| Author |
Message |
    
Buellinmke
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 06:23 pm: | 
|
If Christianity is bad and the lack of Christianity is good, where in history or on the planet has a society been made incrementally better by the removal of Christianity?
Seems one could demonstrate demonstrable improvement the less Christianity is present.
China. The Chinese are the new global superpower, yet the majority of the society is non-religious/agnostic/atheist. They are also Communist and have taken over control of the planet as the United States has destroyed itself over petty bickering. Our government wastes our future arguing over defunding public television, radio, workers unions, healthcare, etc. while the Chinese are building new technologies that will literally take them to the moon. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 06:35 pm: |
|
I'm not sure that I would equate simply being a global superpower with being good. In fact I'm quite sure I wouldn't. I'm not so convinced that China will prove to be a force for good as a world superpower either. Time will tell I suppose. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2011 - 07:54 pm: |
|
SDave,
You missed the point. Europe has a strong Christian history, and Christianity remains strong there today. How many European universities are church sponsored?
Mike,
>>> and have taken over control of the planet
Dude. They can't even control N. Korea. The climax of their military prowess is to crash a fighter jet into our surveillance aircraft then refuse to return it so they can study it. Take away free Hong Kong and what's left is far less significant. Not to mention that Christianity is exploding in China. Oops. |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Monday, October 03, 2011 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Things to think about:
* Science fails when it becomes a religion. Followers of science must keep in mind that science isn't a belief in what happens when you pour vinegar onto baking soda - but a methodology for learning and understanding. True people of science understand that everything is just a currently held belief subject to being superceded by newer and (hopefully) less inaccurate beliefs. I think the end game of science is probably repeatability. Of course, doing a rain dance when your bad knee hurts and the clouds are dark may be pretty repeatable.
* Modern religions are typically mutually exclusive at the very end. It's not a thing where we all believe in the same 17 gods yet choose to worship specific ones to further our own needs. We have belief systems which exist because they are at least minimally incompatible with another belief system. Best case scenario is that only ONE of these many is correct. Isn't it, uh, interesting to always believe that my / your / his / whatever's is correct?
* Most people die with the religion they're born into. Religion is not a choice. It's a basic "first thing I see is truth" sort of thing. It seems to be human nature to grasp onto first impressions. A kid whose first experience with a dog results in a bite will likely have trouble with dogs - and from a purely mechanical / behavioral perspective, that's not so unreasonable.
* A friend's mother (from small town in Texas) and her friends were appalled when their child had befriended an atheist. After meeting the atheist and returning to Texas, the mother described the atheist friend as "a better Christian than most."
* Prove that something doesn't exist. I don't mean the apple in your refrigerator - and I don't mean this fluffy philosophical tree in the forest bs. I mean something that you cannot empirically prove does exist. For example, take it on faith that I have a cousin named Bartev. Please prove that he does not exist. Generally speaking, you counter the arguments FOR something by examining the points which supports that thing. So, this "prove it" bs is really lame. Prove what? The "contest" is a stalemate. A theist of any sort generally needs not prove anything since faith is the key. In fact, I've heard many times that doubt is bad / evil.... The nature of many faiths excludes proof. So what is an atheist supposed to examine to help determine if a theist's argument for the existence of a deity is sound?
Personally, I know there is no god just as strongly as most of you believe there is one. I wish there was. I wish that my childhood wasn't destroyed when the religion family raised me with proved inadequate at a very young age.
I wish my dad was going someplace where I could join him forever. I wish that my actions here would carry on as more than just an echo in the conscience of my family members.
I am troubled by faith. I'm troubled that people believe in things that I find preposterous. I'm also troubled that I cannot join them.
This didn't help my headache. Crap.
-Saro |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 12:55 am: |
|
Some of us are pantheists. Why just One? 
I break it down pretty simple.
Science is, as you state, a methodology to explore the universe. It differs from Philosophy in many ways. Having a good argument doesn't prove something in Science, but may in Philosophy... or you can go with "nothing can be proved" in Philosophy.....
Religion by it's nature has an assumption on some of the big unknowns. ( why am I here? How did this all happen? How did it start?
Someone decided, somehow, that the Frost Giants ruled the place, till the Gods came and kicked them out.... or some indescribable being spoke The Word....or the Big Bang happened, and you admit that before the Singularity it is unknowable.... Pick as many as you like of the thousand guesses, reasoned conclusions, or revealed truths.... I'm sure I don't KNOW, but I have my preferences.
The fringes of the known... or the God of the Gaps, call it what you want but not only is the Science Never Settled, it also doesn't know everything. The 19th century determinism is dead.
Others will have different opinions.
As far as being troubled with others believing the preposterous........ Can you even sleep nights after seeing the tabloids at the supermarket? Or a political ad? Take a deep breath, center, and relax.
Troubled you can't believe? Talk to some people who do. Don't limit yourself to Priests. Organized religions are a business. Talk to a Buddhist, a Shinto, a Wiccan. In what I like of faiths, there is a code of conduct that takes others well being into account. Maybe in the end you'll choose not to choose. Which is a choice in itself. ( Zen Koans can be fun. Bring Whiskey. )
There's a saying in retail. "people are stupid". ( That's also a saying in politics and religion, but not in front of the marks ) |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 12:01 pm: |
|
Patrick-
I understand your points. I've been exposed to other belief systems besides Judeo-Christian monotheism. For me it distills down to one simple thing. I am incapable of buying into magic - whatever the ultimate expression.
I believe in "I don't know." It takes courage. It provides freedom. But I cannot make up answers (I mean I CAN, but...) or take in half baked concepts just to provide my head with some false sense of a known, predictable world.
The worst quality in humanity is this concept of knowing or being all. We're SO focused on what we know that we don't understand what we don't know. We can look back at the retarded heathens of the past and laugh at the thoughts of Apollo dragging the sun across the sky or of some chunky pacific islander hurling young virgins into a volcano to appease the volcano god. But somehow we can't see we're doing the same $h!t now. If we can't figure something out, we attribute it to magic. Still.
How do we explain the beginning of the universe? I'm okay with I don't know.
Then there's some people's perceptions of atheists. We have no morals. WTF. Really, asswipes? Talk to the kids who call me grandpa (unbelievable as it seems). Talk to the countless people I've helped on the side of the road. Or maybe when I mention that the checkout girl miscounted some items in my favor. Better yet, ask me about how crappy I feel about when I've wronged people. Satanic enough for you?
I love the degree of freedom some folks have in saying that I'm going to hell or that I'm some sort of satan spawn. Wanna hear what I think about you? Please stop displaying your ignorance for all the world to see. I don't believe in satan any more than they believe in santa claus.
And this crazy notion of a lack of atheists willing to spar with a guy who went to school for a little too long.... For what? There is no basis for discussion. Please continue to believe in your magical thinking. It's cool. It ain't for me. I just ain't willing to shoot into the air in a pointless pissing match and I suspect that the most learned atheist (I'm a numbskulled satanic dropout) would tell you the same thing. We might as well play tic tac toe.
Regarding being troubled that I don't believe goes, it's a little tough to articulate. Maybe it's like being the only vegetarian in a group of meat eaters. Envy ('cause you remember how much you liked that burger) and disgust. Most religions give our half way conscious minds a way to handle our existence without going too nuts over the details. I look at the family and I hope none of the kids ever ask what I believe (their mom & dad are LDS). I don't want to tell them that I think their belief system is nuts. Extra nuts. That they're being manipulated for the benefit of an organization and not themselves, their souls, their families, or the god they think they're praying to. I'd like for them to continue on with their happy predictable lives. I don't want to piss in their Wheaties. I already pissed in my own.
I've already chosen, Patrick. Well, maybe not chosen, but simply realized. I cannot believe.
-Saro |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 04:54 pm: |
|
>>> what is an atheist supposed to examine to help determine if a theist's argument for the existence of a deity is sound?
If one is an atheist as opposed to agnostic, then there is no argument. The atheist has chosen his/her faith. It seems that a fair portion of atheists reject theism due to a bad personal experience or their particular understanding of religion. Not everyone is like Job, and my experience is that the supposed "faith" of some is not very deep, very poorly rooted (ignorant). It doesn't take much to destroy it. The parable of the sown seeds seems applicable, but now we're talking religion.
Does rejecting one's faith mean rejecting god? That's a religious issue I think, something beyond the question of "does a designer exist"?
But back to your question, someone seeking true understanding would look for answers to the questions of origins, and existence, and objective morality. What I've found is that without god, there is no plausible explanation for any of those realities.
Dawkins says that any evidence of a designer is evidence for aliens. That just kicks the can up the road.
The idea that people are born into religion is a valid point to some degree today, but logically speaking, it is an entirely worthless point concerning the veracity of a particular belief or faith.
And to be fair one ought to also consider history. At one time Christians for instance were very few and were hunted, and persecuted, killed. Consider also the ongoing growth of the faith among those who have never seen it or heard of it. See China for example.
Magic? That would be the ideas that life erupts from non life, and the universe and time itself begin out of nothing on their own. To recognize a designer is not to believe in magic, it's the farthest thing from it. It's merely recognition of causation.
What I think you mean, unless you're intending to be insulting, is that you cannot imagine a being that exists outside of our four dimensional reality, beyond what we experience as space and time, an extra-dimensional being.
No one that I know ever said that atheists have no morals.
However, it is logically sound to say that without a provider/definer of objective moral values and duties, that none would exist. Whether one recognizes the basis for objective morals is another issue, but without a grounded basis, there can be none.
Sounds to me like you found problems in a particular religion and have chucked the creator out with it. Understandable, but not logical. It's an unfortunate reaction, highly emotional, understandable for sure, just not well-reasoned.
Plenty of loud mouthed atheists like to preach and proselytize their faith, but when faced with a very intelligent and learned man in a debate, want none of it.
To wit all the nonsense that has been debunked here in this very discussion thread concerning scriptural authenticity and accuracy. The lies and deception surrounding the Judeo-Christian religion are legion. Why ya figure that might be?
Explain "over-educated".
Edited for grammar mostly.
(Message edited by Blake on October 04, 2011) |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 04:59 pm: |
|
Sorry, you said "someone who went to school a little too long."
What does that mean? Sounds pretty sour.
FYI: Dawkins has never left school. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 05:11 pm: |
|
Penn Jillette has explained why he is an atheist, and it is exactly as Blake describes. His mother died a painful death, and he decided that there couldn't be a God, and if there was he didn't want anything to do with Him. I'm paraphrasing, but that's pretty much exactly what he said. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 08:27 pm: |
|
Very interesting...
http://y-jesus.com/jesuscomplex_1.php
C.S Lewis was huge for me in coming to my conclusions. An atheist seeking truth. An honest, objective skeptic. His book "Mere Christianity" is wonderful. Pure genius. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - 09:46 pm: |
|
For SDave:
Quotes
Fred Hoyle
(British astrophysicist)
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
George Ellis
(British astrophysicist)
“Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.”
Paul Davies
(British astrophysicist)
“There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. The impression of design is overwhelming.”
Alan Sandage
(winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy)
“I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.”
John O'Keefe
(NASA astronomer)
“We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures. If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.”
George Greenstein
(astronomer)
“As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency—or, rather, Agency—must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?”
Arthur Eddington
(astrophysicist)
“The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.”
Arno Penzias
(Nobel prize in physics)
“Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.”
Roger Penrose
(mathematician and author)
“I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.”
Tony Rothman
(physicist)
“When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”
Vera Kistiakowsky
(MIT physicist)
“The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”
Alexander Polyakov
(Soviet mathematician)
“We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”
Ed Harrison
(cosmologist)
“Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God—the design argument of Paley—updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.”
Edward Milne
(British cosmologist)
“As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].”
Barry Parker
(cosmologist)
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.”
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel
(cosmologists)
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”
Arthur L. Schawlow
(Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics)
“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer
(computational quantum chemist)
“The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.”
Wernher von Braun
(Pioneer rocket engineer)
“I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - 08:53 am: |
|
When I removed my dad from the machines that sustained his life on Christmas eve 2003, I knew that God existed. I knew that part of His plan for me was to save my mother from that pain. |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - 10:57 am: |
|
Blake-
Let's start with "Atheists Afraid to Debate Christian Philosopher, Dr. William Craig" - the title of this thread pointing to an article which, in the first couple of sentences anyway, was saying "those chicken $h!t baseless atheists can't argue against God." To that point, we both agree that there is NO argument based on the following:
quote:>>> what is an atheist supposed to examine to help determine if a theist's argument for the existence of a deity is sound?
If one is an atheist as opposed to agnostic, then there is no argument.
So, this particular atheist felt attacked by something that is ridiculous at the core.
quote:Does rejecting one's faith mean rejecting god?
What is god? Or a creator? Kinda takes us to the question of the supernatural. And that's sort of getting to some of the point.
I don't believe in a supernatural. I believe in nature (nature is not a national park). I believe in things we can repeat in nature. I believe there are things we do not (cannot?) understrand. I RESPECT that fact and cannot generate fluffy explanations of "magic happens here" (classic whiteboard stuff) to fill in the blanks. Not believing in the supernatural eliminates the possibility of a deity. Therefore, I am an atheist, and so is anyone who doesn't believe in the supernatural.
quote:Sounds to me like you found problems in a particular religion and have chucked the creator out with it.
Well... Did I have very emotional negative experiences with religion as a kid? Absolutely. Not in the "diddled by the purv in the robes" kinda way.
Simply put, imagine someone told you that you could burn water and get energy. So you spend a whole bunch of time stupidly and naively believing that these well meaning, loving people told you something true. You do all you can to burn water and eventually figure out that you're just turning the water into steam - and getting no energy out of it in the process. In fact, you've consumed a fair amount of energy. The steam has purpose in the right context, but for cryin' out loud....
I spent a lot of time trying to figure out why I was seeing steam while others were seeing energy. I really tried. I am incapable of seeing the energy.
At the risk of sounding more cavalier than I already have, this whole notion of a bunch of learned people taking their knowledge, pushing it to the limit, and concluding that they have no other way to explain things other than through the existence of a creator takes us to another theist vs atheistic catch 22. For me, just because someone cannot fathom some other mechanism doesn't mean jack. We're back to Apollo & the sun.
And WRT Magic.... Seriously, what part of religion is not magical? Just because it's not some dude in a top hat with 3 bimbo assistants doesn't make it not magical. I focus on Christianity just out of familiarity, but what miracle would not qualify as magic? Giving sight to the blinded (assuming no medicine)? Water into wine? Virgin birth (assuming no surgery)? Belief in a god = belief in the supernatural = belief in magic.
And...
quote:Sounds pretty sour.
Abso-effing-lutely, Blake. I'm a curmudgeon. I've spent most of my life building a personal hell (maybe the Christians are right!) and just trying to ignore that everything is pointless. The question of whether or not to continue is more than just daily. While there are things in my life that should give me happiness, when not distracted by those things, this is what I sink into. A lot of staring at the dark.
This discussion doesn't make me feel any better. I feel like an ••••••• for getting into it at all. It makes me feel like crap. These sentiments may anger some. Sorry to all of you. But this is my truth - and it is bloody inconvenient for me. Be happy that your truths are more convenient for you.
Do I have to send BadWeB a check for therapy?
-Saro |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - 11:22 am: |
|
Not believing in the supernatural eliminates the possibility of a deity.
"I don't believe in God, therefore there is no God" is not only closed minded, but it is circular logic.
Sorry to hear that life has no meaning for you. Hopefully someday you will find meaning in life. I mean that sincerely. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - 07:25 pm: |
|
Before microbes were proved, the theory of their existence seemed supernatural, thus many scientists scoffed at it as such.
So too the theory of an extra-dimensional being. It's not "magic" just not so easily proved.
Magic would be something arising out of nothing all on its own, or life arising from sterile chaotic non-life all on it's own. THOSE would be magic.
Recognizing the absurdity and implausibility of such occurrences is logic based upon sound science. It is incredibly well-informed theory. It is in fact a very law of science that from nothing, nothing comes. Some might point to the documented scientific observation of certain subatomic particles "spontaneously" appearing where none previously existed. What they don't admit is that those particles did NOT arise from nothing, but rather from quite a lot of something, namely space, time, and a very energy-rich environment.
The lack of imagination seems to be with those who are unable to imagine the existence of an extra-dimensional being.
Your water-burning analogy makes sense. I can absolutely relate. But the leap you've made is not logical. Continuing the analogy, it seems that you've indeed been mislead that water can be burned to create energy, but recognizing the deception, you reject the existence of water and energy.
I don't know your personal story. I know you as a very intelligent and thoughtful man. Are you beyond being able to read, study, and decide for yourself what/where that which you were told was misleading or misunderstood, and what the truth really may be?
Many reject god out of anger.
Diverging from the question of a designer's existence in order to offer some answer to your personal situation:
Even Jesus prayed to avoid suffering, pain, and anguish, but was refused. "Father, if you be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done."
Even Jesus felt utterly and completely forsaken by god. "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
Who are we to demand god accede to our own personal desires? "... Thy will be done."
That unholy god-forsaken emptiness of which you speak can be confronted and defeated. It's not magic.
Edited for clarity and grammar.
(Message edited by blake on October 05, 2011) |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 05, 2011 - 07:45 pm: |
|
As long as you promise that you'll hang tough no matter what, I consider it a true privilege to have this discussion. Besides, BadWeB is a results oriented forum.  |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2011 - 02:08 am: |
|
Blake-
Is radiation supernatural? Can't see it, hear it, etc. Yet not understanding what it is can certainly lead one to believe that it is some sort of magical, evil force that melted off your skin. As our understanding evolves, we develop theories about what that force is, we test it, arrive at repeatable actions & observations, and then move on after assigning the phenomenon a reasonable level of certainty.
I'm not sure if I was clear about my points regarding natural & supernatural. That there is no supernatural doesn't mean that there was no radiation. It simply means that if I was the poor schmuck whose hip tuned green from the wonder rock, I'd not have attributed the result to the supernatural - but to the unknown. I think this was Marie Curie who came up with this, right? I vaguely recall her name as the discoverer of radiation from junior high. Even if it's not her.... She could have attributed this to the angry god of stolen rocks. Instead, she scratched her head. I'm the head scratcher.
quote:Are you beyond being able to read, study, and decide for yourself what/where that which you were told was misleading or misunderstood, and what the truth really may be?
I've never read anything compelling on the matter. Maybe I'm just stubborn, but what I generally see is people grasping for explanations to bridge knowledge gaps. "We, the smartest people in the world, can't figure out any other way." I simply choose a different cop-out. "I don't know."
What happened before the big bang? "I don't know."
Let's cross the beams for a second. Who created the creator?
So, let's say for the sake of argument that there's some nebula out there that has a vast expanse of neural network-like structures. This thing is the size of a galaxy. It encompasses the mental power of countless humans. Is that supernatural?
I can't believe in a god, creator, etc that has no measureable footprint. Now that nebula example is interesting. It's massive, certainly must contain a buttload of energy, and maybe we can figure out a way to interact with it. Would it be a deity?
In my world, it is simply part of nature. Was the conscious nebula the product of someone with no imagination? Probably not an original idea, but I've never heard of it.
Not saying I'm right. Just saying I don't see any other way - and I would prefer to see another way.
quote:I don't know your personal story.
My story is unexciting. I have parents who love me and did the best they could to raise me. Always had a roof over my head and food in my belly. When the Glendale, Ca hoodlums said to a 6 year old me, "Hey Armo, go back to Armoland!", I knew in my head they were morons and it never bothered me for a second. When my fellow Armenians uttered insults about Black, Mexican, Asian, Jewish, or Gay people, all I could do was wonder what crawled up their asses. Most of what eats at me comes from inside. Most of what provides me joy comes from outside. I'm afraid to do the things I love and was good at. I never made any children but somehow find lots of young people looking up to me - and feel as awkward and undeserving about it as I do privileged. My vegetarian wife will make you some of the best fried chicken you'll ever eat. I ride a Davidson, not a Harley.
quote:I consider it a true privilege to have this discussion.
I consider it a privilege to be wished well by those who disagree with me. It's unlikely that someone who's been hanging in there since his teens will change course any time soon, but thanks very sincerely for the concern. I have too many people who love me and rely on me to want to disrupt their lives.
As much as I can't stand the saying, this is a matter of agreeing to disagree.
-Saro |
Blake
| | Posted on Thursday, October 06, 2011 - 04:23 am: |
|
Re radiation/magic: I don't see your point as relates to a creator. A creative act is not inherently supernatural. Is a man designing and building a computer supernatural?
>>> "We, the smartest people in the world, can't figure out any other way."
That is an incredibly jaded and inaccurate characterization of what respectable scientists have concluded, or if you like, theorized. What they are saying is that the evidence leads to the theory. The theory is the best explanation for what has been observed. Science is following the evidence no matter where it leads. Lately and ever more frequently that is straight towards a designer/creator.
>>> Let's cross the beams for a second. Who created the creator?
If the creator exists extra-dimensionally outside of space and time as we know it, then to us he would be eternal, no beginning, no end. Your question would be like asking, "from where does a circle begin", or "from what point does the surface of a sphere originate".
That said, as with anything, one need not explain/understand the cause of a creator to justify that a creator exists. You recognize that matter, energy, the universe, time itself, and life all exist, but you cannot explain it. Why then hold the creator to a different standard? As you said, we scratch our head.
Interesting related side note: Are you familiar with the meaning of god's name as he confided it to Moses? It translates to English as "I Am." If the Torah is true, that may well be the answer to your question. Very profound truth.
>>> I can't believe in a god, creator, etc that has no measurable footprint.
Why, because it is unknown to you? You'd be interested in the story surrounding yesterday's winner of the nobel prize for chemistry. He discovered pseudo-crystals, previously scoffed at and ridiculed by fellow scientists as fiction and impossible. Yet one more bit of science that tends to bolster the idea of an intelligent designer.
Do you believe in thought? How about mathematics?Principles of logical reasoning? How about goodness and morality? Humor? Love? What footprint have they?
What do you mean exactly when you say that you "cannot believe in"? I think that can mean so many different things to different people.
What motivates the disbelief? The energy from water issue? What is that story? I'm interested to hear it.
>>> As much as I can't stand the saying, this is a matter of agreeing to disagree.
I thought it was a discussion, sharing thoughts, points of view. I used to scoff at philosophy; now I'm totally digging it.
>>> I've never read anything compelling on the matter. Maybe I'm just stubborn, but what I generally see is people grasping for explanations to bridge knowledge gaps.
I understand that I think, but are you beyond being able to read, study, and decide for yourself what/where that which you were told was misleading or misunderstood, and what the truth really may be? Or is your mind made up, solidly faithful to the religion naturalism (magic)? See how adeptly I throw the whole "magic" thing back at you?  |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, October 07, 2011 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Related to the claim by some that atheism is not a religion:
In Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961, and also later in 1985, the courts ruled that Secular Humanism is a viable First Amendment religion.
In the 1977 cases Theriault v. Silver and Malnak v. Yogi, the court ruled that atheism is a religion. |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2011 - 12:28 am: |
|
Here is a great explanation of how and why atheism is not a religion.
Not me writing the following but a great explanation.
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with a fair understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Because it’s such a common claim, though, it’s worth demonstrating the depth and breadth of the errors being made. Presented here are the characteristics which best define religions, distinguishing them from other types of belief systems, and how atheism utterly fails to even remotely match any of them.
Belief in Supernatural Beings:
Perhaps the most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is a belief in supernatural beings — usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods and thus excludes belief in gods, but it does not exclude belief in other supernatural beings. More important, however, is that atheism does not teach the existence of such beings and most atheists in the West do not believe in them.
Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times:
Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Atheism excludes believing in things that are “sacred” for the purpose of worshiping gods, but otherwise has nothing to say on the matter — neither promoting nor rejecting the distinction. Many atheists probably have things, places, or times which they consider “sacred” in that they are venerated or esteemed highly.
Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times:
If people believe in something sacred, they probably have associated rituals. As with the very existence of a category of “sacred” things, however, there is nothing about atheism which either mandates such a belief or necessarily excludes it — it’s simply an irrelevant issue. An atheist who holds something as “sacred” may engage in some sort of associated ritual or ceremony, but there is no such thing as an “atheist ritual.”
Moral Code With Supernatural Origins:
Most religions preach some sort of moral code which is typically based upon its transcendental and supernatural beliefs. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Atheists have moral codes, but they don’t believe that those codes are derived from any gods and it would be unusual for them to believe that their morals have a supernatural origin. More importantly, atheism doesn’t teach any particular moral code.
Characteristically Religious Feelings:
Perhaps the vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of “religious feelings” like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage these sorts of feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the presence of the supernatural. Atheists may experience some of these feelings, like awe at the universe itself, but they are neither promoted nor discouraged by atheism itself.
Prayer and Other Forms of Communication:
Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn’t get you very far if you can’t communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs naturally also teach how to talk to them — usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Atheists don’t believe in gods so obviously don’t try to communicate with any; an atheist who believes in some other type of supernatural being might try to communicate with it, but such communication is completely incidental to atheism itself.
A Worldview & Organization of One’s Life Based on the Worldview:
Religions are never just a collection of isolated and unrelated beliefs; instead, they constitute entire worldviews based upon these beliefs and around which people organize their lives. Atheists naturally have worldviews, but atheism itself isn’t a worldview and doesn’t promote any one worldview. Atheists have different ideas about how to live because they have different philosophies on life. Atheism is not a philosophy or ideology, but it can be part of a philosophy, ideology, or worldview.
A Social Group Bound Together by the Above:
A few religious people follow their religion in isolated ways, but usually religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. Many atheists belong to a variety of groups, but relatively few atheists belong to specifically atheistic groups — atheists are notorious for not being joiners. When they do belong to atheist groups, though, those groups aren’t bound together by any of the above.
Comparing and Contrasting Atheism & Religion:
Some of these characteristics are more important than others, but none is so important that it alone can make a religion. If atheism lacked one or two of these characteristics, then it would be a religion. If lacked five or six, then it might qualify as metaphorically religious, in the sense of how people follow baseball religiously.
The truth is that atheism lacks every one of these characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs. They aren’t even remotely comparable.
So why do people claim that atheism is a religion? Usually this occurs in the process of criticizing atheism and/or atheists. It may at times be politically motivated because if atheism is a religion, they think they can force the state to stop “promoting” atheism by eliminating endorsements of Christianity. Sometimes the assumption is that if atheism is simply another “faith,” then atheists’ critiques of religious beliefs are hypocritical and can be ignored.
Since the claim that atheism is a religion is based upon a misunderstanding of one or both concepts, it must proceed from flawed premises. This isn’t just a problem for atheists; given the importance of religion in society, misrepresenting atheism as a religion can undermine people’s ability to understand religion itself. How can we sensibly discuss matters like the separation of church and state, the secularization of society, or the history of religious violence if we don’t adequately define what religion is?
Productive discussion requires clear thinking about concepts and premises, but clear and coherent thinking are undermined by misrepresentations like this.
Not all Christians insist on classifying atheism as a religion. Those Christians who do so can be divided into two groups: (1) Christians who sincerely have extreme difficulty how an adult human being can harbor no belief in a supernatural creator or "higher power" and function in life without a religion, and (2) Christians who have become aware of the popular debating tactic of labeling atheism as "just another dogmatic religion," after all other arguments in favor of religion's truth claims (evidentiary support) or usefulness have failed or fallen flat.
BTW, I suspect that "T J M" is not a lawyer, or he would have provided the West Reporter citation for Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005).
The U.S. Supreme Court has given "religion" a ridiculously broad definition FOR PURPOSES OF CLAIMS THAT THE FREE EXERCISE OR ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. In Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the plaintiff was a prison inmate who was refused permission to form an atheism / freethinkers discussion/study group. As often happens in Establishment Clause cases in which someone claims that the government's action amounts to an unconstitutional favoring of one religion over another (or favoring religion over irreligion), the appeals court found it easier to overturn the trial court's summary judgment against the prison inmate plaintiff by relying on well-established but rather kooky federal court precedent.
Here is what the 7th Circuit itself said in the Kaufman v. McCaughtry majority opinion:
"But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a "way of life," even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15, 92 S. Ct. 1526 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, 6 L. Ed. 2d 982, 81 S. Ct. 1680 & n.11 (1961) ; Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring); Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v. Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714, 67 L. Ed. 2d 624, 101 S. Ct. 1425 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum, 352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003)."
"Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. [*682] Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 26 L. Ed. 2d 308, 90 S. Ct. 1792 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 13 L. Ed. 2d 733, 85 S. Ct. 850 (1965). [**6] We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003)."
The 7th Circuit ruled as it did, even though the plaintiff inmate (Kaufman) insisted that atheism is the antithesis of religion, not a religion, because following previous precedent and treating Kaufman's atheism as a religion "in this specialized sense" was the only effective way to allow Kaufman to win his appeal.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment mandates neutrality by government with respect the treatment of religion vs. irreligion or one religion vs. one or more others. In cases involving plaintiffs who are non-believers alleging that their civil rights were violated (in Kaufman's case, because the prison officials allowed religious discussion/study groups but not his atheist group), It is apparently easier for the federal courts to apply this principle of neutrality by classifying philosophies or philosophical stances such as "secular humanism" and atheism as "religions."
I have been practicing law for 28+ years, and in my opinion as a citizen and human being, it is NUTTY to define "religion" so broadly as to not require belief in supernatural beings or some other "spiritual doctrine." But that's what the U. S. federal courts have done, in order to protect the rights of some plaintiffs who would otherwise be denied a remedy. As a lawyer, I can understand this. Frequently, the task of the law is to find an indirect way to do something that cannot (lawfully) be done directly.
Black's Law Dictionary [which collects the meanings of common and uncommon terms as they have been defined over centuries of court cases] defines a "cat" as "a small four-footed domestic animal that catches mice. Because my neighbor's Jack Russell Terrier in fact has caught mice and is rather good at it, does this mean that my neighbor's dog is actually a cat? Of course not.
At one time, Indiana's sales and use tax law included "electricity" within a definition of "tangible [touchable] personal property." Why? Because I can put a wad of electrons or photons in my pocket? No, because classifying "electricity" as tangible personal property allowed the State of Indiana to impose sales tax on electric utility service.
Does a federal appeals court's classification of "atheism" as a "religion" for First Amendment jurisprudential purposes mean that atheism should be classified as a "religion" in other contexts? Of course not.
These are not my words, I just googled atheism a religion and the last case you listed.
Malnak vs, yogi was about transcendental meditation.
From wiki:
"Transcendental Meditation and some of its associated organizations have been described as a religion or a cult. A US courts held it to be a religion in Malnak v Yogi (1977 and 1979). In addition to the 3rd Circuit opinion in Malnak holding that Transcendental Meditation and the Science of Creative Intellingence were religious under the Establishment Clause,
I thought it was relevant. Interesting to say the least...
(Message edited by tankhead on October 08, 2011) |
Tankhead
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2011 - 12:34 am: |
|
and this case:
What about the classic case of Theriault v. Silber, 453 F. Supp. 254 (W.D.
Tex., 1978)? The relevant portion of that case:
Several facts developed during the proceedings had at Atlanta in the case of
Theriault v. Carlson, 339 F. Supp. 375, and succinctly restated by the Fifth
Circuit in Theriault I and II, n3 are relevant to this Court's consideration
herein. Among these are:
1. That "the Eclatarian faith, or Church of the New Song, was originally
founded by Theriault and Jerry M. Dorrough at the federal penitentiary at
Atlanta, Georgia, allegedly as the result of visions experienced by
Theriault at the Marion, Illinois federal penitentiary in which he received
prophetic messages from 'Eclat' informing him that he was the 'Eclatarian
Nazarite' and directing him to establish the Church of the New Song."
Theriault I and II, supra, footnote 1, p. 391;
2. That "Theriault acquired his Doctor of Divinity certificate through a
mail order application. Theriault then, as self-appointed 'Bishop of Tellus'
ordained Dorrough First Revelation Minister of the Church of the New Song .
. .", supra, footnote 2, p. 392;
* * *
7. That Harry W. Theriault claims to be, among other things, the second
Messiah, the Bishop of Earth (Tellus) (See generally Paratestament,
Theriault) supra; and
8. That in the document submitted by Harry W. Theriault he claims that he
would have established a new World order by 1976.
* * *
The Church of the New Song appears not to be a religion, but rather as a
masquerade designed to obtain First Amendment protection for acts which
otherwise would be unlawful and/or reasonably disallowed by the various
prison authorities but for the attempts which have been and are being made
to classify them as "religious" and, therefore, presumably protected by the
First Amendment.
Rather than urging upon its followers any particular theology or philosophy
of life, the Church of the New Song appears to encourage a relatively
non-structured and free-form, do-as-you-please philosophy, the sole purpose
of which is to cause or encourage disruption of established prison
discipline for the sake of disruption. Disruption of and/or problems for
prison authorities is not the result of this so-called religion; it is
rather the underlying purpose of it. For example, the "Church's" one attempt
at a paschal type feast produced a tongue-in-cheek request for prison
authorities to supply steak and wine.
Not quite about atheism but some cookoo. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2011 - 01:35 am: |
|
Just to throw some gas on the fire....
In England belief in "global warming" ( I Suspect eventually just Greenie religion ) is now a protected religion. Just like Islam, or Catholicism.
You can't be fired for preaching the Doom of Mother Earth if Man goes on his Wicked Ways. ( which come to think of it.... has a point )
Frankly, guys, it seems to me that you are arguing the God of the Gaps, and trying too hard to define the undefinable.
For every comment such as "We know now that gas clouds condense into planets" the response can be "but where did the gas come from?"..."stars blow it about"... "who made the stars?"...The big bang"..."how did that happen?.... etc. etc.
In the beginning was the singularity and the world was without form, and void. Then there was a real bright light.... ( after things cooled down enough for photons..... )
Godel proved that there are numbers we can't know. Science postulates a singularity at the beginning of our time. We can't see before that, if that theory is correct.
The other argument is "flowers are so pretty that God must have made them" Which is a tad circular. That's Nice, I'm not disagreeing, but it's the same argument as "life/the universe is so unlikely that it can't have just happened"...
Carry on. have fun.
I'm pretty sure the jesuits have hammered away at this one for nearly 2000 years. |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Saturday, October 08, 2011 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Atheism is an act of faith, of acceptance but in NO WAY is it a religion.
As in so many of the prior posts, atheism as defined by christians is indefensible. |
Sarodude
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Blake-
Much as I want to stay away, apparently I can't. Damn!
quote:>>> I've never read anything compelling on the matter. Maybe I'm just stubborn, but what I generally see is people grasping for explanations to bridge knowledge gaps.
I understand that I think, but are you beyond being able to read, study, and decide for yourself what/where that which you were told was misleading or misunderstood, and what the truth really may be?
I've read. I actually find religions kinda fascinating. However, there is no spark. I've simply found myself incapable of throwing my hands in the air & declaring that there must be no other way. It doesn't matter what I was told when I was 4 anymore.
My truth is that there's the reproducible (name it what you like) & there's everything else. If I can't wrap my mind around the "everything else" I accept that I don't understand it.
To not acknowledge that, historically, we had knowledge gaps that were bridged by supernatural explanations is ignorant. To think that we're somehow immune to that today is arrogant. How are we any different now?
When I say "I don't know", I mean "I don't know". But I DO know that no modern or ancient explanation of any sort of theology has ever made any sense to me.
I also can't stand Glee.
-Saro |
Slaughter
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2011 - 01:53 pm: |
|
You can't stand Glee?
You're goin' ta HELL fer sure!
(insert smiley in this |...| space) |
Boltrider
| | Posted on Friday, October 14, 2011 - 02:24 pm: |
|
Who is the messiah for the Green religion? Al Gore? |
|
