The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => The Lounge => Topic started by: jaybird39 on December 01, 2006, 09:36:36 AM
-
1. Predeterminism and free will.
The concept of god has a huge impossibility in that the scriptures claim “All things are predetermined by god” at the same time as claiming that man is responsible for his actions by having “Free Will”. Whereas a person who has already been predestined to ascend to heaven supposedly has the freedom of choice. This in and of itself is a logical impossibility as the concept of free will is supposedly the reason for man’s fall from grace in original sin, but if all things are predetermined then man’s choice to defy the will of god was predetermined, hence not the will of man. Rather the choice of this god which in turn logically defies the concept of “free will”.
2. Omniscience, scriptural inaccuracies, omnibenevolence, and divine authorship or inspiration.
The scriptural explanation for almost anything follows the understanding and knowledge of mankind during the authoring of the respective books, and an omniscient god being the author or divine inspiration for said books is a logical improbability. An all knowing god could not have authored or inspired the author to place inaccuracies being an omnibenevolent, omniscient god.
3. Commandments, the breaking of, and god.
The ten commandments are broken literally hundreds of times as being the will of god, whereas the will of god commands that none of these acts are to be committed. Murder, Theft, and Lies are commonplace in ancient times, many times as the will of god. This is a logical improbability due to god placing rules upon mankind, yet breaking them within the same scripture due to god’s will, where he willed that these acts are not committed and the circle continues....
4. God’s anger, omnipotence, and Predeterminism.
In general, Anger is the emotion felt when something happens that we do not want to. For a god to become angry at man logically is impossible due to the fact that what angered him was due to his will and was predetermined.
5. Predeterminism, god’s will, punishment, and a god whom is “all good”
In general punishment is an act that is performed for correction of a wrong.
This is a logical impossibility to say that god punishes evil doers when god willed them to be in the first place, where as an all loving god would not create something to be evil, then punish it for doing exactly what he wanted in the first place.
-
You should stress that you are only referring to the Christian God.
-
Maybe for this post, I should. :)
Thanks for the enlightenment.
-
Wow, you read my mind and wrote the post I was thinking of!
+God cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
+Stuff "refuted" here http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Also, make sure to check out the video Queerer Than We Can Suppose on Google Video (I made a topic about it)... it includes a useful argument involving "brain software" and "thrashing cars."
-
+Stuff "refuted" here http://godandscience.org/apologetics/nogod.html
Wow, what a complete load of crap. Using the extra dimensions theorized by string theory as evidence of a dwelling place for god outside of our universe?
WTF
Is this site for real? I see why you put "refuted" in quotes. I have to say, as bullshit goes the "information" on this page ranks up there with Scientology.
-
The Christian God has been attacked so many times now with those same reasons that instead of interesting, it's boring. We know there's tons of inconsistancies and logical fallacies. Is the concept of "God" so offensive?
I really can't see why this would be posted this over and over again unless one was diametrically opposed to a god, which is rather silly considering we have no say in the matter. The concept of god could easily be able to encompass any sort of explanation for reality. Conversely, one could refute that just as easily.
When it comes down to it, its simply a choice.
-
it's boring.
frak you
-
The Christian God has been attacked so many times now with those same reasons that instead of interesting, it's boring. We know there's tons of inconsistancies and logical fallacies. Is the concept of "God" so offensive?
I really can't see why this would be posted this over and over again unless one was diametrically opposed to a god, which is rather silly considering we have no say in the matter. The concept of god could easily be able to encompass any sort of explanation for reality. Conversely, one could refute that just as easily.
When it comes down to it, its simply a choice.
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion explains very well why we should oppose religion. He gives a number of reasons, but the one that I agreed with the most is the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith. This means that people are prepared to do all kinds of things, with no mental illness, and be absolutely sure that what they're doing is right. One of the strong evolutionary theories as to why we believe in religion (in general) is because children who believe what they're told (such as, don't go too close to the cliff) are more likely to live longer. Unfortunately that survival instinct has been corrupted and manipulated such that now the majority of people in the world believe in some kind of religion. Unquestioning faith obviously means not asking questions. It essentially stops us from thinking. When a girl thinks to herself "I want to have sex with Beast, but I can't because God says I shouldn't have sex before marriage" that's an indication of just how EVIL religion is. There are thousands of quotes, both from the Bible and from religious figures that state very clearly how asking too many questions (being an 'intellectual') is a bad thing, and indeed, that religion stops people from asking questions and can be used to make people believe whatever you want.
One of the greatest dividers in conflicts in our lifetime, and obviously prior to that as well, is religion. I'm not saying that all these conflicts are being fought over religion, but it is having a different religion that separates the people. Ultimately, what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite? A Palestinian and a Jew? A Protestant and a Catholic?
If we are to look at the question of religion objectively, with the question "Is religion a good thing for society today?" - I think we have to answer with a resounding no. With that in mind, if we can see that the world would be better off without something, don't we have a social obligation to try to make that happen? Isn't it better to aim for utopia than to accept a substandard world?
-
The Christian God has been attacked so many times now with those same reasons that instead of interesting, it's boring. We know there's tons of inconsistancies and logical fallacies. Is the concept of "God" so offensive?
I really can't see why this would be posted this over and over again unless one was diametrically opposed to a god, which is rather silly considering we have no say in the matter. The concept of god could easily be able to encompass any sort of explanation for reality. Conversely, one could refute that just as easily.
When it comes down to it, its simply a choice.
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion..............
why dont you just marry dawkins beast? :P
-
Beast, you have far more patience than I.
-
That's because I'm a man. :lol:
-
Beast, I agree that a faith unquestioned is potentially very dangerous. However, I believe that religions provide something very important to humanity--a sense of community through a ritual-emotion cycle. Therefore, I would not like to see religions simply abandoned.
I agree with the importance of philosophical inquiry (asking questions). I believe that once a person stops asking questions and becomes dogmatic in their religious belief, a potential problem has arisen and needs to be carefully supervised.
I believe the best solution to the problem, in order to please both the side that you and Dawkins represent and the side that I currently represent, is the education of the people. I think Dawkins is actually doing a good job doing that, as are many others. I further believe that philosophy should be mandatory in all public schools (at least in the United States) in order to give students a true look at what is going on in their churches. To abandon the sense of community and ritual-emotional cycle that religions offer might prove to be too much of a loss for religions, and would thus end almost surely in defeat. Yet to continue working to educate the people, while maintaining the rituals and sense of community, would probably work better.
I propose that anybody wanting to work on this problem of (dangerous) religious fundamentalism read books pertaining to this very subject. A few examples of the ones I plan on reading are The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others (feel free to add). Debates should be welcomed, and religions themselves should not be met with hostility on behalf of your side. Instead, make it clear that you are hostile only against (dangerous) religious fundamentalism (if indeed you are). In this sense, I think the majority of both sides can compromise and come to a peaceful solution.
-
Moderate belief is awful and frustrating as well. It's just watered-down fundamentalism most of the time.
-
Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion explains very well why we should oppose religion. He gives a number of reasons, but the one that I agreed with the most is the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith. This means that people are prepared to do all kinds of things, with no mental illness, and be absolutely sure that what they're doing is right. There are thousands of quotes, both from the Bible and from religious figures that state very clearly how asking too many questions (being an 'intellectual') is a bad thing, and indeed, that religion stops people from asking questions and can be used to make people believe whatever you want.
One of the greatest dividers in conflicts in our lifetime, and obviously prior to that as well, is religion. I'm not saying that all these conflicts are being fought over religion, but it is having a different religion that separates the people. Ultimately, what's the difference between a Sunni and a Shi'ite? A Palestinian and a Jew? A Protestant and a Catholic?
If we are to look at the question of religion objectively, with the question "Is religion a good thing for society today?" - I think we have to answer with a resounding no. With that in mind, if we can see that the world would be better off without something, don't we have a social obligation to try to make that happen? Isn't it better to aim for utopia than to accept a substandard world?
It's hard to argue that religion hasn't been a motivation for atrocities in the past, and conflict in the present, but saying that "religion is evil" is taking things too far. There have certainly been good things that come out of religion as well as the bad, and it's a powerful positive force in the lives of many of its followers. Furthermore, one could argue that many of the worst atrocities done in the name of religion were done despite the actual teachings of the religion, and not because of them, and that some religions if properly practiced would never be guilty of any of the evil things done in the name of religion (Quakerism especially comes to mind, but many others as well). Certainly questioning ones religion is not a bad thing, and questioning ones religious leaders is very important (as is questioning all authority, and holding it accountable for its decisions). However, religion is not the unambiguous evil that the Church of Dawkins holds it to be, and by putting it in these terms, he is guilty of exactly the same intolerance that he blames religion for spreading.
When a girl thinks to herself "I want to have sex with Beast, but I can't because God says I shouldn't have sex before marriage" that's an indication of just how EVIL religion is.
This is perhaps the best example I've seen yet of how religion can protect its followers by saving them from their own destructive impulses. Just consider the emotional scarring that could be avoided by keeping young impressionable women away from beast.
-
Moderate belief is awful and frustrating as well. It's just watered-down fundamentalism most of the time.
Ubuntu, I assure you, I hate dangerous religious fundamentalism as much as you do. I despise the fact that people think their god wants them to fly planes into buildings and kill as many people as they can. However, I do not see any problem whatsoever with non-dangerous religion. I think having people hear about and even praise the story of Jesus Christ (true or not) can be quite beneficial in the encouragement of having people live better and more ethical lives. The problem here is not the genuinely good people who strive to be more Christ-like, but it's the people who are so extremely fundamentalist that it borders on the dangerous. We need to eliminate that danger, and I believe that education is probably the best way.
-
Ubuntu, I assure you, I hate dangerous religious fundamentalism as much as you do. I despise the fact that people think their god wants them to fly planes into buildings and kill as many people as they can. However, I do not see any problem whatsoever with non-dangerous religion. I think having people hear about and even praise the story of Jesus Christ (true or not) can be quite beneficial in the encouragement of having people live better and more ethical lives. The problem here is not the genuinely good people who strive to be more Christ-like, but it's the people who are so extremely fundamentalist that it borders on the dangerous. We need to eliminate that danger, and I believe that education is probably the best way.
Hear hear!
skeptical scientist, proud but tolerant atheist
-
the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.
That is no such fact.
How do you describe Buddhism with that?
-
Beast, I agree that a faith unquestioned is potentially very dangerous. However, I believe that religions provide something very important to humanity--a sense of community through a ritual-emotion cycle. Therefore, I would not like to see religions simply abandoned.
I used to agree with this and then I realised that I'm as strong as atheist as it is really possible to be and I have a very strong sense of morals and of community. This idea that you need religion to have these things is false, and there are plenty of examples beyond myself of this. Religion is a way of building community, but it's a replaceable way and there are plenty of alternatives.
I believe the best solution to the problem, in order to please both the side that you and Dawkins represent and the side that I currently represent, is the education of the people. I think Dawkins is actually doing a good job doing that, as are many others. I further believe that philosophy should be mandatory in all public schools (at least in the United States) in order to give students a true look at what is going on in their churches. To abandon the sense of community and ritual-emotional cycle that religions offer might prove to be too much of a loss for religions, and would thus end almost surely in defeat. Yet to continue working to educate the people, while maintaining the rituals and sense of community, would probably work better.
This idea that the two sides of the argument are equal is a fallacy. There are no benefits from religion that you can't get elsewhere. There is no reason to believe any literal part of religion. People believe in religion essentially the the same reason that moths fly into candle flames - it's the misfiring of evolutionary survival skills. I agree that philosophy should be taught in all schools. I'm unsure why you'd suggest that it should only be mandatory in public schools. How different do you think people born in the US are to other people in the world. Perhaps the fact that they have access to education makes them a minority, but we're all people.
I propose that anybody wanting to work on this problem of (dangerous) religious fundamentalism read books pertaining to this very subject. A few examples of the ones I plan on reading are The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris, books by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and others (feel free to add). Debates should be welcomed, and religions themselves should not be met with hostility on behalf of your side. Instead, make it clear that you are hostile only against (dangerous) religious fundamentalism (if indeed you are). In this sense, I think the majority of both sides can compromise and come to a peaceful solution.
You are mistaken if you think Dawkins and Harris are attacking "religious fundamentalists." It is clear that the religious problems in the world are not created by "fundamentalists" but by religion in general. Anybody who holds a belief about the world that isn't backed up by evidence is a "fundamentalist". There's no difference between the 9/11 suicide bombers and anybody who believes there is life after death. There is nothing crazy or psychotic about these people, they just have faith.
It's hard to argue that religion hasn't been a motivation for atrocities in the past, and conflict in the present, but saying that "religion is evil" is taking things too far. There have certainly been good things that come out of religion as well as the bad, and it's a powerful positive force in the lives of many of its followers. Furthermore, one could argue that many of the worst atrocities done in the name of religion were done despite the actual teachings of the religion, and not because of them, and that some religions if properly practiced would never be guilty of any of the evil things done in the name of religion (Quakerism especially comes to mind, but many others as well). Certainly questioning ones religion is not a bad thing, and questioning ones religious leaders is very important (as is questioning all authority, and holding it accountable for its decisions). However, religion is not the unambiguous evil that the Church of Dawkins holds it to be, and by putting it in these terms, he is guilty of exactly the same intolerance that he blames religion for spreading.
What are the teachings of Islam? What are the teachings of Christianity? You can back up any decision based on the teachings of those religions. They put forward conflicting views with in their own text. Do you honestly think that the people who kill in the names of those religions just don't understand the book, that they're wrong and the peaceful people are right? The Koran and the Bible justify everything. There is no doubt that evil acts still occur, regardless of religion, but there also can be doubt that there are many evil acts that occur because of religion. Religion separates people and it stops them from thinking. What Dawkins claims is completely different to what religion claims. He does not oppose religion because he thinks something tells him to and he doesn't advocate anything other than verbal debate against religion. He puts forwards the reasons to oppose religion rationally and eloquently. He doesn't, at any point, rely on faith. It's not intolerance that he sees as the biggest problem with religion, it's the way it suppresses thought. It's not what people do in the name of religion that is the problem, it's the fact that people do things in the name of religion. The other issue is the incredible, unjustified standing that religion has in the world. Imagine a debate on TV about abortion. Lets say there are three panellists. Who would you pick? Does it sound unreasonable to have a religious figure on that panel? We live in a society where that seems entirely acceptable. Yet think about this, what qualifications does a priest have on the topic of abortion? What qualified study on the topic has this person done? They have not studied philosophy or ethics, they have not studied biology, the have not studied psychology. What possible qualifications would they have compared to a random person picked off the street?
Statistics show that there is a direct inverse relationship between religious belief and intelligence. Not only does scientific evidence show this, but even the Bible admits as much. With this in mind, can you name one politician who has stated that he or she is an atheist? I'm sure you can name plenty off the top of your head who have stated that their religious. Why is this?
That is no such fact.
How do you describe Buddhism with that?
I don't really accept Buddhism as a religion, or at least, I'm talking about theistic religions. Albert Einstein called himself religious and if people are to hold those "religious" beliefs then I'm happy to tolerate them, in fact I feel the same way about the world. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. If you want to argue that "religions" where you don't believe in anything supernatural in some way validate supernatural views then put that argument forward, but otherwise I think your point is completely irrelevant.
-
No denominational affiliation (this I am not sure about, but these guys did not even list a religion)
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
Deist (In early 18th century, this is aboput the closest thing without completely stepping into the atheistic realm)
Each of these presidents except lincoln have been raised episcopalian if I remember correctly)
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln (disputed)
-
the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.
That is no such fact.
How do you describe Buddhism with that?
To question the word of god, is punishable by death in the old days if I remember correctly, and it is punishable by enternity in hell in modern times.
Budhism is not a religion in relation to a deity, and therefore is not included in this particular topic.
-
The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other thanh evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensable. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.
And on the subject of fundamentalism, you are using different meaning of the word. Fundamentalism as oposed to evidence is different to Fundamentalism as oposed to Liberalism.
I myself am a Liberal Christian, and i take philosophy and actively question my religion. Religion in itself is not wrong, i feel. It is only certain fundamental (as oposed to liberal) groups that give it a bad name.
With the belief that existance ends after death, a person might as well be as bad as he likes, since it wont effect him.
Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.
-
edit: argh fuck my computer. Wrote a looooooong reply and it deleted it. I will respond again tomorrow :P
-
the fact that religion relies on unquestioning faith.
That is no such fact.
How do you describe Buddhism with that?
Buddhists still need faith that they can acheive Nirvana through meditation.
-
The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other thanh evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensable. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.
Religions don't exactly give consistent moral codes, either. People interpret it anyway they want. Believe gay marriage is right? Interpret the Bible to say it is. Believe it's wrong? Interpret the Bible to say it's wrong. Atheists do just fine on morality, and we have the advantage that we can be convinced about a moral issue by rational argument. If two people of different religions have a different moral code on an issue, the conversation ends; there's no hope of compromise, because both are based on an unyielding (though interpreted) 'law'.
With the belief that existance ends after death, a person might as well be as bad as he likes, since it wont effect him.
Except atheists don't act as a badly as they like. Maybe your preconceived notions about the lack of atheist morality aren't true after all?
Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.
Hurr? Global Warming is not going to freeze the world, it's going to warm it (duh), and most likely to dangerous levels within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. You think we don't care what happens to others?
-
Hurr? Global Warming is not going to freeze the world, it's going to warm it (duh), and most likely to dangerous levels within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. You think we don't care what happens to others?
That coupled with the fact that many climatologists (the people trying to warn you about global warming in the first place) are atheists pretty much blows that particular argument all to water.
-
The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other than evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensible. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.
Doesn't that mean there is a problem with Christianity too?
-
I HATE people who say that athiests dont have a scence of moral values, or they have no reason to. What about the satisfaction you get out of being a good person? Also, if i decide it woudl be fun to kill a bunch of people, i most likely wont because then i would go to jail (and in some parts of the world, be executed). This woudl be the worst thing that could happen, if i think there is nothing after death.
There are MANY people who are athiests who have a strong set of moral values.
Quote:
Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.
Hurr? Global Warming is not going to freeze the world, it's going to warm it (duh), and most likely to dangerous levels within our lifetimes or our children's lifetimes. You think we don't care what happens to others?
im goign to point out that my city got a SNOWFALL record this year. The most i has ever snowed ever (scince they started keeping track, probaly about 200 years ago). (of course, we also got a rainfall record, and a drout record this year)
-
I HATE people who say that athiests dont have a scence of moral values, or they have no reason to. What about the satisfaction you get out of being a good person? Also, if i decide it woudl be fun to kill a bunch of people, i most likely wont because then i would go to jail (and in some parts of the world, be executed). This woudl be the worst thing that could happen, if i think there is nothing after death.
People who think like that are selfish. "I'm not going to do bad because I will be punished," and is just the same as believe in God because if you don't, you'll go to hell. Same deal as Pascal's Wager.
I do not do bad because it will hurt others. Respect for the common man is something that seems to be missing from people today, religious or otherwise. Just remember, Christians--Love thy neighbor as thyself.
-
im goign to point out that my city got a SNOWFALL record this year. The most i has ever snowed ever (scince they started keeping track, probaly about 200 years ago). (of course, we also got a rainfall record, and a drout record this year)
Are you really trying to disprove Global Warming? That's almost like trying to prove the Earth is flat...
Global Warming means OVER ALL things are getting warmer; the climate changes are supposed to create severe weather, which would include heavy snowfall and rain.
-
The inate reaon for morality is from our upbringing, and our desire to not have these things done to us. Not from some magical being threatening us with eternal torture and eternal hell.
It is greed of an eternal paradise, and fear of an eternal punishment that motivates Christians, Islam, and all other monotheistic religions to be good. This shows just how evil people are at heart.
Our golden rule is the prime example of how we can be moral, as it says, to to others that which you would have done to you. It is just a philosophy but it is powerful in that it is actually true.
To be a good person in the name of a god is a cop out. If people cannot be morally sound for the reasons depicted above then those people are truely a sorry ass bunch of people.
-
It is greed of an eternal paradise, and fear of an eternal punishment that motivates Christians, Islam, and all other monotheistic religions to be good. This shows just how evil people are at heart.
I would argue that only the most fundamental are motivated purely by scripture, however, the more liberal believers (sometimes called "cherry pickers"), although are more ethically independent, have a warped sense of morality.
-
very good point
-
Two words regarding an omnibenevolent God: Euthyphro Dilemna. This trumps the whole "problem of suffering" argument. It's just the biggest logical God-debunker in the book, look it up.
Of course, the Bible never actually says or implies that Yahweh is omnibenevolent.
-
Global Warming as caused by pollution is a fairly disputed issue, it just isnt reported in newspapers for the same reason that "man donates money to charity" isnt.
And as for "it feels nice to do good things" that is an evolutionary characteristic, and so you are not truly questioning WHY it feels good, you are just accpeting it as a fact. And there are a lot of times that you would feel better having "sinned" than having done the right thing. With only personal satisfaction as a moral guideline, there will come a point that something is good enough for sinning top be a better option
-
Global Warming as caused by pollution is a fairly disputed issue, it just isnt reported in newspapers for the same reason that "man donates money to charity" isnt.
And as for "it feels nice to do good things" that is an evolutionary characteristic, and so you are not truly questioning WHY it feels good...
Actually, that's precisely what we're doing.
And there are a lot of times that you would feel better having "sinned" than having done the right thing. With only personal satisfaction as a moral guideline, there will come a point that something is good enough for sinning top be a better option.
Personal satisfaction isn't our moral guideline, what an obtuse claim to make. Rational thought is what most atheists use for ethics and morality, rather than scripture or primitive impulses.
-
Euthyphro, nice philosophy from plato. I like it.
It pretty much covers one aspect of my views that debunk the existence of god.
If god is good, then why is he good? Did he create it, if so he is niether good nor bad, if he did not then his omnipotence is in question as he has a higher moral standard to observe and adhere to.
So either the christian is full of shit, or we have a serious paradox to deal with. I choose the former.
side note:
Omnibenevolence, generally means the complete innate kindness. the statements that god is good in and of itself is a load of crap since he commits acts of hatred all over the scripture, and this is impossible for an all good god.
-
side note:
Omnibenevolence, generally means the complete innate kindness. the statements that god is good in and of itself is a load of crap since he commits acts of hatred all over the scripture, and this is impossible for an all good god.
Though we can hardly claim to comprehensively define "good" in any meaningful sort of way in this context. How do we know that by killing sinners God wouldn't be acting in the most loving possible way? Who says what is absolute moral good?
-
Two words regarding an omnibenevolent God: Euthyphro Dilemna. This trumps the whole "problem of suffering" argument. It's just the biggest logical God-debunker in the book, look it up.
Of course, the Bible never actually says or implies that Yahweh is omnibenevolent.
As a matter of coincidence, I just read that dialog a few days ago (I'm reading Phaedo presently). At the time I did not equate piety with goodness... I still don't, but now I see how the discussion (which ended without a conclusion) pertains to the existence of God.
Side note: a lot of theists today are neo-taoists.
-
The problem with Atheism is that it has no inherent reason for morality, other thanh evasion of punishment. While for example Christianity preaches eternal hell fire for sinners, which is perhaps as reprehensable. It is still important for there to be an "incentive" for morality.
This is completely false. Harvard biologist Marc Hauser in his book Moral Minds: How Nature Designed our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong clearly demonstrates that people have the same set of universal morals regardless of culture or religious belief. He goes on to demonstrate that religious beliefs actually cloud those natural morals (they don't make them go away, they just confuse them). I suggest you read this book because it's a clear contradiction of your view. I'd be very interested to actually see some evidence that supports your view, because I very much doubt that there is any.
I love this quote from Albert Einstein (another Atheist):
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
And on the subject of fundamentalism, you are using different meaning of the word. Fundamentalism as oposed to evidence is different to Fundamentalism as oposed to Liberalism.
I myself am a Liberal Christian, and i take philosophy and actively question my religion. Religion in itself is not wrong, i feel. It is only certain fundamental (as oposed to liberal) groups that give it a bad name.
You've completely misunderstood what I was saying. I think it was actually pretty clear.
It is clear that the religious problems in the world are not created by "fundamentalists" but by religion in general.
I fail to see how you could misunderstand my point when it's that clear. After that statement, I went on to redefine "fundamentalism" to a degree that is relevant to what I'm arguing. I knew that it wasn't the typical definition and I didn't claim that it was. In fact I assumed that people knew what the typical definition of "fundamentalist" was, otherwise that paragraph didn't make sense.
With the belief that existance ends after death, a person might as well be as bad as he likes, since it wont effect him.
Global Warming (if it does actually exist) is not a true atheists problem. An atheist wont be around when the world freezes, and wont be punished for being irresponsible.
Again false. If you're going to make these accusations about my religious belief (or lack of) then why don't you back it up with some evidence. There is no doubt that most negative actions in our life lead to negative consequences - that's why they're deemed negative. Just because we understand what our emotions are, it doesn't make them any less real. We understand that our tvs work by firing electrons at a screen (or however plasma and lcd screens work) but it doesn't stop us from enjoying the image. Our natural sense of morality actually helps our lives. When we do good deeds we naturally feel good about ourselves and when we do bad deeds we naturally feel bad. It doesn't matter where we're going when we die. I think, in fact, that atheists have a much stronger respect for human rights and our environment because we understand our amazing it is and our precious life really is.
That it will never come again
Is what makes life so sweet.
Finally on the question of global warming. I work for the largest environmental charity in Australia. Of the people I work with, only one has religious beliefs and the vast majority are also atheists. I would be amazed to see any evidence that actually backs up your claims that atheists are less likely to care about the environment than religious people. Let me put it like this; Which country produces the most amount of green house gas emissions?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions
Per Captia
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita
The US is, of course, on top. Now is the US a religious country, or a non religious country? According to this statistic, 90% of American's are religious.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/rel_rel-religion-religions
Are you saying that the 10% of atheists are responsible for America's greenhouse gas emissions? Can you back that up with any evidence?
If we return to the per capita greenhouse gas emissions for a moment, we'll notice that the US is only 5th, but more importantly, we should notice the top 5 and how they relate to this argument.
1. Qatar
2. United Arab Emirates
3. Kuwait
4. Bahrain
5 USA
All strongly religious countries. Not that I'm necessarily saying that there is a relationship between religious beliefs and harm to the environment, there could be a relationship, and from my personal experience I would believe atheists are more likely to care about the environment, but what is clear is that your statement that atheists don't care about global warming (to infer that religious people do) is completely false. I've put forward some strong evidence to show that this is the case, now lets see you counter that - and counter it with evidence, not opinion.
Finally (and I mean it this time), on the question of if global warming actually exists. It is a very easy experiement to show that higher carbon levels in the atmosphere create higher temperatures. There is overwhelming evidence that shows this is the case. In fact you can probably prove it yourself if you fill a bottle with CO2 and another with normal air and have a thermometer in both and leave them in the sun - see which gets warmer. There is also overwhelming evidence that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are increasing. While this is harder for an individual to test, it's easy for scientists to test, and I would love to see somebody claiming that this isn't actually the case. With that in mind, the evidence for global warming is so strong, it is surely scientific fact.
Here is a graph of the measured carbon levels in the atmosphere and the measured average temperature change for the last 1000 years:
(http://pachydro.staging.cim.com.au/Portals/0/carbon_temperature.jpg)
The source for that image:
http://www.pacifichydro.com.au/Classroom/ClimateChange/tabid/95/Default.aspx
-
Beast, you have the patience and ambition of a saint. I admire you thoroughly.
-
yeah what beast said:
Ditto:
ditto:
ditto:
-
side note:
Omnibenevolence, generally means the complete innate kindness. the statements that god is good in and of itself is a load of crap since he commits acts of hatred all over the scripture, and this is impossible for an all good god.
Though we can hardly claim to comprehensively define "good" in any meaningful sort of way in this context. How do we know that by killing sinners God wouldn't be acting in the most loving possible way? Who says what is absolute moral good?
Welll, it seems that if I were to do the same thing, I would feel bad about doing it, and I would feel that I was a worthless piece of doggie doo.
This is coming from a veteran that takes the job of killing men very seriously, and only when necessary. I do not see killing a child whom has yet to develop a conscience mind (under 3) as having absolutely any morally proper motivation. The only reason a child like that should ever be killed is if his adult captors strap a boobie trap that will kill him anyway on him, and he is running towards you.
Still then, I would have nightmares for years.
Seems to me that god did not tell me anything that I did not already know.
Good is a pretty straightforward concept.Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out
-
I don't really accept Buddhism as a religion, or at least, I'm talking about theistic religions. Albert Einstein called himself religious and if people are to hold those "religious" beliefs then I'm happy to tolerate them, in fact I feel the same way about the world. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. If you want to argue that "religions" where you don't believe in anything supernatural in some way validate supernatural views then put that argument forward, but otherwise I think your point is completely irrelevant.
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So what you meant by religion is a theistic belief. We're now at "theistic beliefs require unquestioning faith" which is entirely much less presumptuous than saying "religion requires unquestioning faith".
Unquestioning faith is also very broad. In theistic religions, you obviously have to believe that the gods and principles that are present in the doctrine and ideal set are true. Being atheistic, you obviously assume that there is no such thing, much like theistic believers assume the contrary.
Surely an atheist has an "unquestioning faith" in the belief that there is no God or supernatural beings which play a part in human life in the same vein as a theist has an "unquestioning faith" that there is such beings. Since it is impossible to know one way or another, it is, infact, established as a belief in both ways. Within this way, a theist's "unquestioning faith" is more or less the same as an atheist's "unquestioning faith".
If both unquestioning faiths are equivalent, then by your logic in your first reply, both atheism and theism are inherently flawed, which is not a very pleasant conclusion.
Now, we need to re-establish what is meant by unquestioning faith. Something more specific.
-
WTF
Something that cannot be said without Dubya.
-
In reality the only true thought is to take an agnostic point of view. To not know, and to remain in an open to the possibility that there might just be a god.
However, all of the present tangible facts, and scientific testing points to the opposite, which leads many tot he conclusion that there is no deity.
The only danger in this position is to not accept it upon the actual discovery if we do actually discover god. I mean really discover him, like see, feel or touch.
To worship a god without actually knowing of his existance can be dangerous according tot he different religions. If you worship the wrong deity, or do it in an inappropriate way you are in mortal danger, but if you are ignorant (not meaning it in a bad way) you still have a chance.
-
Yeah obviously we can't know for sure that God does not exist. The Futurama episode comes to mind where Bender gets shot out into space after the battle with the space pirates and then becomes a god, and then meets God. God says in that episode that when you do a good job nobody thinks you did anything at all. The same philosophy is put forward in the Tao Te Ching where it says that a good ruler is one who makes the people under him think that the idea was theirs. That's obviously a very hard view on God to counter and even Richard Dawkins calls himself technically an agnostic or a de facto atheist. Because an atheists view is based on reason and looking at the evidence, we have to say that we accept there is a possibility that god exists to the same extent that we accept there is a possibility that the invisible spaghetti monster exists. I don't think there are any atheists who actually would say that they know that God does not exist in a literal definition of the statement but I also think there are plenty, including myself, who see absolutely no reason to believe in God anymore than than we see a reason to believe in any other mythological being and we're happy to make the sure statement that God doesn't exist because we see the probabilities of God existing as so low that it shouldn't be accept by anybody rational.
You can call me an agnostic if you like, but keep in mind that I'm as agnostic about the possibilities that you're actually a trained bear that has been taught how to type as I am towards the existence of God.
-
why dont you just marry dawkins beast? :P
He can't. Dawkins is straight.
Never mind, eh, Master Beast?
-
The Futurama episode comes to mind where Bender gets shot out into space after the battle with the space pirates and then becomes a god, and then meets God.
That episode owns.
But about the other stuff, I think that many people might actually have a good reason to believe that a god exists, so I think it's probably unwise to simply claim that anybody who isn't agnostic isn't rational.
-
And what is that good reason?
-
I'd say anybody who has had a divine revelation, so to speak, has pretty good reason for believing in a god.
-
Only if what they say has happened to them really has, and I will believe that when you present some evidence for that actually happening.
-
Wow, that was quite a rant you had at me earlier.
I very probably am flawed in my earlier logic, and i dont realy have much evidence to back myself up.
I'll rephrase my point so its clearer. I understand that Atheists can feel good about themselves by doing good, and bad when they do bad.
However, there are bad actions you can do that make you feel good. The more good you feel from doing a bad action, the less you are inclined to care about morality. In (some) religion however, the threat of hell is as bad as it is possible to be, and so there is no enjoyable bad deed that can "cancel it out"
Does that make more sense, or am i just repeating myself and not realising it.
If I am, sorry
-
Only if what they say has happened to them really has, and I will believe that when you present some evidence for that actually happening.
They don't need to present information for you. They can just go along believing what they believe and letting you believe what you believe. And they would not be irrational. It's foolish to claim that they are irrational if they actually have a reason for their belief.