Religion & Morality

[Rip Rokken]

love richard dawkins,

one of my favorite vids of all time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNoV_kSe7Dk

miss him

You got me on that one - I was wondering when he died!

[artist4perry]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

[conversationpc]

None of the gospels were written on first hand experience....that's like someone writing a book on Obama's presidency...400 years from now - with nothing more than word of mouth accounts from descendants of Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.....

It's not an uncommonly held view that two of the gospels were written by the two disciples they were named after and before the close of the first century, within the lifetimes of those same disciples.

[S2M]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

Than don't contribute to this thread. I guarantee you that none of the agnostic people here are getting their habits in a bunch over what has been stated so far....It's been a civil discussion devoid of EMOTION thus far...but I sense emotion from you...which is faith's fatal flaw....their is no logic to be had. No offense ginger...we aren't piling on YOU.

[artist4perry]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

Than don't contribute to this thread. I guarantee you that none of the agnostic people here are getting their habits in a bunch over what has been stated so far....It's been a civil discussion devoid of EMOTION thus far...but I sense emotion from you...which is faith's fatal flaw....their is no logic to be had. No offense ginger...we aren't piling on you....

So saying those who believe, me being one, are stupid is not calling me stupid?

You see I am not bothered by a discussion that is reasonable. But calling people stupid because they think differently than you on a subject is not a fair assessment.

As for it being civil I agree but usually you have to admit it never stays that way in the long run.

As for emotion, emotion is not a flaw. Emotion is love. You have something against love? I love God. Your going to have to deal with that sunshine!

[Duncan]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

Atheists aren't trying to prove anything. The burden of proof rests with those who make extraordinary claims of the supernatural.

[artist4perry]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

Atheists aren't trying to prove anything. The burden of proof rests with those who make extraordinary claims of the supernatural.

Why is that something I or anyone else has to prove?

[conversationpc]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

Atheists aren't trying to prove anything. The burden of proof rests with those who make extraordinary claims of the supernatural.

Typically, at least in America, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, right? In this thread, the prosecution are those claiming there is no God. But I'm just sayin'...

[artist4perry]

By the way S2M, I am not Catholic, so I would not be getting any habit in a bunch. LOL And you are missing the point. You guys do go on a religious witch hunt with these discussions.

For instance how many faults can you find in the religious faiths.

Usually the standard Religion kills people. So do killers kill people, with many crazy reasons for doing such. I guess if ones Dog tells them to kill then we must remove dogs from the planet. Some people claim their TV sets made them kill. Did the TV set make them kill or are they just a loony toon that decided to kill someone?

Then it is calling God a purple thinga ma jiggy in the sky, the spaggetti monster in the sky.......reasonably insulting references to God.

Leading to you MUST PROVE THERE IS A GOD. Nope, I think I won't. Because it is not something I either have to prove, nor can you disprove. It is a faith thing. You wouldn't understand.

Seriously, it has no purpose but to belittle faith and anyone who believes. I don't stand here and ask you to prove where the origins of life start. Because if you get a scientist to be honest there is NO PROOF. They do not know themselves.

So I question that since things work as a grand design, there could be a designer, a creator of a sense. I think out of the box. I am an abstract thinker.

You I see as more of a show me person. Show me or I cannot believe. I can understand that. I can respect that.

[conversationpc]

Interesting article I think helps with these types of discussions...

An Atheist Actually DEFENDING Religion!

Not long ago I was in Border’s and came across a book by Bruce Sheiman called An Atheist Defends Religion. At first I thought it was a dubious title by someone who wanted to make a quick buck by only pretending to favorabe toward religiono, yet was like most atheists who saw no value in religion, and certainly no value in believing in any type of personal deity.

As I flipped through the book however, I soon realized that Sheiman was a sincere atheist who had honest questions, and presented them in a honest fashion. He had, in fact, arrived at some of the same conclusions I had arrived at regarding religion and God.

One of the more important comments he made to which I completely agree is that atheists and people who believe in God have arrived at a stalemate. In other words, it cannot be proven one way or the other that God either exists or does not exist, to the satisfaction of both sides.

We all have our own beliefs, yet it seems rare to hear atheists speak in anything but absolutes. The phrase “There is no god” is said as if it has been a proven, indisputable fact. If people were completely honest, then we have to say that it has neither been proven that God does, or does not exist.

Sheiman takes the time to ask serious questions like, the purpose of religion, does religion actually cause humanity to be more loving, more helping, more altruistic? He also wants to keep the conversation going between atheists and religionists.

Having just taken the time to enter into an online debate with atheists and skeptics (something I hate doing and rarely do, but got a bit caught up in this one), I was reminded again how vitriolic and demanding such a debate can become. In essence, it often seems more like two people measuring the level of their testosterone against one another, than actually dialoguing.

Insults and put downs come fast and furiously, and an absence of real dialogue is obvious. Atheists are quick to say that God does not exist, nor has ever existed, with Christians responding that God is seen in His handiwork of Creation. It’s the same old endless debate that has raged for generations.

At the outset, Sheiman makes it clear that he is defending religion, not God. This is a good point to make, because it separates deity from the systems which often surround the belief in deity. His point being that systems of religion are not bad in themselves and in fact, have offered quite a number of things that atheists have not.

For instance, whether true or not, religion offers people hope, even if that hope turns out to be a futile hope. As for me, someone who is a Christian, I can attest to the fact that my hope in Christ is great. I do not for one moment believe it to be hoping in vain. Of course, the proof will be in my death. Will my hope be crushed? Will I have learned that what I believed and how I lived was simply for this life and nothing more? Will I discover that there is no God at all, but just a big emptiness? Worse, will I cease to exist after my death? If that’s the case, then I would not know that my questions have been answered.

In any case, Sheiman’s book is good. It’s not great, but it’s good. I believe if there were more honest dialogue between atheists and religionists, there would be far less anger, frustration and vitriol because there would be far less decarative statements from both sides.

I am not saying that I cannot believe (to the point that I believe I know) that God exists and that Christianity is the correct religion. I can also understand how a devout atheist can also come to the point of believing (to the point of knowing) that God does not exist. The first chapter of Romans explains how this can be so.

The real difficulty is that once both sides understand that a stalemate has been reached, then instead of simply repeating the same quotations, comments, and charges that have been stated and restated, ad nauseum, it is time to go beyond the stalemate and recognize that atheists and religionists have something in common: faith.

Atheists I realize do not like hearing that they use faith to come to the understanding that God does not exist. This is a true statement though since no one has been able to prove beyond doubt that God does not exist. It is a faith that it not unlike what I use to come to the conclusion that God does exist, in spite of the fact that I cannot prove God’s existence.

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

What needs to happen is for atheists to understand that the position they have arrived at is not one in which they have been elevated far above the religionsist. This is so because they are using faith as a means to understand and come to grips with their own belief system.

For the religionist who dogmatically asserts that God does exists (and I firmly believe that God exists), making declarative statements is just as bad, because it is offputting. I am not God, though I firmly believe in Him. Because I am not God, I cannot approach a conversation with an atheist as if I am God.

What I must make clear in my presentation is that these are my beliefs, based on my understanding of God’s’ Word. Atheists need to learn to respect that, instead of immediately attempting to trounce me roundly with their caustic rejoinders and expletive-laden responses.

For those interested in dialoguing with atheists and skeptics, a good place to start is with a book like this one, by Bruce Sheiman. The reality is that while Christians believe God’s Word to be authoritatve and inerrant, the atheist sees no difference in the Bible from any other work of antiquity. To them, it is written by man, for man. Insisting to them that it is written by God does nothing (though it may in fact, be written by God).

One thing that I was again reminded of as I read through Sheiman’s book is that if I ere on the side of grace, it is far better than erring on the side of frustration and anger when relating to atheists. In truth, both groups are extremely dogmatic and vehement in their respective positions. Bringing that vehemence and dogmatism to the fore in conversations really does nothing but stoke the fires so that vehemence increases. It is not long before it then becomes either a shouting match or a put down contest, or both.

The one thing I believe is that though 150,000 people die daily throughout the world, God saves some. What I need to do is learn (again!) to look past the decarative statements, the defenses and the sometimes obnoxious behavior from atheists, and see the person. If I take things personally, the conversation is lost already. If it is lost, the door closes and no dialogue takes place. What is gained then?

[artist4perry]

Great points Dave.

[artist4perry]

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

Thought this was a good point. Not all of you do this, but many of you do. And you wonder why it becomes personal?

[S2M]

^^^^^ you know...the above passage about that atheist realizing a stalematechad been reached reminds me of the Casey Anthony jury, and there being just as much evidence that points to guilt as evidence that points to innocence...instead of the jury being hung, the jury is instructed to err on the side of innocence....sounds like the same procedure we are asked to take with faith....all things being equal(stalemate), why not just believe? Believing doesn't hurt anyone....but that's wrong. Faith is like that imaginary friend that tells you you are less than, and need constant help....faith is a defense mechanism for coping with the scientific fact that we all die, and waste away over time....instead of logically facing the facts. Faith wants the weak-minded. Cults deal in Faith wholesale....Faith is for those that cannot think for themselves...

[artist4perry]

^^^^^ you know...the above passage about that atheist realizing a stalematechad been reached reminds me of the Casey Anthony jury, and there being just as much evidence that points to guilt as evidence that points to innocence...instead of the jury being hung, the jury is instructed to err on the side of innocence....sounds like the same procedure we are asked to take with faith....all things being equal(stalemate), why not just believe? Believing doesn't hurt anyone....but that's wrong. Faith is like that imaginary friend that tells you you are less than, and need constant help....faith is a defense mechanism for coping with the scientific fact that we all die, and waste away over time....instead of logically facing the facts. Faith wants the weak-minded. Cults deal in Faith wholesale....Faith is for those that cannot think for themselves...

Yes, oh wise one.........see superiority. You are much wiser than the rest of us WEAK MINDED people. And when did anyone say YOU have to believe?

This is all your insights. And you are so much better since you did not fall into the fallacy of belief. Good for you. Do you even listen to yourself? You come across as condescending as Thirsten Howel the Third, and talk to us like we are Gilligan.

Again Atheist, come off your superiority pedestal long enough to listen to someone talking to you about being fair in a discussion. And if I love God, love my family, give of my means, treat people with love, help others, and do no harm in my life I have died not in vain. Because it would not matter if all we are is matter after we go.

[Duncan]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

Creationism is. But again what are you guys trying to prove? What does this accomplish in the long run? Your not going to shake my faith, and I am not going to change your mind, so what does this prove? That you can call me names? Congratulations.........

Atheists aren't trying to prove anything. The burden of proof rests with those who make extraordinary claims of the supernatural.

Typically, at least in America, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, right? In this thread, the prosecution are those claiming there is no God. But I'm just sayin'...

Not really Dave. An athiest is someone who doesn't believe in god. You can't prosecute a non belief. No one was ever prosecuted in an American court of law when the prosecutor didn't believe something in the affirmative. You never hear is said that you are being prosecuted because someone doesn't believe you did something.

[Rip Rokken]

Hitch Hitchslapping Sean Hannity and Jerry Falwell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WddjWqTryog

[Duncan]

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

Thought this was a good point. Not all of you do this, but many of you do. And you wonder why it becomes personal?

You know what really offends is the arrogance of the relegious. What makes you so special? What about the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

[artist4perry]

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

Thought this was a good point. Not all of you do this, but many of you do. And you wonder why it becomes personal?

You know what really offends is the arrogance of the relegious. What makes you so special? What about the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

Never claimed to be SO SPECIAL. And I do give to folks in need overseas, every week. As a matter of fact our preacher went over to South America recently to take medical supplies to the needy. I cannot take away all of the worlds evil. But I can do whatever I can to help. Even atheists can do that. Saying I have to remove it all is also to turn the question on you, what are you doing for the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

[S2M]

Ginger, I'm not an atheist. I'm wise enough to suspend judgment. It's called agnosticism. I don't know if there is or there isn't...I lean towards isn't. My issue is with faith and locus of control where it relates to consequences....well-adjusted, stable, logical individuals have an internal locus of control...that is to say they internalize a consequence. Religious folk, and other faith-based dogma have an external locus. For instance, let's say you failed a test...the internal, well-adjusted person would admit he/she didn't study enough.....the external person would claim the test was unfair, or too difficult. To put it in terms of religion....someone dies - guess which person admits the person just died, and which person will claim god wanted him.

[artist4perry]

Ginger, I'm not an atheist. I'm wise enough to suspend judgment. It's called agnosticism. I don't know if there is or there isn't...I lean towards isn't. My issue is with faith and locus of control where it relates to consequences....well-adjusted, stable, logical individuals have an internal locus of control...that is to say they internalize a consequence. Religious folk, and other faith-based dogma have an external locus. For instance, let's say you failed a test...the internal, well-adjusted person would admit he/she didn't study enough.....the external person would claim the test was unfair, or too difficult. To put it in terms of religion....someone dies - guess which person admits the person just died, and which person will claim god wanted him.

But that is your insight, not mine. Are you saying that this is the only reason anyone would believe? My faith is not out of fear, or any reason you have given. You see it is a personal thing. If you are wise enough to suspend judgment, then why are you so quick to judge all people of faith under one umbrella?

I never believe God comes and takes us away. I believe we are destined to die. God did not create us to live forever. Some die of disease, some of car accidents, some of old age. It is just the way the world was set up, we will not live forever. It was not to be. And I don't think you hit a magic number of days. You just die because of the reasons that you do. Not because God snatches you from your mortal coil.

And I apologize if I said you are atheist and you are not. Your conversations led me to think that way.

[Duncan]

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

Thought this was a good point. Not all of you do this, but many of you do. And you wonder why it becomes personal?

You know what really offends is the arrogance of the relegious. What makes you so special? What about the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

Never claimed to be SO SPECIAL. And I do give to folks in need overseas, every week. As a matter of fact our preacher went over to South America recently to take medical supplies to the needy. I cannot take away all of the worlds evil. But I can do whatever I can to help. Even atheists can do that. Saying I have to remove it all is also to turn the question on you, what are you doing for the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

Not the point I was trying to make. Why weren't you born to an HIV positive mother or run down and killed by a drunk driver before the age of reason. What makes you so special in god's eyes?

[artist4perry]

One thing you must know, I don't have a problem with someone being atheist, agnostic, druid, muslim, or out to lunch on the whole thing.

What I do not like is that it is often insinuated that one must be weak, stupid, crazy to be a christian!

Seriously?

How hard is it to just allow me my faith and I allow you whatever you find to be your reason of origin?

locus control- I have never blamed other things on me failing tests etc. I usually know if I have not studied etc. But to say that because I have faith therefore I must lack locus control? In who's opinion? Ever wonder if that opinion may be a bit biased?

[artist4perry]

Most atheists assume God’s lack of existence and that they have arrived at that point through the benefits of sheer intellect. Having arrived there, they believe this position is far superior to that of the lowly religionist. This position – no matter how they couch it – offends because it presents their position as having an aire of superiority, though they have in fact proven nothing, except to themselves.

Thought this was a good point. Not all of you do this, but many of you do. And you wonder why it becomes personal?

You know what really offends is the arrogance of the relegious. What makes you so special? What about the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

Never claimed to be SO SPECIAL. And I do give to folks in need overseas, every week. As a matter of fact our preacher went over to South America recently to take medical supplies to the needy. I cannot take away all of the worlds evil. But I can do whatever I can to help. Even atheists can do that. Saying I have to remove it all is also to turn the question on you, what are you doing for the children dying of hunger in Somalia?

Not the point I was trying to make. Why weren't you born to an HIV positive mother or run down and killed by a drunk driver before the age of reason. What makes you so special in god's eyes?

What makes you think he does not deem them special? God never promised there would be no pain or suffering. And if you believe in God then you might also believe in evil in the world. Ever wonder if these things come about to make you doubt there is a God?

[slucero]

If all religions agree that:

* only "God" can judge one for their sins,

Then it is logical that one's relationship with "God" is one-to-one, i.e.. the individual-to-God.... to the exclusion of all others... and their piety.


Meaning, humanity has no place judging his fellow man regarding piety... as one's individual piety is only meaningful to the individual and God, unless the religion requires peer evaluation,.. but that would also negate the one-to-one relationship.. and that "Gods" supreme state...

[Gideon]

Ginger, I'm not an atheist. I'm wise enough to suspend judgment. It's called agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the only rational worldview when it comes to religion. (And I say that as a Christian.)

It's definitely the most sensible, which is why I've found that religious belief is an issue of emotion rather than outright cognition.

[artist4perry]

Ginger, I'm not an atheist. I'm wise enough to suspend judgment. It's called agnosticism.

Agnosticism is the only rational worldview when it comes to religion. (And I say that as a Christian.)

It's definitely the most sensible, which is why I've found that religious belief is an issue of emotion rather than outright cognition.

It is also out of cognition. In saying such you say it is not a decision made of any thought. There are many cognitive reasons I believe. Emotion is part of it because it teaches love, hope, charity, forgiveness, empathy, etc.


But I also reason, what makes the world? Why does nature work in a symbiotic way? Why are animals made to serve and help one another? Why do we love? Why do we care about others? What makes us show compassion? Where do we come from? Why does it seem designed? These are thoughts that call on cognition. Thought process.

See? Your inferring a lack of thought to religious belief.

[Gideon]

It is also out of cognition. In saying such you say it is not a decision made of any thought. There are many cognitive reasons I believe. Emotion is part of it because it teaches love, hope, charity, forgiveness, empathy, etc.


But I also reason, what makes the world? Why does nature work in a symbiotic way? Why are animals made to serve and help one another? Why do we love? Why do we care about others? What makes us show compassion? Where do we come from? Why does it seem designed? These are thoughts that call on cognition. Thought process.

See? Your inferring a lack of thought to religious belief.

?
As someone who is simultaneously a logician and a religious person, I stand by my assessment. Certainly faith (or mature faith) requires a level of cognition. Ultimately, though, it assumes certain facts that are not in evidence. One can't conclude there is a God through strict application of logic, which is why I say it's an issue of emotion.

[Duncan]

What makes you think he does not deem them special? God never promised there would be no pain or suffering. And if you believe in God then you might also believe in evil in the world. Ever wonder if these things come about to make you doubt there is a God?

By his actions. You have to worship God to go to heaven, but the baby born with an incurable disease who dies before the age of reason never had that opportunity. There's millions of babies that have died.

Why would God do things to make me doubt him?

[artist4perry]

It is also out of cognition. In saying such you say it is not a decision made of any thought. There are many cognitive reasons I believe. Emotion is part of it because it teaches love, hope, charity, forgiveness, empathy, etc.


But I also reason, what makes the world? Why does nature work in a symbiotic way? Why are animals made to serve and help one another? Why do we love? Why do we care about others? What makes us show compassion? Where do we come from? Why does it seem designed? These are thoughts that call on cognition. Thought process.

See? Your inferring a lack of thought to religious belief.

?
As someone who is simultaneously a logician and a religious person, I stand by my assessment. Certainly faith (or mature faith) requires a level of cognition. Ultimately, though, it assumes certain facts that are not in evidence. One can't conclude there is a God through strict application of logic, which is why I say it's an issue of emotion.

Ah but Gideon it is logic too! When I see the design so intricate in nature. When I gave birth to my first child. When I see the wonders of nature, the forests, the mountains, the complexity of how things work. I see a creator. I see design. I am an artist and even the best artists cannot compare to the beauty of things in real life! It is well designed. Water, sun, dirt, tree seed, a tree grows, food is made, animals and humans eat the food. Why do we eat the food? What purpose do we have to enjoy food? Why do we hunger for it? Why do we need it?

Why do we think?

[Gideon]

What makes you think he does not deem them special? God never promised there would be no pain or suffering. And if you believe in God then you might also believe in evil in the world. Ever wonder if these things come about to make you doubt there is a God?

By his actions. You have to worship God to go to heaven, but the baby born with an incurable disease who dies before the age of reason never had that opportunity. There's millions of babies that have died.

Why would God do things to make me doubt him?

The 'age of accountability' is a Christian tenet that preserves the immortal soul of a child in these sort of circumstances. That's one of the things that used to trouble me about my faith until I did a little digging.