alternative is substantially more difficult (IMO it is not possible).
Clearly you have a position on this so why would you choose to waste time with a semantics game (' evidence ') rather than engage in a discussion of substance?
Figure I made that pretty obvious with my last post. Can't engage in a discussion of substance with someone who's definition of evidence is only that which has empirical proof. As if the world operates by that principle.
Nor has this ever been a discussion of substance. No matter what I've said, your only response has been, there's no empirical proof so (whatever I've said) gets reduced to, "I just believe it". That isn't a discussion, that's you thinking you can grade the validity of what I believe in. It's pretty obvious you aren't interested in discussing anything other than whether things meet your criteria for evidence and nothing else.
I didn't see the first one until you pointed it out. Was answering the second when I saw 6.4.52 and realized I'm just wasting my time. I had spent a lot of time on it but ended up just dumping it because there really isn't any point trying to explain something to someone who could care less why someone makes decisions about anything if the evidence upon which they make it isn't empirical.
It would be funny if it weren't so frustrating. You can't even see the illogic of your own position. You'll agree all day long science isn't designed to examine the supernatural. Not it's purview. Yet you still claim stupid things like, "then it's not evidence" when someone tells you why they believe, claiming they believe it "just because". All you do is point out that it doesn't meet your personal criterial and therefore isn't valid. Why on Earth would anyone continue this non-discussion with you?
As I noted, there is no point continuing this as far as I am concerned, since you have no evidence for the existence of God unless you dilute the word 'evidence' to the point where you can claim anything as evidence if you believe it to be so. No value.
The posts you skipped dealt with deity and the Christian God. You do not even acknowledge the sub-topic and deflect by again complaining that I will not accept your diluted definition of 'evidence' which basically allows you to claim anything you wish as 'evidence'. Pure sophistry.
What is interesting to me is that by thrice flat out ignoring the deity point you illustrate that you have nothing to offer in response to the profound difference between reasonably believing a deity is more likely than not and that of reasonably believing the Christian God is more likely than not.
Bravo! Great post and exactly right on.
Oh geez. This again?
Look: There is no problem. Believe if you want to. Or don't. No one is going to try to make you believe. You don't have a problem with religion. The way it looks is that you just made yet another seed - in a series of them - to crap on other people's beliefs. Not that I care. I just think it's looks kind of pathetic. Although I wonder if there is more to it than that.
I read your arguments and all you do is rationalize your atheism, tell yourself you're being scientific and using critical thinking, and pat yourself on the back for it. But you aren't. The whole thing is your own personal straw man game. You define the argument, make declarations and you win. Winner! You're not actually convincing anyone of anything, though. You're not persuasive. You're just affirming your own beliefs for yourself.
And hey, if it makes you happy, knock yourself out. It just strikes me as unhealthy and desperate to see the way you keep doing it. You seem to have a need to do it. Maybe what you are really looking for is someone to help you become a believer. Sometimes what looks like destructive behavior is really a cry for help. Just something to think about.
I never said anyone was.
Do tell, how many?
Show me where I craped on anyone for their beliefs!
But you cared enough to comment and complain, which also seems a little defensive in tone.
It's funny that you presume to know me or my intention with the article better than I know myself.
Maybe that's your interpretation. Otherwise, see previous statement!
Your writing implies it. You have no reason to continue complaining about the nature of belief (you do call it a "problem") unless you feel pressure to believe.
I'm not petty enough to count, but you know as well I that you and your buddy TiG have created many seeds attacking religion and religious faith. Let's not pretend otherwise.
You pride yourself on your critical thinking, but you restate others' comments and change the meaning. This is an example of that. It robs you of credibility when you then proclaim your proficiency in that regard, as you often do.
Anyway, I never said you were crapping on a person. I said you were crapping on beliefs. I stand by that.
It's not defensive. Like all the seeds I comment on, some aspect of it is interesting enough to compel me to comment. That doesn't mean I am personally invested in the seed or its contents, so I have no need to be defensive.
I presume nothing. I am simply doing my best to interpret what might be behind the series of anti-religion seeds. I find it interesting and I am speculating based on the content your writing. I don't declare my inferences to be the truth, but I think they are reasonable avenues to explore based on the evidence you provide. If you were as open-minded and scientific as you claim, you might consider the potential truth of my comments.
It's a theory. Something to think about.
Oh please Tacos! let's be petty enough to back up your claim. Take a look over the past 6 months and see how many seeds / articles Gordy and I have written whose purpose is to attack religion and faith.
Articles that challenge religious thinking (rather than some simplistic brainless attack) typically are months apart. Compare that now with those of the most common religious seeder(s) on this forum.
Let the numbers clarify your perception.
You're not making much sense and you are really running off into the weeds. I said "many." What number would prove or disprove that observation? I can't imagine. Do you deny seeding anti-religion articles?
And that's just the beginning. You also go into pro-religion articles to attack the very idea of religious faith. You have done that many times also. Focusing on a number serves no purpose unless you could somehow show that it never happens. Why try to minimize it? Are you ashamed of your efforts?
There is a point behind this that you seem unable or unwilling to grasp. The point is that it is a topic that you focus on a lot. My interest is in the motivation behind what seems to me to be an obsession.
Again, that is your own interpretation.
Ok, then you've got nothing.
Cite them! I've questioned or challenged religion. But I never wrote an article attacking religion or believers.
You're the one who implied I made this seed to crap on others beliefs. "The way it looks is that you just made yet another seed - in a series of them - to crap on other people's beliefs." Your words! I usually quote others statements so people know which point I am addressing. So tell me where I changed the meaning!
Then you are still wrong!
And yet, your first post here is to attack me for the article.
Apparently, you do! Especially when you tell me what my own arguments actually mean or my intentions behind them.
How about you ask me then what I mean if something is not clear to you! And no, I haven't written a series of anti-religion seeds. Do you rant like that against those who clearly write a series of "pro-religion" seeds? Or are you just targeting me because you don't like the topic?
Like I said, ask me what I mean if something is uncertain. Make a point or a counter argument to what's presented in the article or to other's posts, rather than emotionally flying off the handle like you did.
Ok, I thought about it and your assessment is still wrong!
Tell you what Tacos! how about ceasing your entirely meta comments and make some thoughtful comments on the article?
So far, looking just at your comments, you have focused on attack meta and have yet to address the content of this article.
Now you change the question. I have already offered that we spend much of our time challenging pro-religious articles. The point is that we are typically challenging religious claims rather than seeding or writing anti-religious articles (your complaint).
Again you move the goalposts. You accuse Gordy and I of writing, in effect, too many anti-religous articles. I suspect you looked into this and found that your claim is bullshit. Now you switch your complaint to Gordy and I making too many anti-religious comments. You are just here to complain, aren't you? No interest in actually discussing Gordy's points, just here to emote meta and make personal derogatory comments (now suggesting I am obsessed).
Ugly responses are no substitute for a rebuttal.
Yes, that's why I wrote it. Do you find something strange in a member expressing their own interpretation of something in the comments? What did you expect? That everyone would have the exact same approach and thoughts on a topic as you and we'd all just sit around and agree with each other?
If it helps, I will happily concede that your efforts at seeding anti-religion articles reside at some minimum level and that you also comment on the many pro-religion seeds, wherein you typically attack (or challenge if you like) the very idea of religious faith. Is that better? To me, it is a consistent pattern of behavior, and that is the important takeaway.
No implication. I said plainly that it looks like you wrote it for that purpose. But simple aggression seems too simplistic a reason. I think there is more behind it. Thus, my comments.
No. I have an opinion. You have yours. To my eye, your words crap on the beliefs of others. Frankly, I don't even know why you object to the characterization. You have said many times how foolish and irrational and just plain wrong you think religious beliefs are. Why be shy about it now? Is it that you just don't like how it looks when the comments are reflected back to you? That would be an interesting development.
Not at all. I am not attacking you. Why do you feel attacked?
Again if you expected to post your thoughts and not have people react to them in their own way, why seed the article? Keep your thoughts to yourself. It's safer.
I usually don't find them to be very interesting or well-written and the seeders (let's be honest, it's just one member) are not shy about what they are trying to do. You, on the other hand, seem to be playing it coy on this one.
Flying off the handle? Sorry, but I have been very even-tempered throughout my comments. I have no motivation to be otherwise. If anyone appears to be flying off the handle, it's you. I assure you no offense was intended. I would hope you would take a serious look at the content of what I wrote above instead of getting angry about it.
I truly have no idea what you are talking about. Are you sure you addressed this to the right person?
If it makes you happy to say so, go right ahead. I think it's fine to clarify one's comments for better understanding. Whether it's seeding or commenting on others seeds, you have a consistent, high energy effort in the regard I have described. I think we agree on that. It's actually kind of weird to me that you shy away from acknowledging it.
Again: not "too many" just "many." It's like looking at a redwood and saying "Wow! Look at the big tree!" That's not the same as saying the tree is "too big." (You keep doing this) But it is saying that it is big enough that it's worth remarking on. Let's call it "unusually big" or "surprisingly big."
I am not complaining even a little bit. I didn't say Gordy shouldn't do the seed or that either of you shouldn't comment.
My very first comment was about Gordy's points. Everything since has just been trying to get the two of you to calm down and focus on the content of that comment. Unfortunately, you don't seem willing. I may have to give up soon.
just here to emote meta and make personal derogatory comments
Again, that can't be directed at me. I haven't emoted about anything or said anything derogatory about anyone. I don't even know what it is you think I have said that is derogatory, but I assure you that has not been my intent.
And you accuse me of emoting. Maybe just try calming down. Maybe? Eh, do as you will, I guess.
No, I just found it erroneous.
Something thoughtful perhaps.
If everyone agrees, great. If not, also good. Your point?
Fortunately, I did help you in that regard. See my reply 7.2.3 below.
Attack or challenge? Those are two different things. Pick one. Is there a problem with challenging religious beliefs? Or more specifically, the claims made based on religious belief?
Do you comment on that same pattern of behavior of those who post pro-religion and/or anti-science/secular articles, and with much greater frequency than I to boot? If not, why not?
And hence my reply that you are wrong.
Then your opinion is wrong! You're opine on my intentions. So I can state that your opinion regarding my intentions are wrong.
I object to your erroneous assessment or opinion of my intentions behind the article or bringing my character into question.
Is that what you're trying to do here? To "get back" at me?
Because your post is an emotional outburst and erroneous assertion of my article or intentions.
How some react certainly seems irrational and emotional. Not the first time though.
So that makes them exempt from similar scrutiny?
How so? Be specific!
Really? Because that is not how it appears. And I'm not the only one who has noticed either.
Not even a little.
Then I appreciate that.
Oh I'm not angry. But I already pointed out the error of your content.
Oooo! A comment on-topic. Sorry, if that sounds patronizing, but I'm excited.
Anyway, to answer your question, it depends on the reason for your challenge. What is the reason? Challenge for its own sake? What value is there in that? If you want to establish or deny the truth of something, what is the reason that you need to make that determination?
I have theorized here that perhaps you actually want to believe, but can't make the leap. Or as a kind of corallary, your atheism makes you uncomfortable and you seek affirmation.
No, because the seeder's intent is plain and they aren't shy about it. There is no need for inquiry.
Why?
Not at all. I have no reason to do anything like that. That's not even what I said. I said I was reflecting your comments back to you, not "getting back at you." That's not even close to the same thing.
I have said multiple times that I am not being emotional, much less outbursting. Why should I? You clearly are offended, but I don't get why.
No, it means no inquiry is necessary. I have explained this a couple times now.
I have cited your repeated attacks on religious belief (challenges if it makes you happy) in both your seeds and those of others. We agree you do that. I think we also agree that you have said unequivocally that you think religious faith is foolish and irrational. But when I say it, you object to it. Even this seed is not an inquiry into religious faith, it's a condemnation of it. You have reached your conclusion.
Tell me I'm wrong! Tell me your mind is actually open to the idea of God and religious belief. Tell me you think a reasonable person can think reasonably and come to a belief in God.
We all know what you believe. You have said it enough times. My question is why keep repeating it? Why even make the seed? This is especially pertinent in light of your comments above about keeping one's interests in this area to one's self.
If you're citing a certain other member who always agrees with you on this topic, that's not exactly an objective corroboration.
So, you're "challenging" TiG and Gordy for "challenging" pro-religious articles? Seems counter-intuitive to me.
I've been taught to question everything. I've taught my children to question everything. I suppose that's the big neon sign here... religion doesn't want you to question it; it just wants you to believe what it's tellin' ya. Some just don't bend quite that easily. I don't see where either have declared that God [in any form / definition] doesn't exist. They are simply pointing out flaws in religion and that seems to have triggered you and Drakk in some way. There's nothing wrong with questioning things. It's better when there's actually definitive answers, but it seems as though they're not receiving any.
Have a blessed day!
Others have expressed this theistic hypothesis. To me it is a very strange notion that projects a non-understanding of how the typical atheist thinks.
An atheist (typically) simply is not convinced that a god exists. For me this is based on the absence of evidence coupled with the contradicting mess that we call religions of the world. Religions in general, based only on their beliefs, collectively scream out the message that religions are all man-made and based on precepts that are also man-made. This is primarily observed through the absurd level of contradiction. It simply does not make any sense to me that a sentient creator who seeks to communicate with His creations would intentionally send contradictory messages to select groups and allow them to fester.
But then one can take a single religion, especially one based on the Bible, and find contradictions and errors galore. The contradictions alone prove that the Bible is not divine and thus its claims should not be taken as perfect and divine. Looking at the specifics in the Bible reveals the fingerprints of ancient human beings spinning tales based solely on the understanding that they had at that time. No special insight that has been revealed thousands of years later, just that which a pair of eyes could infer by looking at the night sky, observing plants and animals or land and bodies of water.
Religions bend over backwards trying to find ways to defend the Bible as divine. Individual theists almost always paint themselves into logical corners doing likewise. For example, the question: 'Why did God never condemn slavery as immoral?' requires a theistic answer that will net down to the cliche non-answer of: 'God works in mysterious ways'. However, if one does not presume and simply goes by the fact that the Bible reflects the culture of men whose entire history included slaves, whose present included slaves and whose future looked like it would include slaves, it is easy to see why these ancient men wrote the Bible as if slavery was simply normal. To them, slavery was not immoral, it was commonplace and natural. Of course their God character is not going to condemn the foundation of their economy.
To wit, my hypothesis that the world's religions are all man-made constructs with no divine guidance is evidenced by the existence of contradictory religions and the contents of their teachings. If all religions are man-made then all the absurdities make sense. In contrast, trying to project religions as divine communication from a perfect supreme entity is an act of futility. And the idea of deeming all religions of the world 'false' while declaring one's religion 'true' is ridiculous at its face.
I have found atheists to be quite grounded and entirely comfortable that they are interpreting the world correctly rather than living a fantasy conceived by ancient men and perpetuated by indoctrination and culture. The uncomfortable part of being an atheist is living with the very likely fact that this life is all we have. That there is no second chance where we live in eternal bliss, get to see grandma again, etc. There is, in a phrase, no 'comfort factor' because atheists do not accept the comforting claims of religions.
I would like to speak to an atheist who feels uncomfortable about not being convinced a god exists. My suspicion is I would be speaking with an agnostic theist rather than an atheist.
Yes, I am addressing the person who is perpetuating negative meta in this article. Most of your comments are meta rather than addressing the content of the article. Easy correction, if you disagree with what Gordy wrote then focus on rebuttals instead of complaining that Gordy (and I) challenge the near daily religions claims in this forum.
Why not?
That's a very sweeping generalization and not one I would agree with based on just on my own experience. Also, Religion is not a living thing with emotions. Religion cannot want anything any more than Politics, Sports, or Art can want it.
They have done this many times already and not achieved anything with it. So the question is why keep doing it?
I don't think Drakk and I have been triggered, as you say. I find it curious that you are in favor of expression by some but for others, they have been triggered.
You do realize, I hope, that your entire comment is meta. You have made comments like this several times now. Just address the content of comments and you won't have a problem. Maybe start with not worrying about whether or not it's meta.
Why not?
I already stated that it's counter-intuitive.
That's a very sweeping generalization and not one I would agree with based on just on my own experience. Also, Religion is not a living thing with emotions. Religion cannot want anything any more than Politics, Sports, or Art can want it.
Glad that's not been your experience. It has been mine. And people treat religion as a living entity [in my experience] because it's based on a set of stories that were supposedly "handed down by God" which merely suggests to me that those people that "spread the word of God" were either smoking something or had a mental disorder that, at the time, wasn't named and could only be explained by being "touched by God." I mean, really a burning bush just magically appeared? The booming "voice of God"... That suggests hallucinations; the cause is anyone's guess.
So the question is why keep doing it?
I could ask why you feel compelled to keep answering if it's same shit different day to you. I'm finding the discussion fun and interesting. Some people haven't been consistent or always been on NT; so this may just be a new discussion to them.
I don't think Drakk and I have been triggered, as you say. I find it curious that you are in favor of expression by some but for others, they have been triggered.
The consistent replies suggest the two of you being triggered. For Gordy and TiG, they're answering the replies; they're not the ones complaining that this is the same stuff they're always talking about or demanding proof but fail to do so themselves. Example: simply existing does not equate evidence of a God. My iced tea exists because I made it from a tea bag and then put it in the fridge to get cold and that tea was grown by someone and packaged by Lipton. If I had the gumption, I could find out where that tea was grown, fly there and witness the tea being grown and then go to the Lipton factory where it's dried and packaged. Then I could ride with the truck driver to see where he / she delivers it to and then buy it from the store that it was delivered to, but tell me how I can obtain proof of a God, whoever that may be to you [the general you] and follow it.
That's what is being asked here ultimately.
I agree with that 100%.
It ALWAYS boils down to really nothing more than "Prove it!".
Note that I am purposely being very succinct in my replies to you and that it is not possible to reply to a meta comment without engaging in meta.
Do you have anything to offer on the content or are you going to perpetuate meta? Note how much I have offered on the content in this article vs. what you have offered when you try to equate our respective meta.
Consistency=triggered? That's not logical.
My reading of the seed did not indicate inquiry - only declaration. That's not a judgment, just an observation.
Well, you first state, "Not again" in regards to the article's subject matter. Then you go on to make bold statements about the author of said article and then bringing others into the mix of the conversation stating that they do this all the time. So, if you're unable to ignore the comments of others, wouldn't that be considered triggered? You might say the same about me, but I'm just having fun. You keep making the statement that Gordy and TiG are always posting things like this, but if you know you're going to disagree with what they're posting, why bother clicking on the article in the first place? There's several articles seeded or written that I know I won't agree with and if I click on it, it suggests that I'm somehow triggered by it and feel the need to justify a response. I just don't click on those; it's really that simple to me.
The statement I made, "That's what is being asked her ultimately" was in regards to the author's overall post and had nothing to do what you seem to think it is... whatever that is.
Is that a problem? Why shouldn't proof (or evidence) be required or expected when someone makes an affirmative claim? Especially when said claim is often passed off as "truth?"
So, instead of post after post of blather, why not cut to the chase and start where you always end up---"Prove it!"?
Seems like that would be a far more productive conversation.
And far less time consuming.
It's simple: an affirmative claim is made (and often passed off as "truth") so a challenge to the claim is issued. It's not complicated.
That is an interesting theory. But it has one major flaw: it is wrong!
I see. So you're actually questioning my intentions, is that it?
Because it's erroneous.
Tomato, toma-toe.
And you are clearly wrong about that.
You continue to conflate challenge with attack.
Faith by definition is irrational.
Ok, you're wrong! I've said that several times now.
I've said before in other threads that I'm open to the idea of god. Just show me the evidence for a god. Empty declarations passed off as fact is not convincing.
Of course someone can. Just look at Dr. Francis Collins.
Oh do tell! What do I believe? I do not recall mentioning my beliefs.
Because I wanted to. If you don't like it then you don't have to post here. It's as simple as that.
There are many others here commenting. Taka poll and see what they say.
This is the first time I've written an article specifically discussing the flaws in religion.
I generally respond to individual or specific points made, including affirmative claims. What difference does it make to you as to how I choose to respond?
If our friend The Jackal from Newsvine were here, he could offer a possible explanation. He researched deep into the origins of Judaism and found compelling evidence that the Abrahamic god is an amalgamation of earlier gods in the Mesopotamian region, some which were assumed to be volcanic deities. The burning bush and booming voice certainly fit.
Or maybe that "burning bush" was just some really good weed Moses found. Lol
That would make sense. Even some biblical stories are just borrowed rewrites of earlier religious stories.
And again: Why? You are demanding that other people prove their beliefs to you. Why?
Yes. I don't know why you should find that objectionable.
Yes, but you don't support that assertion.
So your motivation is purely emotional, then? Would you care to elaborate on your emotional motivations?
If you say so. As I have said already, I have considered you and TiG in the same light here, and my observation also included your comments on other seeds in developing a kind of aggregration of commentary from you both. The point, as I have said numerous times now, is that there is an observed pattern of commentary. I really don't think you disagree and others have observed it here as well. Let's just accept it and move on to the why of it, shall we?
If those folks could accept that their beliefs are just that, and refrain from promoting them as facts, there would be no reason to demand proof. Beliefs do not require evidence. Facts, by definition, do.
Why do people make affirmative claims as truth they can't prove?
Why do you assume my intentions are questionable?
Actually, I have addressed your erroneous opinions and observations several times now. I think I know myself better than you do.
Nope, not at all. Looks like you're wrong yet again.
I do.
If you will notice, such commentary has been a thoughtful, objective, and rational analysis and discussion of various points made.
Then how about you stop trying to psychoanalyze us and stick to the topic at hand? Anything else is getting off topic.
I believe in God, have no need to prove it to anyone, and leave others alone regarding religion.
if there are problems with a religion, seems the smart thing to do is let the people actually practicing it decide if it is a problem for them. no one else's business.
"Believe" being the operative word.
That's a two-way street. Unfortunately, many of those people attempt, and sometimes succeed, at making the problems within their religions everybody's problems.
yes, believe. not asking anyone else to.
if others do what you claim, why not take it up with them?
You chose to take this article as being directed at you.
Now you are just projecting.
So, Gordy wrote an article meant for general consumption by anyone interested in reading, you have responded to it multiple times, but I'm the one projecting?
Ok.
I believe the Dodgers are the best franchise in baseball and I don’t mind saying so. What gives someone else the right to “demand proof?” If you disagree with me, just disagree.
Why do they need to prove them? If I think Velveeta is the best option for cheeseburgers. I’m entitled to my opinion and I’m not required to prove it to anyone.
It clearly is a related topic that is obvious to more than just me. Why do you fear it?
Again, operative word.
Perfect!
Me too!!
I get what you're saying, and agree.
How can an opinion be wrong?
You either have not read or have not understood my comments.
You can think that if you want.
[deleted]
You know that more than two people can participate in a conversation, right?
Let's review.
This was Tacos! reply to my comment:
This was your response to Tacos! comment about the Dodgers:
Now, given how this conversation is going for you, I'm sure you'd like to pretend that I'm not involved in the conversation at this point, but I am. If Tacos! replies to me, and you reply to Tacos!' reply, you are responding indirectly to me. I also understand why you would like to ignore the fact that I have already said that a comment stating a belief (you use "opinion") does not require evidence (or "proof"), so that you can keep on arguing as if I hadn't said so. But I did, and it's there for all to read.
Perfect example. Your statement
is your considered opinion. You bear no burden of proof (or even evidence) in the above. Now, contrast what you actually wrote with this:
"The Dodgers are the best franchise in baseball."
What is the difference?
Look, I know what he wrote, I know what I wrote (and to whom), so your review isn't necessary..
Convo is going great for me! I didn't pretend anything, just pointed out a fact.
[deleted]
And I will continue to reply to replies to my comments, and to point out where you've ignored statements that gave rise to those replies. You can continue to ignore them, but it's a dishonest debate tactic, and I will call it out as such.
Why are you quoting someone else to me?
If you don't agree with what THEY wrote--take it up with THEM.
i know emotions can run high here, so maybe you just made an honest mistake in your haste to get it out.
[deleted]
End this meta Texan. Most every comment you have written in this article is off-topic meta. Final warning.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Because that's how logical discourse works. An affirmative claim means the claimant bears the burden of proof.
Since you state it as opinion and not fact, you are not required to prove anything.
No, it's not. And the article/discussion isn't about me. So get on topic!
Key word there is "believe." Now if you said the Dodgers ARE the best in baseball, then that is an affirmative claim which brings the burden of proof. See the difference? And if people stated something as a mere belief, and not as a statement of fact, then they would not be challenged or bear the burden of proof.
Well that very neatly narrows things down - a little inaccurately, too. You are going more specific than I did when I said " you just made yet another seed - in a series of them." Did you think I was talking about authorship specifically? I was not. I never got that specific. I only referred to seeds in general.
OK, now I wasn't going to do this, but since you and TiG are so insistent that I support my observation claims with evidence, I looked at your seeding history to see if it matched my personal impressions. It pretty much does:
Do God/S Exist? Probably Not.
A Wealthy Televangelist Explains His Fleet Of Private Jets: ‘It’s A Biblical Thing’
Why There Is Almost Certainly No God
15 Answers To Creationist Nonsense
Why There Is No God: Quick Responses To 10 Common Theist Arguments [For The Existence Of God]
Florida Lawmakers Advance A Bill That Requires 'In God We Trust' Displayed On School Grounds
America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles
Why Is There A Hostility Towards Science?
In addition, there are roughly two dozen seeds on abortion, which is of course a hot topic for religious people and, as you well know, such discussions often develop comments about those crazy religious people forcing their beliefs on people.
So I think it's safe to say that going after religion is kind of a thing for you. Now within the context of abortion, I get why you might be hostile to religious activists. But your criticism of religion often is not confined to that limited context. It's more of a general thing. And those are just your seeds. TiG has also given us several seeds that go after religion.
What About The Bible?
A Challenge For Mr. Kent Hovind - YouTube
Biblical Covenants In Christianity
Fine Tuning Argument
Atheists At The Creation Museum
Slavery In The Bible Is Disingenuous
Ricky Gervais And Stephen Go Head-To-Head On Religion
Scientific Proof Of God?
Changing Your Mind
There are more, but my cut and paste muscles finally got all tuckered out.
And we haven't even gotten into your comments in pro-religion articles seeded by others.
So I think I have adequately supported my assertions you guys pursue this topic to a significant degree and that you have a pretty consistent perspective and agenda. I find that very odd because you don't believe.
Who makes seed after seed on the topic of something they don't believe in? For something that seems to have no appeal for you, it has a lot of appeal. And that's the question. What is the draw? Why do you care so much? Why do you keep demanding proof of something you already don't believe in? Why do you keep trying to debunk someone else's beliefs?
Anyway, my initial theories were that you want to believe and need help (which is fine; just say so) or you seek affirmation of your own beliefs, which tells me you don't feel them as strongly as you say. I suppose you might also feel threatened by religion. That is another possibility I have not mentioned.
Hope that clarifies things. I would find it interesting if you could explore this aspect of it beyone "I wanted to." But if you don't, that's totally fine. I hope you notice though, I am not the only person reacting this way to your seed. You can just blame others for that, or you might consider what it says about you in this context. A little introspection can be healthy.
I already stated how many articles focus on religion itself. Other articles are different topics with religion mixed in. But religion is not the focus of such articles. So no, you haven't really supported your assertions. It also seems you're grasping at straws now and still being off topic as usual.
Not unless he is trying to convince someone to agree with him. I already pointed out to you that no one is trying to get you to believe. You acknowledged this, so I don't see how you are justified in demanding proof.
Even stating it as fact implies no requirement because I don't care if you agree with me.
Oh, I think it is. You have no problem analyzing the motivations and thought processes of religious people, so I think it's fair game to inquire as to what drives you on the topic.
Furthermore, you axiomatically claim that logical discourse requires religious people to argue their point of view. The problem with that is that there is no discourse. You have just stated what you believe and demanded that someone else come along and dare to prove you wrong. You take unwillingness to do so as a concession that you are right. That is not discourse at all.
Factually, I have. You don't agree with my conclusions, but I have supported it.
You demanded evidence; received it, and then dismissed it out of hand. And you wonder why people have no interest in this "discourse" of yours.
It can't be off-topic when you asked me to do it.
It doesn't matter because either way, I don't care if you believe what I believe.
I noted that pro-religious articles appear on NT almost daily. You deliver a handful of articles over 3 years of active NT membership and think you have made a point. You have instead illustrated my point that these articles are rare.
So Gordy has published two articles this year. One on science and one on the existence of a god.
Last year he published two articles. One on religious con-men and the other on the existence of god.
Two years ago he published three articles. One on creationism, one on the existence of God and one on Government and religion.
Three years ago he published an article on Government and religion.
Yeah, Tacos! you have really proven your point. Why Gordy is just spewing the front page with all sorts of anti-god articles and seeds. He is certainly keeping up with the religious seeds on NT. \sarc (as if anyone needs this)
Now let's look at what you found for me:
Yeah, I am just kicking them out too. Look at that, every few months I publish something. Not only is that less frequent than monthly but it is not even remotely close to weekly much less daily.
What you have proven is that Gordy and I have, during our time on NT, published articles that deal with religion and God; something that we have never denied.
What you have also demonstrated is what I noted, that our publications are infrequent. We spend our time rebutting the almost daily publications of others.
And when you equivocate to your lesser position that Gordy and I are very interested in religion and science, then we will (speaking for Gordy) agree that indeed we are.
So what do you have here Tacos!? You cannot argue that we are publishing articles at anything other than an occasional pace. You can argue that we make lots of rebuttal comments, but we would agree that is true regardless.
What is the big point you are trying to make?
A blatant dodge of an obvious question.
Well, the answer is that declaring a belief is profoundly different from declaring a certain truth.
If you do not understand that then you could not possibly understand why Gordy and I challenge religious claims of truth.
But I do not believe for a second that any of this escapes you.
One more point, you have just presented a perfect example of confirmation bias. No doubt that you want your claim that Gordy and I publish 'many' anti-religious articles to be true. You produce evidence that shows your intuition to be dead wrong yet declare you are correct anyway.
Not only are these publications analytical in nature about morality, philosophical arguments, religion, gods, religious con-men, etc. rather than the pure attack pieces you wish to portray, but they are at best occasional—exactly as I have claimed. A three year period is approximately 1,095 days. So if we published daily you would find over one thousand articles. If weekly you would find 156 articles.
You found 7 for Gordy and 8 for me (you added an extra article for each of us which was not religious), which averages out to one publication every 4 months.
One publication every four months = occasional.
Apply your evidence hunt on a common religious publisher here and you will find a staggering difference in publication rates. And you will find that it is there where we are most active and our activity is to challenge the claims made by the publications.
It doesn't matter if one is trying to convince someone or not. It's the claim itself that warrants challenge.
Yes, it does. Positing something as fact (when it's not) when it is not supported by evidence is being dishonest. It doesn't matter if one agrees or not.
No, it's not! And if you continue to try and make it so, I'll remove such comments as off topic.
Only if they try to pass off that point of view as or declare fact. How do you not get that by now?
Go ahead and point out where I stated my beliefs! I think I challenged you to demonstrate that before and you never answered the challenge.
You know, perhaps I should put out more articles like this with increasing frequency? After all, if I'm accused of putting out a "series" of articles like this, then I wouldn't want to disappoint, right?
Why?
So religious people are dishonest?
If you feel it necessary to hide opinions you don’t agree with or that threaten you, go ahead.
But no one is trying to do that to you.
Oh that’s’ s a funny one! Your entire seed is your beliefs. Unless you are lying about your beliefs or have plagiarized them from someone else.
Why not? Do you not understand how logical debate works?
When they post an affirmative claim as fact without supporting evidence and especially when contradicted by actual facts, then yes, they are! Even more so when they're corrected but continue to push their claim. I'm sure they believe their claims are true or factual.
It's not about agreement. It's about going off topic. I explained that already!
Whomever it's directed at is irrelevant.
What are my beliefs then? This article is an objective analysis of the problems with religion. It's not a set of beliefs. Neither have I mentioned any of my beliefs. But once again, rather than debating the points made in the article, you try to turn it around and make it about me.
I would be in favor of you putting forth more articles which offer a critical analysis of religious beliefs. Of course the allegation is not that you (and I) put forth critical analysis but that our articles are religious-bashing. Seems a thoughtful article whose topic even touches religion in some way is automatically categorized as bashing by some.
I'm open to suggestions too.
No doubt. Anything even hinting at a critique or analysis of religion, especially if there is a negative point," seems to automatically trigger some and put them on the defensive. Some people seem incapable of objectively questioning or examining their own religion. Except perhaps when it comes to other religions.
One could write a series of articles on common religious claims and the obvious rebuttals to same. Each article could take a claim, offer the rebuttal and then open the discussion for analysis of same.
An example common religious claim is that the Christian God is the arbiter of objective morality and is perfect. Since the Christian God is defined by the Bible, the obvious rebuttal is to show in the definitive text where this God knowingly condones slavery and never once condemns the practice as immoral. Indeed, there has been zero communication from the Christian God suggesting slavery is immoral even now in 2020.
I can suggest the likely response will be that one cannot just read the scripture but rather must consider the scripture in context of the entire Bible. The claim will then be that God is good and thus He would never condone slavery ... so reading the individual scripture is deemed 'out of context' and dismissed.
In other words, the actual words of the scripture will be dismissed ... the hard, definitive evidence will be thrown out of court.
Yes, but I dispute that anyone is trying to debate you. I have pointed out multiple times that no one is trying to make you believe. You concede that, yet you speak of debate. It's all very not logical.
There's one. You think religion is or has problems. That's a belief.
Yet you have no problem declaring that religious people are dishonest, making it about them. I'd call that hypocrisy.
That's a great idea. But I tend to think supporters of the claim will simply restate the claim (possibly word it differently) or dive into apologetics and such.
Yes. Although if I remember correctly, you had an article debating that point? I know we've engaged in discussion with others on that point before. Perhaps a revisit is in order?
I've heard the excuse that since it's god doing something, then it's moral or ok. But that doesn't apply to us. Kind of like a theistic "do as I say, not as I do."
I call it just making excuses or rationalization.
Isn't it always? When evidence contradicts the belief, it's the evidence which must be thrown out and not the belief, Right?
You still don't get it! Or are just being obtuse about it. Someone makes an affirmative claim, the claim invites challenge. It's that simple.
Wrong. That's not a belief. That's an analysis. And one which I discussed in the article and even provided general examples. You still haven't actually addressed any of those points or offered any counterargument.
Posting something matter-of-fact that is not demonstrably true as "truth" is dishonest, plain and simple. Dishonesty may not be the intent. But that doesn't change the fact that it's dishonest.
Drakk is. But you are correct, most everyone else who has participated on the opposition front has not engaged in debate. Mostly in meta, not debate.
That's what you believe. Another belief. I don't believe that. But you state it as fact.
I wonder if TiG will be along to admonish you for this personal attack. Perhaps you will both dismiss it as "analysis."
Why play this pointless semantics game? Use the phrase 'religious belief' and this meta debate ends immediately.
Faux obtuseness is a debate tactic. Calling it out is fine. Calling you stupid, however, would not be. Gordy clearly used the language 'being obtuse' as an alternative to you not understanding. He was asking you if you are engaging in faux obtuseness.
Once again, that is not a belief. It falls under the burden of proof philosophy of debate: the one making the claim is obligated to support their position.
Ask him. I certainly dismiss your assertion!
Happens often....
[deleted]
Near daily? You exaggerate greatly. More like one every other week or so. Even then it is usually about a related political issue or something a public official said or to religious connections to a holiday. [[Taunting]]
Have you looked at how often Gordy writes articles such as this? Compare that with prolific anti-science, anti-secularist seeding by some in this very forum. Yet you complain that Gordy chose to author an article on religion.
You have a problem with someone challenging a belief system? If Gordy had written an article on a belief system that you oppose such as Islam, would you make the same complaint — would you object if Gordy pointed out the problems with honor killings, genital mutilation, suicide bombings?
Then make an argument rather than attack Gordy personally. The fact that you came in here guns-a-blazing suggests that you have no argument, just a desire to emote. Is that the case?
I see no reason to do that because it doesn't have any relevance to my analysis. You and Gordy both have seeded multiple anti-religion seeds. That is a fact. Other people post other kinds of seeds, as you say, but that doesn't change the fact of your seeds. Do you deny or admit this? Deflecting to what other people are doing strikes me as whataboutism.
I'm not complaining. It doesn't bother me. I find it interesting.
A problem? No. Go for it! But my analysis of the challenge looks at why they are doing it. Thus, the focus of my comment was in that direction.
Again, it's not a complaint. It's an observation. Here, I did not get the impression that Gordy was focusing on a specific religion, but more religion in general. Therefore, I do not see any justification for you asking this question about Islam.
Also, you have no evidence that I "oppose" Islam. Your assumption in this direction does not strike me as an example of critical thinking - something you pride yourself on quite a bit.
Nonsense. I have not attacked Gordy personally at all. Don't try that with me. You do that a lot where you simply declare axiomatically that people are making personal attacks. That is simply not the case here.
I have explained myself quite thoroughly I believe. You have no cause to be angry and I am not emoting in the slightest. I have supplied my thoughts on the topic. That is all.
Yes that is a fact. Another fact is that most of our time is spent challenging pro-religious seeds. You complaining that Gordy and I post too many anti-religion seeds is ridiculous given such articles are often months apart vs. the almost daily religious seeds.
Do you embrace Islam? Do you, using the specifics of my comment, support honor killings, genital mutilation and suicide bombings? If so, we have some things to discuss. If not, then my read of your collective comments in this forum is spot on.
Which is it?
Do endeavor to represent my statements a little more accurately. I said "many." I did not say "too many." The former is a simple observation. The latter is a value judgment and one I did not make. And not for the first time, I must remind you that I am not complaining.
I am pretty sure I have not said anything negative in these forums about Islam, so your reading of my comments is nowhere near "spot on."
Nit-picking is the best you have? Note also, your implication is 'too many'.
Do you embrace Islam? Do you, using the specifics of my comment, support honor killings, genital mutilation and suicide bombings?
The fact that you dodge the specific question illustrates that your answers are No, No, No and No. Feel free to be clear on your position if I am mistaken.
So how many is "many?" Here, let me help you: I have been a member of NT for 7 years now. In all that time, I have seeded and written a total of 50 articles, including this one (the large majority are seeded). Of those, only 6 deals specifically with religion or religious belief. Of that 6, I personally have written 4, again including this article. My last article specifically dealing with religion was written back in March, 4 months ago. Does that seem like "many" or a "series" of articles "crapping" on others beliefs to you? And of those 4, the only one where I might have been even remotely "hostile" (for lack of a better term) toward belief is the article dealing with Creationism vs Flat Earth beliefs.
Really? Because at this point, it sure sounds like it. Your opening statement to me was even a complaint, was it not? " Oh geez. This again ?"
If the roles were reversed, you would care a lot more about the details. Heck, you wanted numbers to support my claim of "many" so don't act now like a focus on specific language is "nit-picking."
No, I would say that was your inference, and it is mistaken. I actually don't care how many seeds you guys make. Seed away! I just think we have seen enough of an anti-religious effort - be it in seeds or responses to seeds - that the motivations behind it warrant exploration. You don't have to join me in that effort. It's just my opinion.
I ignore the question because I consider it a red herring and part of an attempt to attack my statements without addressing their content. I have no obligation to tell you what I think of Islam and you have no basis for reaching conclusions based on my refusal to do so. Your eagerness to do so really damages your credibility as a self-proclaimed critical thinker.
Not at all. It was more a statement of amazement. I really do wish you would calm down and either address the content of my thoughts or ignore them. Being angry at me serves no positive function.
What's so amazing? I didn't think the article was a big deal.
I really wish you would stop presuming that I'm being emotional about anything. And if you'll notice, I have addressed your comments, including the erroneous ones, throughout this discussion.
I see you ignoring probative questions (likely because you do not have a good answer) and instead focus on meta.
👍👏🙏
Of course you care!
(If you actually didn't care-- you wouldn't have bothered to mention it!)
Typical. People don't read.
Look at it this way: Tacos has inadvertently inspired me to write a "series" of articles addressing various biblical stories. Coming soon, Part 3.
Speaking of Carlin...
There is no problem with religion--only some people's reactions to it.
Then you didn't read the article.
Oh, but I did.
Prove I didn't!
Your post does not address any of the points made in the article. It certainly offers nothing to the conversation.
That is a matter of opinion, and yours is duly noted.
Nope, it's a matter of fact. You haven't addressed any of the points made in the article, except declare there is no problem.
So you say.
I didn't bother to go point by point because I have absolutely no problem with religion at all, my own or others, and often wonder why some do.
i guess I am just a little more tolerant and open minded than others.
This seed isn't stating that religion is a problem, it's stating five main problems with religion.
If your mechanic told you five problems with your car, do you believe he's telling you he has a problem with your car?
This seed states fairly concisely five main "mechanical issues" with most religious belief.
It is telling that most of the religious minded persons coming here to defend their religions are misinterpreting this easily seen point.
did you read the headline and article?
Apparently he did because he understood and is correct.
I did, though it appears you may have only read the headline which may be why you misunderstood it. Though to be fair, the headline doesn't even claim religion is a problem, it clearly claims there are "problems with religion" which I have a hard time finding any fault with that logic. Even most ardent believers accept that there are problems with religion in general, they just usually exclude their own brand often due to being dishonest hypocrites.
I'm not so sure about that. To question their religion or challenge religious claims seems to generate a defensive and occasionally irate reaction. Especially if they claim their religion is the "true" religion or are so emotionally invested in it. They might say all other religions have problems, but not theirs.
I read the article. BFD.
I don't have any problems with my religion, anyone's religion, or people without religion.
I find it times annoying, at times amusing that others do.
I don't have to "defend" my religion.
I don't care what others think about it. just leave me alone because I am not proselytizing or even asking anyone to be8 as I do. its personal, and there is no need to denigrate anyone's religion. if you don't believe in God, that's great. but it isn't right to harass others about it.
if my religion doesn't effect you, why worry about it?
That is what I was saying, that virtually every religion teaches that there are problems with other religions, which is why they claim all other religions false while their own is the "true" religion. So making the statement "the problem with religion" shouldn't be such a big deal, it's just that apparently many of the believers here take it as an attack on their religion, perhaps because they can see the problems themselves and are just mad at them being pointed out by those outside their faith.
Do you see a problem with a religion that calls for the killing of a daughter if she has sex with an infidel? How about the killing of a homosexual? Female mutilation, subjugation of women, etc.?
So you personally see no problem with a belief system that encourages killing of a daughter if she has sex with an infidel; the killing of a homosexual; female mutilation, subjugation of women, etc.?
So you're saying we should be "tolerant" of honor killings, stoning of "criminals," bombings, ect.?
[deleted]
You have yet to make a thoughtful comment on the content of the article.
You are not paying attention then.
You are also trolling. Time to move on.
[deleted]
Religion does not add up, sounds like thousands of years of made up tales that have been added to and each group thinks their particular story is the only true one. And I just flat out hated having to go to church when I was a little kid.
So I assume you are not in support of the government "bailing out" churches that are suffering economically?
You Won't Believe How Much Stimulus Money The Catholic Church Received
Excellent video!
No, I don't like churches getting any government money, they already have plenty and they should be taxed
Gordy - As you can see from my other comments here, I have very much enjoyed discussing the points raised by this article and I tend to agree with most of them to a degree. Sorry I got a little bogged down on the subject of proselytizing. I tend to get a little too mired in the details from time to time.
There is one thing you said in your article though that I would like to discuss further.
This is not entirely true. If it were, organizations like BioLogos would not exist today and scientists like Francis Collins would not lead organizations like the NIH. Many have adopted the view that religion and science are incompatible, but this simply has not been and is not currently true.
Historically there have been many religious Christian scientists and philosophers of note including:
Saint Augustine and later Saint Thomas Aquinas.
Augustinian priest Gregor Mendel, founded modern genetics.
Rene Descartes, discovered analytic geometry and the laws of refraction
Blaise Pascal, invented of the adding machine, hydraulic press, and the mathematical theory of probabilities
Louis Pasteur, founded microbiology and created the first vaccine for rabies
Nicolaus Copernicus, developed scientifically the view that the earth rotated around the sun.
Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest. Developed the concept known as the "Big Bang theory" of the origin of the universe
Alexander Fleming, invented penicillin.
In more recent times, there have been several Christian Nobel Laureates in Physics, Medicine, and Physiology, including Erwin Schrodinger, John Eccles, Werner Arber, and Alexis Carrel.
The Catholic Church in particular founded the scientific group called the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1603, which still exists today. Many Jesuit priests in particular have a long history of scientific achievement with the backing of the Catholic Church. Today the Catholic Church funds many of the worlds most advanced hospitals and medical research facilities as well.
Thank you.
No worries.
Religious acceptance of science has improved in some cases over the centuries. Historically, there has been religious pushback against science, such as the (perhaps most famously) case with evolution, as well as Galileo's heliocentrism, or any free thought contradictory to religious teachings in the past. We still see things like that today, especially among the more devout or more biblical literal theists, who outright reject and science and evidence contradictory to their belief system, such as with creationism, age of the earth, ect.. But we also still see recent religious pushes to introduce or promote creationism, Intelligent Design and the like. Of course a religious individual can be n the sciences. But they know that religious explanations (i.e. "God did it") are not scientific explanations and thus do not generally utilize that where science is concerned.
And many Protestant churches from during and post reformation have done the same with leading academic institutions and cutting edge hospitals not only here but around the world. The things churches and their affiliates have done to promote science, education, medical arts and science, and in general easing of human suffering through out the world is quite remarkable. Atheists don’t see the Christian spirit motivation behind all these acts and endeavors and think all we’ve done to make the world a better place would have still happened anyway absent the beliefs in God that motivated such charity and inquiry in the first place.
You should pay more attention then to what we write. Don't just operate on your stereotype, it leads to a false reality.
Perhaps some don't, but certainly not all. And certainly not all agnostics believe this either. I know many who acknowledge some good that has come from religion/faith or from certain religious organizations. TiG for example is one of them if you have followed his writings.
Having said that, since many atheists and agnostics are also quite charitable and most certainly support and participate in scientific inquiry and endeavor to make the world a better place, one could argue that perhaps they were motivated by something other than a God in which they do not believe. Now a believer might feel that God provides that motivation in all human beings in any case, the only difference is that an atheist or an agnostic might ask for proof of that from time to time.
I like to think that most people do not need to be coerced by a religious organization to do good. From the smallest voluntary acts such as opening a door for someone, waving one on in traffic, returning a lost wallet, etc. all the way to the charitable acts of large scale philanthropists like Gates, this likely would take place if people believed in a god or not.
I do recognize that the planning and execution for charitable work (as is done by many religious organizations) encourages charity by making it convenient to be charitable and making it part of the 'good parishioner' model. So no doubt that increases the amount of actual charitable work. But, then again, if we had no churches and no religions I see no reason why that would not be done by secular organizations that would have evolved instead to address the need.
Bottom line, while I am very much against religious organizations that indoctrinate kids with ideas that are simply not true (e.g. AiG, many of the fundamentalist religions, JW, etc.) I do indeed recognize that many accomplish a lot of social good (charity, morality, social graces, etc.).
I guess you're just naïve then, because clearly according to some peoples perspective, without God or the bible we'd all be raping children and murdering anyone who looked at us funny. I'm sure our fellow hardline right wing Christians here on NT can attest to that, how they so want to rape kids, but because of the morals put forth in the bible they refrain so we need to thank our lucky stars that the bible and the God they believe in exists, at least in their minds, just so it keeps them from raping our children.
Wow! Don't candy coat it DP....
I don't think I have ever seen anyone go to that extreme here, but hey, you're the authority on what lies deep in the minds of Christians I guess. Stellar contribution here. Bravo! /s
Yeah I am just a dreamer. Who could possibly imagine a person who would care for others without having an omnipresent supervisor keeping tabs of the good (and bad) deeds.
Taking any ridiculous belief to it's most extreme is the only way to truly get a grasp on the magnitude of its insanity.
When believers proclaim that morality only comes from their specific deity, they are claiming that without their God, we'd all be raping kids. It's the most extreme edge of their belief I can really push it to, but it gets the point across. If it's their God that keeps them from cheating on a test, or cheating on their spouse, or doing anything considered 'sinful', then it would mean that but for that God, we'd all be pedophiles. You can't have it both ways. You can't have "Well God is the origin of all morals which help humans to not lie cheat or steal, but we don't really need him to keep us from raping kids or animals...". Either morality comes from God and thus without said God all bets are off and humans will do the worst imaginable sins to one another, or morality comes from our humanity where we instinctual know due to social evolution that things that cause humans pain and suffering tend to be bad, and things that protect humans and gives us safety and security are considered good. If all morality comes from God then you would expect those who have rejected those Gods to be amoral, but the fact is we find the opposite.
" Overall, almost 1 in every 1,000 prisoners will identify as atheist compared to 1 in every 100 Americans."
That means 999 out of 1,000 inmates identify as "believers".
There was a member a few years back who claimed that without his religion (he was a YEC) he would probably do whatever he pleased. He listed rape, theft and beating people up.
Fascinating.
Lovely.
Well either that or it simply creates more insanity. And it can also encourage stereo-types, which can themselves be unwarranted and dangerous. Focusing on or conjuring up the extremes, or the anecdotal, does not guide one to the facts or truth any better than vocalizing beliefs that can't be supported with evidence. Same goes for politics I suppose. The extremes and how they paint each other in the worst possible light does more damage than good in my observation.
Nah. The worst they are claiming is that while instinctual moral beings, humans can tend to do bad things that cause pain and suffering. Do you deny that this hasn't been made abundantly clear throughout human history, and even in modern times? By aligning their morals with those of their God or religion by their own free will, they believe they will become closer to their God, be more vigilant about treating others with generosity and kindness, and be happier now and in the after-life. Other than some who might claim that if you don't believe you won't claim your spot in heaven (a concept you don't believe in anyway, so why should you care?), Christians very rarely claim that humans would have no morals at all, and they certainly make no claims about raping kids, or mounting animals if it weren't for God. The only point that comes across, IMHO, when you push those extremes is that you really don't understand most religions and/or you really don't like religious folk, so perhaps 60% of the world's population.
Perhaps not, but one can certainly be more rational and reasonable and meet in the middle, and stop basing arguments on false or extreme premises, unless one happens to be the type who dabbles only in the extremes. Then it becomes my way or the highway, just the way one imagines one's opponent to be based on the caricature one paints of them.
More like frightening!
You don't really believe that most Christians think that way though right? Does it make sense to base one's view or attitude about all Christians on what a handful of insane ones like this think?
I would say most Christians go to church once a week and think it absolves them.
Very few, if any, actually follow scripture.
In the 6,000+ years of recorded history, God/Gods have been instrumental in causing billions of humans pain and suffering or at the very minimum been used as an excuse to do some of the worst things to other humans imaginable.
I do not deny that humans can do bad things and cause pain and suffering to others, I just don't see religion actually preventing any of it and in fact is often the cause of it.
I see some make that claim frequently.
I understand religious folk very well as I was one for the first 35 years of my life, have read the bible cover to cover several times and used to be a pastor. What I eventually found a dislike for was the undeserved moral superiority that many religious persons often claim, treating non-believers with contempt and assuming they're somehow less moral or amoral simply for not believing in an invisible wizard in the sky.
One can perhaps be more reasonable but my point, regardless of how extreme you think it, is still rational. When some believers proclaim that one cannot be moral without their God they are slapping every other faith and those without a faith in the face and calling them immoral. I'm calling that behavior, that expression of moral superiority, immoral.
I think believers paint their own caricature of what is moral and then spend the rest of their lives trying to live up to it all the while telling others that their faith is the best most moral way to live. What they are really trying to do is convince themselves that their faith is the best most moral way to live but they are so weak they need others to validate their faith which is why they are constantly trying to push it on others. "This is the truth, right? This isn't fiction, this is real, right? Without this faith we would all be helpless immoral scum but it's this religion that saved me, right? Right? Validate my faith! Tell me I'm right!". For many believers, admitting that any atheist can be just as moral, kind and loving as any believer is near blasphemy and a sign one may be doubting their own faith or considered an admission that their faith isn't as necessary as they were told to believe. For them the choice is very binary and is a "their way or the highway" mentality which you will get from virtually every religion on the planet.
Of course not. I was quite surprised by this ex-member's comment (Shep-boy). I was just offering anecdotal support for DP's post.
Most Christians (and I am surrounded by Christians) do not (I am confident of this) do good things due simply to fear of God. We are all shaped by our culture (especially our immediate social/family group). No doubt belief that good deeds are pleasing to God helps, but I reject the notion that the lack of belief in a god would open the floodgates to bad behavior. That is, I certainly do not think that atheists are any worse or better persons than theists.
Nor do I. Neither do I believe that theists are any worse or better persons than atheists. So why do some engage in the extreme caricature of either simply to make a point? What is the purpose of that other than to attempt to show one group of people being better or worse than the other? If we go about framing the beliefs or opinions of others in what we imagine to be the worst possible scenario we end up with continued misunderstanding, suspicion, and hatred. I don’t understand why some christians do that to atheists, nor why some atheists do that to christians. But as long as they do, they perpetuate the stereotypes and drive the wedge deeper.
It should never be about the people but rather the ideas. People of course are routinely offended when ideas they hold as truth are challenged, but that cannot be helped.
Well if "some people" believe something-- well, that's definite proof that it must be true!
Can't say I haven't seen some of that with my own two eyes. Catholics certainly believe they can be absolved via confession. Sort of seems like defeating the purpose of becoming and remaining a better person per the lessons learned at Mass. Like I mentioned before, I've seen more Christians fail to follow scripture or act immorally than I have atheists or agnostics. Of course I know many more Christians, and there are more Christians statistically than there are atheists or agnostics in general.
Understood. I see where you are coming from.
However, in looking at your method and choice of words in our trail of discussion here (including the sentence above) it strikes me odd that in making your point you appear to come across as acting morally or intellectually superior to those who do for their own reasons have faith in that "invisible wizard in the sky". It certainly seems to be a mocking or condescending tone at the very least. The repeated focus on extreme characterizations of how you view their beliefs, or their general treatment of other people, also comes across that way, dripping with disdain/contempt IMO. So if that air of superiority that you believe is exuded by the religious is so bothersome to you, why would you act in the same or similar way?
Just out of curiosity, since you were a Christian for a long time and even a pastor, what besides the moral superiority issue caused you to go so far as to so thoroughly reject the idea of God as well? I only ask as I too have drifted away from my faith as I've gotten older and have been putting much more thought into how a belief in God can be justified given my background in science. But I have also seen the good that my Church and many Christians there have done and I have never known most of them to treat people of different faiths, or no faith, poorly. It always seemed like a spirit of openness and inclusion to me for the most part. So I harbor no ill will toward those who still firmly believe, only those few I come across who do treat people poorly.
That seems to be exactly the mindset of some.
[deleted]
The topic is the problems associated with religion, not the rate of religious affiliation. Cutting & pasting long winded polls and such while not discussing the article is off topic.
You are talking about the problems of the one thing you hate above all else in the universe. I simple countered with info on the importance of religion and religious belief. The rest of the story so to speak as Paul Harvey used to say.
First, you are getting personal again, rather than actually addressing the points made. Second, you are attributing something to me that I never said, which is as good as lying. Third, the article is not about the importance of religion. It's about the problems with religion. So you are off topic! Either get on topic or have your off topic posts removed on that basis.
There are no major problems with religion. The problems in the modern world is the lack of religion and religious belief in so many and a heavy dose of anti religion in some.
A common belief in Islam is that infidels (those who do not believe in Islam) are lesser human beings. Is that a problem?
No? Okay, much of Islam believes that the male of the family dominates the family? Not a problem?
Okay, how about when the patriarch (or a brother) murders a female child of the family because she had sex with an infidel (honor killing)? Any problem with that?
Throwing homosexuals off rooftops because the religion holds them to be abominations?
How about radical Islamic beliefs that hold Allah wants Muslims to kill infidels (see radical Islamic terrorists)?
Closer to home, how about Jehovah's Witnesses denying medical treatment for their child due to the belief that the treatment would ruin their soul (and, in result, allowing the child to die untreated)?
Priests engaging in sodomy? Christian bigotry against homosexuals?
People made so gullible by religious indoctrination that they actually believe slime like Kenneth Copeland can intercede with God on their behalf and thus send him money to add to his near $1 billion net worth?
Attempts to indoctrinate the next generation into believing the Earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaurs coexisted with human beings, evolutionary science is all bullshit, scientific dating is bullshit, etc.?
( this can go on for a very long time ... )
Gordy wrote an article outlining categorical problems with religion. You rebuttal was, in effect, 'nuh uh' when it should have been a point by point refutation using facts and reason (at least if you want to persuade anyone).
I see you didn't bother to read the article then. But keeping your head buried in the sand and not actually addressing the points made or being outright dismissive is neither convincing or persuasive.
People made so gullible by religious indoctrination that they actually believe slime like Kenneth Copeland can intercede with God on their behalf and thus send him money to add to his near $1 billion net worth?
Here's an excellent John Oliver video on that very subject.
BTW I was amazed at the amount of research he did for this one! (A bit long but its worth watching the entire video when you have a chance)