Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

This really shouldn't be difficult. You say that the word can be used to refer to a period of time. Other Christians say that the word isn't used for a period of time with definite ends and furthermore that the creation story clearly establishes itself as a day by the use of clear demarcations of morning/day/evening/night.

By other Christian, you are referring to the guy you quoted- a YEC. I'm not one. However. he doesn't have the ability to change a term any more than I do. I am explaining what the word day means. He's the one adding an extra stipulation to it. If day only meant 24 hours, then Jupiter's day would be that long too wouldn't it?

Is God only hovering around the earth?

And who decides who is good and who is bad? Who says that what the recent militia group tried to do isn't good? What if they were simply carrying out god's judgment? Would you object? They have equal conviction that they doing god's will, and they'll find their confirmation in the Bible, where god may reserve the right to kill someone for any disobedience. All one has to do is judge your beliefs to be a gross perversion of god's will. Of course, I know that you'll defend your beliefs as the right beliefs, but so will everybody else, which makes the whole thing pointless.

Also, what's the point of talking about the Bible as some grand, unified book that could only come about through divine means? The entire thing is incredibly difficult to make sense of, disingenuous, almost lying when it comes to prophecy. Once again, I know that you'll claim otherwise, but you haven't exactly done the greatest job at explaining why certain beliefs are the correct ones and why no one could possibly confuse them if they "really" knew the Bible.

The Bible is hard for you to make sense of. Don't throw everyone else in there.

You either have short term memory loss or don't like to read because this has been addressed. God's the one who decides who is good and bad. If a group's actions do not match up with Christian teaching, then why would it be Christion or good for them to do?

I've done an OK job explaining stuff. The day thing is a great example of that because if you don't understand that day can mean more than 24 hours, then I question your education, not mine.

I completely get that you don't agree, but don't blame your hard headness and absolute refusal to even understand my beliefs on my inability to explain them to you. A five year gets most of what I said (My son got it at 3). What a shame you can't.

 

[Monocle]

I'm considering picking up one of Richard Dawkins' books - either The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, or The Ancester's Tale - but I cannot afford more than one, and I have absolutely no idea which one to get.

I figure that this topic would be a pretty good place to get recommendations, since I don't really think it merits a topic.

I recommend The God Delusion above all, but maybe you've read it already, seeing how you didn't mention it. You should borrow all three of the books you listed from a library. Sorry for not making your decision simpler—it's just that all the titles are worth your time.

Edit:

The Bible is hard for you to make sense of. Don't throw everyone else in there.

You either have short term memory loss or don't like to read because this has been addressed. God's the one who decides who is good and bad. If a group's actions do not match up with Christian teaching, then why would it be Christion or good for them to do?

I've done an OK job explaining stuff. The day thing is a great example of that because if you don't understand that day can mean more than 24 hours, then I question your education, not mine.

I completely get that you don't agree, but don't blame your hard headness and absolute refusal to even understand my beliefs on my inability to explain them to you. A five year gets most of what I said (My son got it at 3). What a shame you can't.

Things I learned from this post:

1) The Bible is internally consistent and easily understood. This is why there are so many different interpretations of its contents.

2) What God says is good is good because what God says is good is good.

3) There is no controversy about what constitutes Christian teaching.

4) Pointing out inconsistencies in a belief system is the same thing as refusing to understand it.

5) The tenets of Christianity are easy to understand because a 3-year-old claims he can do so. 3-year-olds are capable of fully grasping philosophical concepts.

 

[Pandaman]

I'm considering picking up one of Richard Dawkins' books - either The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene, or The Ancester's Tale - but I cannot afford more than one, and I have absolutely no idea which one to get.

I figure that this topic would be a pretty good place to get recommendations, since I don't really think it merits a topic.

it depends on what you're looking for in the book, but i would recommend the selfish gene and ancestors tale above all his more philosophical/religious books.

if i had to choose, i'd say selfish gene, t'll change how you view natural selection if you're unfamiliar with the theory.

 

[JGS]

I recommend The God Delusion above all, but maybe you've read it already, seeing how you didn't mention it. You should borrow all three of the books you listed from a library. Sorry for not making your decision simpler—it's just that all the titles are worth your time.

Edit:
Things I learned from this post:

1) The Bible is internally consistent and easily understood. This is why there are so many different interpretations of its contents.

2) What God says is good is good because what God says is good is good.

3) There is no controversy about what constitutes Christian teaching.

4) Pointing out inconsistencies in a belief system is the same thing as refusing to understand it.

5) The tenets of Christianity are easy to understand because a 3-year-old claims he can do so. 3-year-olds are capable of fully grasping philosophical concepts.

.02 cents added

The biggest reason there are different interpretations is that people start with the doctrine first. They then proceed to cherry pick the verses that back up that doctrine. Both the religious and non-religious do it which is why some religious see nothing but roses and sunshine while some non-religious see nothing but pure evil. The reality is neither are right and if ones actually read the thing to find out what the teachings are to learn the actual teachings, they would see that (in no particular order and not all of them):

1. It's about God (Shock!). He has the right to do what he wants with us, whether reward or punishment.
2. It's about man's possibility for redemption despite their hopeless state against God's perfect standard.
3. Jesus is God's son and oes the will of his father at all times.
4. Dead is Dead unless God says otherwise
5. God is timeless so why time him?
6. Jesus message of salvaton was contingent on obedience. Plenty of people are more than happy being disobedient.
7. Disobedience results in the exact same thing we go through now - death.
8. God created us, not the other way around.
9. All scripture is inspired, but is written by imperfect people.
10. If you have no interest in God or the Bible, then there would never be a time you would "get it".

On that last one, assume the same thing of me when you discuss the idea of no God and that should end any number of frustrations about me.

So bring up as many times as you like about inconsistencies, contradictions, and yada, yada, yada. If you can't grasp those points, it's no wonder you and others are so confused. It sure ain't rocket biochemistronomy.

 

[bosskoss21]

no one knows

 

[Atramental]

no one knows

 

[Joel Was Right]

Here's a question for Atheist GAF

Both sides of the spectrum, believers and nonbelievers, are exposed and introduced to the scientific theories and evidence that explain life and it's creation and yet you still have the group of believers who are resolute in their convictions that there is more to it, essentially. However I don't think as many people from the non-believing segment have had a similar level of introduction and exposure to faith and doctrine. Would it be unfair to say that if we were as equally exposed to religion on today's society (no brainwashing or preaching per se), that we would have more people whom sincerely share that sentiment that there is "more to it" and hence adopt a belief in God(s).

I guess what I'm asking is that is the concept of a supreme being that watches over us all something inherently attractive to us as people? Whilst our ancestors did not have many alternative explanations of life, we in society with the advent of modern science do and yet we still have people whom are devout to their faith. Can you dismiss it all as sheer ignorance or indoctrination or is there something else going on here in your opinion?

I often find that a lot of people whom are critical of religion are actually critical of specific doctrines as opposed to the overall notion that the design of life is not limited to the boundaries of the scientifically explainable. And so I wonder how many agnostics or atheists have ever contemplated - excluding the verses or texts they may dislike - that they were created or that their existence is not random. Because in all of the rebuttals of faith, I have been disappointed by the lack of discussion of spirituality. Religion fundamentally is just that; spirituality. No one adopts a faith or decides to believe in God because of a few verses in one of the Holy Books. Similar to how people who have realised that faith in God does not bring them any comfort or understanding of the world, you have people who have come to the opposite conclusion and each of them all started with a feeling that drew them to the idea of God.

So I don't particularly see this subject as Religion vs Science/Logic. People who convert to a faith do not lack intellectualism or intelligence or logic, nor do they reject it or question it. They obviously find something to them which is more powerful.

 

[Shanadeus]

Of course. I do that now.

It doesn't really come to me as a surprise, I don't see the desire to live an as healthy and long fulfilling life as something going against the bible. There are some religious people though which view this sort of tampering with the human body as against nature - which is why I posed these questions to religious people in the first place.

This one I'd have to understand before I answer, but I think I'm leaning toward I would not di what is being described.

In the first case you would take an extremely detailed scan of your brain and all the positions and impulses of your neurons, and translate that information into a copy of your brain that exist in a virtual space, which then is simulated into an environment that he will find comfortable, simulating your different types of senses in a virtual world. (Lack of sensory stimulation would probably make the mind go crazy)

In the second case you replace each individual neuron in your brain with an artificial neuron, which means you'll slowly transform from a biologic brain to a artificial brain - and then connecting that brain to the virtual environment without the existential problem of two "you"s running around in both the real world and in cyberspace.

In both cases you would be probably be able to simulate myriads of worlds and experiences, indistinguishable from reality if you have good enough software and enough processing power.

This reminds me of the if our food could talk thread. :lol
If they have our intelligence, I'm not sure why we would hold them back or even if we could. Fighting off some gun-toting elephant herds would be brutal.

And now I know that we share the same thoughts, which makes you an alright guy in my eyes.

*highfive*

 

[Mumei]

Thanks for the responses. And yes, as some of you have gathered, I have read The God Delusion.

 

[Shanadeus]

Here's a question for Atheist GAF

Both sides of the spectrum, believers and nonbelievers, are exposed and introduced to the scientific theories and evidence that explain life and it's creation and yet you still have the group of believers who are resolute in their convictions that there is more to it, essentially. However I don't think as many people from the non-believing segment have had a similar level of introduction and exposure to faith and doctrine. Would it be unfair to say that if we were as equally exposed to religion on today's society (no brainwashing or preaching per se), that we would have more people whom sincerely share that sentiment that there is "more to it" and hence adopt a belief in God(s).

I guess what I'm asking is that is the concept of a supreme being that watches over us all something inherently attractive to us as people? Whilst our ancestors did not have many alternative explanations of life, we in society with the advent of modern science do and yet we still have people whom are devout to their faith. Can you dismiss it all as sheer ignorance or indoctrination or is there something else going on here in your opinion?

I often find that a lot of people whom are critical of religion are actually critical of specific doctrines as opposed to the overall notion that the design of life is not limited to the boundaries of the scientifically explainable. And so I wonder how many agnostics or atheists have ever contemplated - excluding the verses or texts they may dislike - that they were created or that their existence is not random. Because in all of the rebuttals of faith, I have been disappointed by the lack of discussion of spirituality. Religion fundamentally is just that; spirituality. No one adopts a faith or decides to believe in God because of a few verses in one of the Holy Books. Similar to how people who have realised that faith in God does not bring them any comfort or understanding of the world, you have people who have come to the opposite conclusion and each of them all started with a feeling that drew them to the idea of God.

So I don't particularly see this subject as Religion vs Science/Logic. People who convert to a faith do not lack intellectualism or intelligence or logic, nor do they reject it or question

I do wonder if I have some form of spirituality that is just expressed in something else beside religion and belief in supernatural phenomena, but I cannot figure out where I'd channel that hypothetical spirituality.

And regarding a supreme, or just very powerful, being that watches over us and/or has created us/first life/universe - I don't "feel" or think that there's anything like that at all, same goes with pretty much all "supernatural" phenomena.

I don't wonder about whether or not there is any existence after death, and I don't ponder about the meaning or purpose of my own life - I just am.

I can on an intellectual level understand the benefit of a belief in existence beyond death and a supernatural creator protecting you and watching over you - sounds very comforting even if it raises problems of it's own. But I can imagine several other hypothetical scenarios and ideas meant to reduce these existential fears - without being attracted to them either or regarding them with any validity

 

[Dude Abides]

However I don't think as many people from the non-believing segment have had a similar level of introduction and exposure to faith and doctrine. Would it be unfair to say that if we were as equally exposed to religion on today's society (no brainwashing or preaching per se), that we would have more people whom sincerely share that sentiment that there is "more to it" and hence adopt a belief in God(s).

I don't think your premise that more people are exposed to natural explanations for how the world works than are exposed to supernatural explanations is true.

I guess what I'm asking is that is the concept of a supreme being that watches over us all something inherently attractive to us as people?

It isn't. Many religions do not have a "supreme being that watches over us." Lots of religions have many non-supreme gods, Buddhism has no real "gods" at all.

Because in all of the rebuttals of faith, I have been disappointed by the lack of discussion of spirituality. Religion fundamentally is just that; spirituality. No one adopts a faith or decides to believe in God because of a few verses in one of the Holy Books. Similar to how people who have realised that faith in God does not bring them any comfort or understanding of the world, you have people who have come to the opposite conclusion and each of them all started with a feeling that drew them to the idea of God.

So I don't particularly see this subject as Religion vs Science/Logic. People who convert to a faith do not lack intellectualism or intelligence or logic, nor do they reject it or question it. They obviously find something to them which is more powerful.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are essentially asking "If the basic notion of religion/spirituality, that there is something to existence beyond what is strictly rational and naturalistic, then why does it seem inherent to humanity, as evidenced by the fact that it so many people have some feeling of spirituality even when they've been exposed to rational and naturalistic explanations of the world?"

I think the answer is that spirituality is fundamentally non-rational. It's intuitive, based on a feeling. The idea that human knowledge is acquired intuitively is fundamentally at odds with rationalism.

 

[replicashooter]

So lets assume there is a god and there is also a devil, why do religious people think that their sacred texts are of heavenly origin instead of satanically inspired or maybe they are of heavenly origin but with satanic execution, example;

for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

Now as far as I can tell that tells you not to have a christmas tree in your home yet christians seem to love christmas.

Same thing with money lending and the torah;

If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest.

Yet the jews seem to love usury related japes.

Same thing with suicide bombers and the koran:

that whoever kills a human being, unless it be for murder or bloody crimes on the earth, it would be as if he killed all mankind.

And we all know how them boys love their tick tock shoes and flim flam underwear.

So, back to my original point; why do so many people say they adhere to a faith on one hand yet directly contravene it on the other. Why do they follow something as holy or sacred without any research or overstanding of their own? Why does religion and hypocrisy go hand in hand like priests and 12 year old boys?

 

[saelz8]

Just picked up Good Book, by David Plotz (Slate Magazine Editor), and I'm enjoying it quite a lot.

What is it? The book form for Plotz's Blogging The Bible series he did for Slate, which lasted a year or two. Plotz is basically some regular, non-observant (read: secular) Jewish guy that got the idea to read through the entire OT, and blog about it as he did. It's really lighthearted, which is part of the appeal, IMO.

I bought the book, but you can still read the entire Blog online - Link.

Author Video

I was soon engrossed in a story I didn't know, Genesis Chapter 34. It begins with the rape of Jacob's daughter Dinah by Shechem, the son of a local chief named Hamor. Shechem and Hamor visit Jacob and his brothers to resolve the mess. Hamor begs on Shechem's behalf: Shechem loves Dinah, he says, and yearns to marry her. Hamor and Shechem offer to share their land with Jacob's family and pay any bride price if only Dinah would be Shechem's wife.

Jacob's sons pretend to agree to this proposal, but they insist that Shechem and all the other men of his town get circumcised before the marriage. Shechem and his father accept the demand. They and their fellow townsmen get circumcised. Three days after the circumcision, "when they were in pain," Jacob's sons Simeon and Levi (who are Dinah's full brothers) enter the town, murder all the men, and take Dinah away. After this slaughter, Jacob's other sons plunder the town, seize the livestock and property, and take the women and children as slaves. Jacob, who hasn't said a word in the chapter till now, complains to Simeon and Levi that other neighboring tribes won't trust him anymore. "But they answered, 'Should our sister be treated like a whore?' "

This is not a story they taught me at Temple Sinai's Hebrew School in 1980: The founding fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel lie, breach a contract, encourage pagans to convert to Judaism only in order to incapacitate them for slaughter, murder some innocents and enslave others, pillage and profiteer, and then justify it all with an appeal to their sister's defiled honor. (Which, incidentally, may not have been defiled at all: Some commentators, their views dramatized in Anita Diamant's The Red Tent, think Dinah went with Shechem willingly, and even the language in the two translations I looked at is ambiguous. One says Shechem "lay with her by force," while the King James say he "lay with her, and defiled her.")

 

[Atramental]

Here's a question for Atheist GAF

I guess what I'm asking is that is the concept of a supreme being that watches over us all something inherently attractive to us as people? Whilst our ancestors did not have many alternative explanations of life, we in society with the advent of modern science do and yet we still have people whom are devout to their faith. Can you dismiss it all as sheer ignorance or indoctrination or is there something else going on here in your opinion?

I think it's definitely in our nature for us to want there to be more to this life than just living. Life is for the most part boring, hard, dull, sometimes cruel, and, for the most part, monotonous and people need an escape from it. It's the "Is this it?" mentality.

I've lived around Christians all my life and I have seen how it has changed peoples lives for the better (well mostly for the better...). But the more I was exposed to it the more I was repulsed by it. When I was a kid I did feel a really subtle connection to the "spiritualness" of religion/god but as I got older I started to see that spirituality was nothing more than our minds playing tricks on us in order cope with the harsh reality of things. For example, I think the reason why my parents are so religious is because the both had lousy parents while they were growing up. Jesus or god or whatever is like that father that was always there for them. They had a hole in their lives and god was what filled that hole.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I do wonder if I have some form of spirituality that is just expressed in something else beside religion and belief in supernatural phenomena, but I cannot figure out where I'd channel that hypothetical spirituality.

And regarding a supreme, or just very powerful, being that watches over us and/or has created us/first life/universe - I don't "feel" or think that there's anything like that at all, same goes with pretty much all "supernatural" phenomena.

I don't wonder about whether or not there is any existence after death, and I don't ponder about the meaning or purpose of my own life - I just am.

I can on an intellectual level understand the benefit of a belief in existence beyond death and a supernatural creator protecting you and watching over you - sounds very comforting even if it raises problems of it's own. But I can imagine several other hypothetical scenarios and ideas meant to reduce these existential fears - without being attracted to them either or regarding them with any validity

I'm 23 year olds and I was raised in an environment where faith in God was paramount. And yet in the time I've been discussing theology, it's only been quite recently in where I've actually contemplated my spirituality and ironically I feel more closer to faith than I ever have from reading verses or listening to sermons.

Merely focusing on the morality (or lack thereof) in doctrine in an attempt to personify God and label religion felt more like debating politics than anything. It's no coincidence that discussions of the Catholic Church or Islam in the Middle East have been relegated to nothing more than newspaper headlines. Unfortunately I think this is the type of 'religion' people are being introduced to in recent times and I'm sure there are certain people who have no problem with that whatsoever.

You should try to contemplate your own spirituality. I honestly believe anyone has in them to find faith, that includes those who identify themselves as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc because I'm sure many of them feel like they've just inherited their beliefs rather than acquiring them on their own.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I think it's definitely in our nature for us to want there to be more to this life than just living. Life is for the most part boring, hard, dull, sometimes cruel, and, for the most part, monotonous and people need an escape from it. It's the "Is this it?" mentality.

I've lived around Christians all my life and I have seen how it has changed peoples lives for the better (well mostly for the better...). But the more I was exposed to it the more I was repulsed by it. When I was a kid I did feel a really subtle connection to the "spiritualness" of religion/god but as I got older I started to see that spirituality was nothing more than our minds playing tricks on us in order cope with the harsh reality of things. For example, I think the reason why my parents are so religious is because the both had lousy parents while they were growing up. Jesus or god or whatever is like that father that was always there for them. They had a hole in their lives and god was what filled that hole.

You're right. Religion is a comfort tool for many. But by the same token I've known of people who have fabulous and privileged lives and yet they listen with intrigue when you, someone with a lot less, talk about God and what faith has brought to you. It transcends materialism to the point that even those with no reason to question life and morals find the experience life changing. I think these people realise that at the heart of it religion is trying to create a better person out of you.

I'm not sure about this, but I think if tomorrow you saw "the hand" come down from the sky and all proof was there that God truly did exist, I think we'd all feel very humble and small. Seeing people pray to God for forgiveness or whisper confessions of sin crying their eyes out is such a powerful sight man. That image doesn't leave you.

 

[Joel Was Right]

I don't think your premise that more people are exposed to natural explanations for how the world works than are exposed to supernatural explanations is true.................

Well do you think that if more people were exposed to the "intuitive" spiritual side of religion rather than specific doctrines that invoke controversy, that we would see more people testify to a belief in a creator or greater meaning of life?

 

[Zaptruder]

That how many questions are asked of me. This is the only thread where people respond to me that much. I would probably have no more than 10 like in other non-LOST threads otherwise.

I can't say no because that would be impossible to say. It's called honesty (The thing you questioned whether I could do), confidence (That my decision is the correct one), & humility (To admit that I could be wrong about the whole thing.

It's called having an open mind to any number of possibilities and the fact that I've considered quite a number of them already. No need to go back unless something new happens.

You wouldn't spend the time to answer so many attacks and questions on your belief system if you didn't feel confident.

But are you really humble? Maybe enough to admit that you may not have gotten things right the first time around, and have now worked yourself into a position where you're not able to (intellectually) revisit those without bias.

Of course, it's likely you'll claim otherwise, and I'll say "but it's not what you've demonstrated", and you'll say to that, "but you're not happy with anything less than a complete renouncement of my belief", to which I may well reply; "You may indeed be right on that. But does that mean I'm wrong?"

Spoiler

Yes, arguments between people that have no intention of shifting their positions are indeed comedic from another perspective.

 

[Shanadeus]

I'm 23 year olds and I was raised in an environment where faith in God was paramount. And yet in the time I've been discussing theology, it's only been quite recently in where I've actually contemplated my spirituality and ironically I feel more closer to faith than I ever have from reading verses or listening to sermons.

Merely focusing on the morality (or lack thereof) in doctrine in an attempt to personify God and label religion felt more like debating politics than anything. It's no coincidence that discussions of the Catholic Church or Islam in the Middle East have been relegated to nothing more than newspaper headlines. Unfortunately I think this is the type of 'religion' people are being introduced to in recent times and I'm sure there are certain people who have no problem with that whatsoever.

You should try to contemplate your own spirituality. I honestly believe anyone has in them to find faith, that includes those who identify themselves as Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu etc because I'm sure many of them feel like they've just inherited their beliefs rather than acquiring them on their own.

I wasn't quite certain of what spirituality was when I thought about it, but now that I checked it up properly I don't think or feel I have a need for it to be honest.

Spirituality can refer to an ultimate reality or transcendent dimension of the world; an inner path enabling a person to discover the essence of his or her being, or the “deepest values and meanings by which people live.” Spiritual practices, including meditation, prayer and contemplation, are intended to develop an individual's inner life; such practices often lead to an experience of connectedness with a larger reality: a more comprehensive self; other individuals or the human community; nature or the cosmos; or the divine realm. Spirituality is often experienced as a source of inspiration or orientation in life. It can encompass belief in immaterial realities or experiences of the immanent or transcendent nature of the world.

I am happy with my life, I don't feel there's anything "missing". I have read up on Buddhist philosophies quite a lot and they seem to fit rather well with how I myself view life - just live and don't make too much of a fuzz.

So many here seem to have been raised in environments with a lot of faith present and important, it probably affect people's needs for spirituality and "answers" to existential questions later on.

If people need spirituality and faith to live happy, then good for them.
It's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Zaptruder]

Here's a question for Atheist GAF

Both sides of the spectrum, believers and nonbelievers, are exposed and introduced to the scientific theories and evidence that explain life and it's creation and yet you still have the group of believers who are resolute in their convictions that there is more to it, essentially.

Ok. I'll let you carry on, but note my interruption.

However I don't think as many people from the non-believing segment have had a similar level of introduction and exposure to faith and doctrine. Would it be unfair to say that if we were as equally exposed to religion on today's society (no brainwashing or preaching per se), that we would have more people whom sincerely share that sentiment that there is "more to it" and hence adopt a belief in God(s).

Because at this point you are saying that more people are exposed to science, and less people to religion. I flat out disagree with your premise.

Firstly, only 1/5th of the world are atheists (if that), over 4/5ths religious. Of course a large portion of that isn't as devout as the vocal religious portion, but nonetheless it is still a strong indication of that the large majority recieve religious exposure.

When you compare that with the level of education in the world, then are significantly less that recieve a quality education, that is able to properly introduce science.

Moreover, many people are indoctrinated into religion from birth, and essentially it serves to poison the well for many on ideas and issues that contradict that indoctrination.

This idea has basis in the survival mechanism; as children, it is the strong instinct for us to simply do as our parents say without questioning it. As we grow to adulthood, there remain many things that we simply don't revisit and requestion (perhaps because are provided with continual reinforcement of the idea, which is provided by society and culture that we don't feel the need to question it. Such as the ideas of castes seperation in some cultures).

In addition to that, you have the asymmetry in the cognitive load in grasping the foundational ideas of religion and spirituality (anthropomorphism; low load, corresponds well and intuitively with the way we see the world), and the foundational ideas of science (self correcting mechanism; not something that is inherently intuitive from the get go), which further skews things in favour of religion.

Anyway, letting you carry on:

I guess what I'm asking is that is the concept of a supreme being that watches over us all something inherently attractive to us as people?

Yes, it is. And here's why.

We have an innate capacity for empathizing. I mean that we actually have cognitive structures built into our brains called mirror neurons; these neurons basically are designed to make you feel the things you see other people doing.

They operate so well, so efficiently, that they allow us to empathize with people in movies, in books, in cartoons. They allows us to experience the drama of human emotion and feeling externally.

When we over empathize, we are essentially anthropomorphizing. It means that we assign human qualities to things. When we assign them to humans, that's natural. When we assign them to human characters of fictional creations, it's still normal, even though the humans in those creations are as far removed from us as the ink and the pages that they exist on, or the celluloid that they're trapped on.

When we seek explanation for things, we do so from a human perspective; we seek to explain the world in human terms.

When you combine that with the mechanisms of meme transmission, and how much we assume, take for granted, place faith and trust in other people (and for good reason; because we'd kinda fall apart if we didn't... but that doesn't mean that negative things can't hijack these positive necessary mechanisms), how we treat information given to us at a young age, our desires and wishes and fear of death, all that...

and you have a really powerful blend of reasons why the god or the spirituality idea is innate to humanity.

Whilst our ancestors did not have many alternative explanations of life, we in society with the advent of modern science do and yet we still have people whom are devout to their faith. Can you dismiss it all as sheer ignorance or indoctrination or is there something else going on here in your opinion?

While there is of course much complexity, and there are of course as you imply many intelligent people that are sincerely religious and spiritual... when you boil it down to its very basics... then yes, it pretty much does come down to ignorance and indoctrination.

I often find that a lot of people whom are critical of religion are actually critical of specific doctrines as opposed to the overall notion that the design of life is not limited to the boundaries of the scientifically explainable.

Are you saying that most of the people you argue with argue about scripture and doctrine, rather than er... creationism or intelligent design? I don't know where you argue, but those are pretty big soft targets for most of us here.

And so I wonder how many agnostics or atheists have ever contemplated - excluding the verses or texts they may dislike - that they were created or that their existence is not random.

I'm sure, because that many atheists, especially the ones arguing on this board, come from religious backgrounds, that they have well considered those ideas.

Hell, as an ardent atheist, I wouldn't say my existence is random. It's ordered and with a very good explanation. It's just not a supernatural or divine mechanism that I ascribe to.

Because in all of the rebuttals of faith, I have been disappointed by the lack of discussion of spirituality.

I dunno about the rest, but I like to take shots at dualism quite frequently. The idea that the material world exists and operates on one set of rules, and that our minds and conciousness operate on another set. It's not exactly spirituality, but it is a foundational element/idea of spirituality. Is that what you're talking about?

Religion fundamentally is just that; spirituality. No one adopts a faith or decides to believe in God because of a few verses in one of the Holy Books. Similar to how people who have realised that faith in God does not bring them any comfort or understanding of the world, you have people who have come to the opposite conclusion and each of them all started with a feeling that drew them to the idea of God.

You're kinda trying to argue that people arrive at faith independently of each other. But do they? Do you honestly believe that someone can arrive at the idea of christianity; god, holy father, spirit and son, and all its doctrines... without having the idea introduced to them at some stage? Without having any exposure to cultures that have that in their life?

You're conflating far too broad an idea (that people seek supernatural explanations... non-mechanistic explanations for things in their life) with the idea that people find even a particular faith independently of one another... extended to independently of 'culture'. And when you type it out this way like I am, it's not going to hold water. It's not going to make sense, because it doesn't make sense. But it isn't a very unfair characterization of what you've said either.

So I don't particularly see this subject as Religion vs Science/Logic. People who convert to a faith do not lack intellectualism or intelligence or logic, nor do they reject it or question it. They obviously find something to them which is more powerful.

Ah, you're trying to pull a little argument by authority, and a little conflating here... there are religious smart people, ergo there must be something smart about religion.


Well firstly, unfortunately the more well informed you are, the better you are able to grasp the self correcting methodology of science, the more you understand of our natural world, the less likely you are to be religious. Something like 20% general public, 40% general scientists, 85% national academy scientists (i.e. scientific elites).

So that kinda blows your first point.

And the second point; if smart people believe in religion then there's something to it... is kinda a wash as well; smart people are human, can make mistakes like any other, and not everything they do is smart.

I mean, even 15% of national academy scientists are religious or spiritual one way or another.


But there are plenty of compelling reasons outside of the ideas and beliefs provided by the actual religion as to why they'd persist in their religion. Maybe they're just better than most at knowledge partitioning.

That is learning contradictory information and not cross referencing it and accepting and believing both despite contradictions (happens very frequently as a function of the way we learn and think).

Or any other number of very plausible and reasonable explanations.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Because at this point you are saying that more people are exposed to science, and less people to religion. I flat out disagree with your premise.

Yes but a comparison of the figures doesn't tell the whole story. As you might have noticed in my above comments, I have an issue in how religion or God are being presented in society today. People whom come from a religious background will naturally be exposed to a certain amount of religion and they will grow up through a process of trying to understand the relevance of God to them. Although everyone knows about Abraham or Brahma (as you pointed out), not everyone is given the same level/quality of religious contemplation those in the "believer" camp receive. The key word in that sentence was "similar level", and this is what I meant by that.

Yes, it is. And here's why.

We have an innate capacity for empathizing. I mean that we actually have cognitive structures built into our brains called mirror neurons; these neurons basically are designed to make you feel the things you see other people doing.

They operate so well, so efficiently, that they allow us to empathize with people in movies, in books, in cartoons. They allows us to experience the drama of human emotion and feeling externally.

When we over empathize, we are essentially anthropomorphizing. It means that we assign human qualities to things. When we assign them to humans, that's natural. When we assign them to human characters of fictional creations, it's still normal, even though the humans in those creations are as far removed from us as the ink and the pages that they exist on, or the celluloid that they're trapped on.

When we seek explanation for things, we do so from a human perspective; we seek to explain the world in human terms.

When you combine that with the mechanisms of meme transmission, and how much we assume, take for granted, place faith and trust in other people (and for good reason; because we'd kinda fall apart if we didn't... but that doesn't mean that negative things can't hijack these positive necessary mechanisms), how we treat information given to us at a young age, our desires and wishes and fear of death, all that...

and you have a really powerful blend of reasons why the god or the spirituality idea is innate to humanity.

That's interesting. However right now I don't see the relationship between the two. Let me explain why: when I talk about spirituality, I'm not using the Abrahamic God or any deity whom has human-like characteristics as an example but instead an instinct that there is a greater meaning to life and the desire to try and understand it. Someone like that doesn't necessarily try to approach it from a human perspective nor are they attracted to the human attributes of a mystical figure. In fact ironically I don't think many would be able to explain whom God is to you let alone describe him. It's an acceptance of a complete unknown and a detachment from the hope that we could ever as humans try to understand let alone characterise. I'm not really sure what the relevance of anthropotheism is to this..?

Are you saying that most of the people you argue with argue about scripture and doctrine, rather than er... creationism or intelligent design? I don't know where you argue, but those are pretty big soft targets for most of us here.

Actually I'm trying to focus on spirituality and the motivations for people to believe in a God(s) rather than talking about specific doctrine. Most debates about religion involve certain specific subjects or points of doctrine that trigger passions from both sides. And in the majority of these cases, I get the impression that these points of doctrine are the sole reason for why X, Y and Z are so critical of God and religion in general. This is contrast to someone like Shanadeus above whom has considered his own spirituality and come to the conclusion that he is perfectly satisfied with his view of life as it stands. I'm a proponent that the first step in deciding your stance on faith, whether you subscribe to it or challenge it, is to first establish your own personal feeling about life and whether or not there is something more to the Sun rising and setting and people being born and people dying. If you could list all the things you dislike, that you feel are immoral, in any of the mainstream religions' holy texts and you had the power to remove all of that and those points never existed, I think the inevitable lack of controversy would see people view and interpret religion and God in a totally different matter. I honestly believe that. In my opinion a lot of people make up their minds about God before we even get to talking about the details creationism.

I dunno about the rest, but I like to take shots at dualism quite frequently. The idea that the material world exists and operates on one set of rules, and that our minds and conciousness operate on another set. It's not exactly spirituality, but it is a foundational element/idea of spirituality. Is that what you're talking about?

Recently I wrote a thread about Infinity and it's different applications. One of the most interesting examples of, the Inflation Theory, stipulates that there could be an infinite amount of Universes infinitely growing. There are other theories and thoughts that hypothesise on the potential difference of the laws of physics that govern other universes. So I don't think this idea of an alternative perspective/set of rules is strictly reserved by those interested in metaphysics. Of course there is no way you can measure and thus prove any of this as you're essentially defining it as a subject completely removed from the boundaries of logic. And yes, I realise that you could claim anything in the name of the metaphysical and not need to support it. But to answer your question, not exactly. I'm being intentionally vague about it because spirituality can mean different things to people. I would like to just leave it as "feeling" or as another GAF member said above; the intuitive of one?

You're kinda trying to argue that people arrive at faith independently of each other. But do they? Do you honestly believe that someone can arrive at the idea of christianity; god, holy father, spirit and son, and all its doctrines... without having the idea introduced to them at some stage? Without having any exposure to cultures that have that in their life?

We both know that the majority of those who believe in God had that concept introduced to them at one point in their lives, perhaps even indoctrinated. But that doesn't mean they sincerely carry that faith nor does it mean, as GAF is evidence enough, that they will always ascribe to the faith of their childhood. There are examples of even the reference of faith can spurn interest of someone who is unfamiliar with it. But importantly there are those as well who claim that were lacking "something" and after coming across religion either directly or indirectly, that they had found what they needed. So yes people can find faith independently. But it isn't as much about how they arrived at it as it is in how important and relevant it is for them. This is why often new converts are more devout than those e.g. born into the faith. If it was the other way around, it would give more credence to your argument that people are fed ignorance from childhood and hence know nothing other than to continue that ignorance.

Ah, you're trying to pull a little argument by authority, and a little conflating here... there are religious smart people, ergo there must be something smart about religion.

No, what I'm saying is that claiming ignorance on part of those who prefer to adopt faith (as opposed to scientific empirical evidence) insinuates that they lack a fundamental level of intelligence or rationale. Whereas in reality believing in God is no measurement of any of those qualities. There are unintelligent people out there who reject the idea of God as there are those that embrace it. Am I then suggesting atheism/theism is stupid? No. It's merely a comment about the people, a comment that wasn't intended to be a reflection on what they/don't believe in.

Well firstly, unfortunately the more well informed you are, the better you are able to grasp the self correcting methodology of science, the more you understand of our natural world, the less likely you are to be religious. Something like 20% general public, 40% general scientists, 85% national academy scientists (i.e. scientific elites).

So that kinda blows your first point.

And the second point; if smart people believe in religion then there's something to it... is kinda a wash as well; smart people are human, can make mistakes like any other, and not everything they do is smart.

I mean, even 15% of national academy scientists are religious or spiritual one way or another.


But there are plenty of compelling reasons outside of the ideas and beliefs provided by the actual religion as to why they'd persist in their religion. Maybe they're just better than most at knowledge partitioning.

That is learning contradictory information and not cross referencing it and accepting and believing both despite contradictions (happens very frequently as a function of the way we learn and think).

Or any other number of very plausible and reasonable explanations.

I can only speak on my behalf. Someone asked me recently "How old do you think the Earth is?" I told him, "It could be 4.5billion years old or a few thousand years old, it honestly wouldn't affect my view". He was puzzled. I continued, "If Abraham never existed and hence none of the texts were written and talked about creation, if none of that happened, I would still probably be drawn to a faith in God or a higher being".

It's difficult to explain but my personal feelings are not entrenched or based to do with established doctrine and so I don't feel they are in conflict with that, and consequently with scientists. This is similar to many Christian scientists and their unique belief that the creation story was metaphorical rather than an accurate history recollection. The essence of their faith is personal. Even though they were raised with these doctrines and may have come across evidence to them which contradicts it, they still manage to hold on to their spiritual beliefs. There is still something inherently powerful to it in their eyes. And therefore I have no issue with either group.

At the end of the day, it is your life and if you want to believe in certain things to act as answers to questions you can't answer, then who is anyone to challenge it or question it. We as a species are just beginning to put toe into the pond of understanding existence. When we're trying to figure out how to measure the Universe or if that's even feasible, who are we to refuse others the right to choose what the meaning of life is to them?

 

[JGS]

You wouldn't spend the time to answer so many attacks and questions on your belief system if you didn't feel confident.

I'm very confident, but not so much that I would think myself impervious to conversion.

But are you really humble? Maybe enough to admit that you may not have gotten things right the first time around, and have now worked yourself into a position where you're not able to (intellectually) revisit those without bias.

I'm not sure what you mean. I have no problem revisiting whatever intellectual something you're referring to even if I don't re-accept it. Why would i accept something again when nothing new was added? You don't think you've added something new do you?

One can be confident and humble. Humility doesn't mean cowering to the other view, especially if the other view never changed (intellectually) from when it first started.

Of course, it's likely you'll claim otherwise, and I'll say "but it's not what you've demonstrated", and you'll say to that, "but you're not happy with anything less than a complete renouncement of my belief", to which I may well reply; "You may indeed be right on that. But does that mean I'm wrong?"

You were doing so well, you should have finished the conversation!

Then I would say "Yes, you are wrong."

Then you'll say "Oh yeah? Yo Momma!"

Spoiler

Am I doin it right?

Seriously, you are not psychic or telepathic so quit pretending to be.

I don't care if you think I am accusing you of all or nothing or not, I just think it would be nice to know what your point actually is. We already addressed why I comment so much. It's to address your question to me or problems with me. You still haven't address what your problem actually is with me.

If it's because I haven't "demonstrated" whatever it is you're talking about, then reference it like a good intellectual. Otherwise, I'll just make the assumption as to why.

 

[BocoDragon]

One thing about this thread is that owing to GAF's demographics, it's overwhelmingly Athiest x Christian x Muslim... Where my Hindus and Zoroastrians at???

 

[FunkyMunkey]

.

Well, there are quite a few scientists who are religious (as you stated) and trying to invalidate their position in the matter using assumptions and out-of-the-air stats that cater towards your agenda is just bad form. Is a scientist's mind only credible if they're atheist and/or backing atheist ideas?

And also, many believe that the more we discover about the universe, the more questions we'll have. It's been that way for a long time. Science can often strengthen faith, especially with our recent venture into quantum mechanics where things can reach unbelievable theoretical heights, and yet still be displayed in a lab.

 

[Shanadeus]

One thing about this thread is that owing to GAF's demographics, it's overwhelmingly Athiest x Christian x Muslim... Where my Hindus and Zoroastrians at???

Well, there are some buddhists gaffers I believe.
And isn't that guy that keep creating threads about pakistan Hindu?

 

[BocoDragon]

Well, there are some buddhists gaffers I believe.

I study Buddhism so that would be me.. what this thread needs is a good Buddhist argument!

Sudden enlightenment vs. Gradual enlightenment.... GO GO GO!!

Spoiler

Just kidding.. can't really get worked up enough over any of that to fight about it. :lol

 

[soul creator]

I wish people were able to distinguish religious feelings from religious claims.

Those are two entirely different discussions, and they keep getting mixed up. If someone says "I feel calm and at peace due to my faith in god", that's a personal feeling. That can't be debated or discussed. No baby eating atheist can ever take that away from you. But when someone says "god created the universe we live in, god inspired a collection of books, god had a son who was resurrected, god answers prayers, god gave us all morals, the bible says X" and so on, that is a specific claim about the external world, the world that believers and nonbelievers both live in.

At that point, evidence has to come into play if those claims are to be taken seriously. You don't get to say "well that's just my belief!" anymore than I can say "circles are the same as squares, that's just my belief!". That's why things like science and evidence is useful: a claim can be true no matter what your personal beliefs are. That's really the only useful type of discussion for any sort of diverse group (like this thread).

If one side is discussing personal religious feelings (which is what believers tend to end up doing when their claims aren't backed up by evidence), while the other side is discussing religious claims (which is what nonbelievers tend to do, since, well, that's the only thing that can be discussed), obviously there's going to be a miscommunication.

 

[BocoDragon]

And isn't that guy that keep creating threads about pakistan Hindu?

There should be a lot more Hindus around here... but within Hindu culture there's really don't seem to be as many heated theology debates like in monotheisms... the very fact that there are all these different gods and beliefs makes religious pluralism a rather engrained concept in Hindu culture. Why debate?.. why not just accept everyone's beliefs? And that's how polytheisms kind of evolve.

 

[Shanadeus]

Final part of "Why I am No Longer Christian" series. This part covers "Losing God".

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

These are rather interesting, he is very throughout.

 

[Ashes]

I wish people were able to distinguish religious feelings from religious claims.

At that point, evidence has to come into play if those claims are to be taken seriously. You don't get to say "well that's just my belief!" anymore than I can say "circles are the same as squares, that's just my belief!". That's why things like science and evidence is useful: a claim can be true no matter what your personal beliefs are. That's really the only useful type of discussion for any sort of diverse group (like this thread).

If one side is discussing personal religious feelings (which is what believers tend to end up doing when their claims aren't backed up by evidence), while the other side is discussing religious claims (which is what nonbelievers tend to do, since, well, that's the only thing that can be discussed), obviously there's going to be a miscommunication.

Whilst that may hold true for some, it doesn't for others. Perhaps in simplifying, you have lost some of the complexity that religion has for its followers. For example, for some people, religion is a way of life. Just like falling in love. There are people who don't need evidence to know that their girlfriend loves them, nor do they seek empirical evidence. Asking that kind of question from a scientific point of view, seems daft to them.

 

[Atramental]

nm.

 

[JGS]

I wish people were able to distinguish religious feelings from religious claims.

Those are two entirely different discussions, and they keep getting mixed up. If someone says "I feel calm and at peace due to my faith in god", that's a personal feeling. That can't be debated or discussed. No baby eating atheist can ever take that away from you. But when someone says "god created the universe we live in, god inspired a collection of books, god had a son who was resurrected, god answers prayers, god gave us all morals, the bible says X" and so on, that is a specific claim about the external world, the world that believers and nonbelievers both live in.

At that point, evidence has to come into play if those claims are to be taken seriously. You don't get to say "well that's just my belief!" anymore than I can say "circles are the same as squares, that's just my belief!". That's why things like science and evidence is useful: a claim can be true no matter what your personal beliefs are. That's really the only useful type of discussion for any sort of diverse group (like this thread).

If one side is discussing personal religious feelings (which is what believers tend to end up doing when their claims aren't backed up by evidence), while the other side is discussing religious claims (which is what nonbelievers tend to do, since, well, that's the only thing that can be discussed), obviously there's going to be a miscommunication.

So any comment (particularly an opinion) on the external world requires evidence?
Wouldn't that mean that all opinion about something other than ourselves is open for debate?
Brussell Sprouts are nasty would be a fitting dedbate under that guideline (& I'd always be right about that one too!)
Can you prove my prayers weren't answered?
Can you prove how the universe was created because there is a Nobel Prize of something waiting for you if you can?
How would saying the Bible says X require proof unless it doesn't say it? It's a book so it's already in there isn't it?

Religious feeling are very often tied closely to religious claims for religious people so they aren't distinct at all. You can try to change that but it won't work. Of course they would be distinct to someone who doesn't believe in the first place so understandably takes issue with the claims- something they can argue about until the baby eating commences.

Now that's what the focus needs to be on- religious people and non-religious people see things differently and neither way amounts to a hill of beans to the other. But when you focus on that there's not much to debate.

If the belief is on an external topic, the intellectually superior should be able to ignore the ramblings of Bronze Agers rather than be stoked by them unless there is a clear and present danger that I'm missing.

 

[pnjtony]

So any comment (particularly an opinion) on the external world requires evidence?

Not at all. You can think or believe anything you'd like to believe.

The moment you expect anyone else to think or believe the same is when evidence is required.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, there are quite a few scientists who are religious (as you stated) and trying to invalidate their position in the matter using assumptions and out-of-the-air stats that cater towards your agenda is just bad form. Is a scientist's mind only credible if they're atheist and/or backing atheist ideas?

You miss the point; scientists are credible in their field. They also represent people that have higher than average knowledge of other areas of the natural world, and the more they understand, the less likely they are to accept supernatural or dualistic explanations of the world.

They can't speak authoritatively on matters of religion, because lets face it, that's not what they work on, but it does strongly suggest that the more we know about our world, the fewer things we can ascribe to supernatural phenomena.

Anyway, I don't hold this as some sort of definitive evidence of things; but if we are to resort to argument from authority fallacies, then we should at least do it right.

And also, many believe that the more we discover about the universe, the more questions we'll have. It's been that way for a long time. Science can often strengthen faith, especially with our recent venture into quantum mechanics where things can reach unbelievable theoretical heights, and yet still be displayed in a lab.

Don't conflate the idea that more questions (of profound depth) emerge from our continuing exploration of the natural universe, with our inability to eliminate possibilities from the natural universe.

 

[Mumei]

Final part of "Why I am No Longer Christian" series. This part covers "Losing God".

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

Thanks. I've seen the rest of the series. It's interesting. I enjoy reading or hearing deconversion stories from the perspective of the devoutly religious - I also really enjoyed listening to Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God talk. The New York Times theater review is spot-on:

Can an atheist lift the spirit? In her searing and bracingly funny solo show “Letting Go of God,” Julia Sweeney traces her bumpy journey away from religious faith in an accessible, no-frills format that suggests the kind of inspirational self-help lecture you might see around PBS pledge time.

But where Deepak Chopra or Wayne W. Dyer, say, come bearing warm broth, distilled from revered spiritual traditions, Ms. Sweeney arrives with a bucket of cold water for all supernatural belief systems, from her family’s old-school Roman Catholicism to the New Age alternatives (including Mr. Chopra) embraced by many of her peers.

In her fluent, friendly and offhandedly riveting account, what started with a visit from two young Mormon missionaries soon became a fitful but unrelenting quest for an adult understanding of the deity she always sincerely sensed was at her side. Ms. Sweeney felt God’s presence, sure — but what did she really believe about him?

She’s almost sorry she asked: upon examination, the Bible horrifies her, and so, ultimately, does the implicit determinism of every spiritual approach she tries, from Buddhism to the Deist notion of God in nature. Once she loses the Christian plot she’d never before questioned, the idea that everything happens for a reason in a universe where someone, or something, is minding the store increasingly rings hollow.

Ms. Sweeney, in other words, has come a long way from the snickering androgyny of the film “It’s Pat!” and gone deeper than her previous solo show, “God Said ‘Ha!’,” about her brother’s fatal lymphoma. Without breaking her affably conversational tone, in “Letting Go of God” she inhabits the emotional memory of each step on her path, from the cozy warmth of her erstwhile prayerful faith to the confusion and terror, and finally the hard-earned peace of mind, that attend her gradual un-conversion.

At a time when religious faith is either the subject of shrill controversy, with prejudice and misunderstanding on both sides (Mel Gibson, meet Christopher Hitchens), or of a lukewarm tolerance that’s fundamentally uncurious about what people actually believe, “Letting Go of God” is refreshingly unrancorous, lucid and, yes, inspirational. Ms. Sweeney may not believe her audience has spirits to be moved, but that’s certainly how it feels.​

I strongly recommend it if you haven't already heard it.

 

[jdogmoney]

I study Buddhism so that would be me.. what this thread needs is a good Buddhist argument!

Sudden enlightenment vs. Gradual enlightenment.... GO GO GO!!

Spoiler

Just kidding.. can't really get worked up enough over any of that to fight about it. :lol

Buddhism is pretty chill, at that. My "enlightenment", if you can call it that, has been a gradual one, but punctuated by leaps and bounds, ideas that come suddenly. I'd say that all enlightenment is gradual, as even sudden enlightenment has your previous conceptions of the nature of the universe to work with/through.




...I like koans, though:

A koan:

If you have ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you.

Spoiler

This is an ice cream koan.

 

[soul creator]

So any comment (particularly an opinion) on the external world requires evidence?
Wouldn't that mean that all opinion about something other than ourselves is open for debate?

Well, if there is to be any sort of meaningful discussion, then yes. Otherwise, it's just people stating what they like, and leaving it at that. One person likes chocolate, one person likes vanilla. Beyond that, you can't really have any sort of meaningful conversation. If someone happens to like games on 360, that's fine. That's a personal taste. I can either say I agree, or disagree, and that's that. It can't be "wrong". But if that person then says, "I like games on the 360, because the PS3 costs $4000", that's no longer an "opinion".

Depending on the subject matter, "opinions" can very well need some kind of evidence if they are to be meaningful. And lots of popular religious claims are not just "I feel this way". Religious claims are often "Things are this way"

Brussell Sprouts are nasty would be a fitting dedbate under that guideline (& I'd always be right about that one too!)

I agree. But if I disagreed, obviously there would be no way to convince you otherwise because that is very much a personal taste question. Which is fine. I'm not inside your head, so I can't say you're "wrong".

Again, if you said "I like brussel sprouts because they can make people fly through the sky", then don't be surprised if someone says "Really? Do you have evidence for that?" At this point, continuing to say "that's just like, my opinion man" doesn't really make any sense.

Can you prove my prayers weren't answered?

No one can show evidence that your specific prayers weren't answered (since no one knows exactly how you prayed or what you prayed for), but one can show that overall, prayer does not work, and there is evidence that human beings can easily have flawed and often contradictory perceptions. So the likely occurence is that your prayers weren't literally answered by a divine being. Or maybe it was answered by a divine being, but it was Satan, and he tricked you. Heh heh, suckerrrr. (tongue firmly in cheek)

Of course, you could be someone who literally did get a prayer answered and god made sure that you were the only person in the world who saw evidence of it. That seems far less likely, but I obviously won't change your mind.

I would just say that if everyone is so sure that prayer works (and not just in the meditation sense, but in an actual "god specifically answered this directly sense), but all of the accounts contradict each other, and the only way to see evidence for it is if you're already a believer, then that would seem awfully fishy. It's almost as if people are just projecting their own human desires out onto the world, and it has nothing to do with any divine beings!

Can you prove how the universe was created because there is a Nobel Prize of something waiting for you if you can?

I don't know how the universe was created, but one can easily show that "magic beings" isn't a very good answer. It's easy. I'm sure you rule out thousands of magic beings yourself, so we obviously agree when it comes to the other 4,080 gods that have been created over the course of human history that you and I both don't believe in the existence of. The only difference is that I just happen to add JGS' version of god, since it doesn't seem too different from all the other ones I've heard over the years.

You're so atheist and you don't even know it!

How would saying the Bible says X require proof unless it doesn't say it? It's a book so it's already in there isn't it?

don't quite follow here.

edit: oh, I see. I typed that mistakenly. I should've clarified that to mean "the bible says X concerning something about the world we all live in"

Meaning, just because bible says X about the world, doesn't make it right, if X has no real world evidence to back it up. The bible could just be wrong. Not, "different interpretation", or "you have to be a believer to understand". Wrong.

Unless we're willing to throw out the English language.

Religious feeling are very often tied closely to religious claims for religious people so they aren't distinct at all.

That's the point! "Feelings" and claims about the external world should be distinct. At least, if one is interested in whether the claims are actually true or not. Of course, if someone isn't actually interested in the truth at all, and only care about how good they feel, that's fine. But you can't really have any meaningful discussion if that's someone's viewpoint. And history (and the current time) is filled with numerous religions and religious believers claiming that their beliefs are actually true for everyone, and not just them.

You can try to change that but it won't work.

It's "worked" before. People generally chalk less and less things up to religion nowadays then they used to, precisely because real world evidence started to override "feelings". And a lot of times, we're better off for it. Of course, not saying that things will instantly be perfect overnight, but I'm not a cynical person. Progress is inevitable!

Of course they would be distinct to someone who doesn't believe in the first place so understandably takes issue with the claims- something they can argue about until the baby eating commences.

The whole point is that if you have to believe in something first for it to make sense, that means it doesn't have any real world, neutral evidence for it. As mentioned before, that's precisely why science better explains the world we live in. It doesn't matter what your personal feelings or beliefs are, evidence can stand on its own. The only thing needed is an acceptance of the idea that there is a natural world. And everyone agrees on this, believers and nonbelievers. We don't have to appeal to a special bible to determine this. We don't have to be raised in a specific religion to determine this. We don't have to be a specific culture or economic class to determine this.

That's why "religion" 99% of the time a horrible way to explain the world outside of one individual.

Now that's what the focus needs to be on- religious people and non-religious people see things differently and neither way amounts to a hill of beans to the other. But when you focus on that there's not much to debate.

Exactly!

If the belief is on an external topic, the intellectually superior should be able to ignore the ramblings of Bronze Agers rather than be stoked by them unless there is a clear and present danger that I'm missing.

I'd love to live in a world where irrational thinking was 100% private, and never manifested itself in society, public policy, etc. Hell, we're just barely crawling out of a hole left by 30 years of a political movement being based on irrational thinking (trickle down economics, fear-mongering, democracy by force, denial of rights to various groups, misplaced paranoia of government, etc.).

So yeah, I'm somewhat interested in promoting some degree of critical thinking. And it's not even just religion...it just so happens that religion (far more often the monotheistic ones) tends to be a strong motivator in a lot of these cases. And I don't see evidence that the "positives" outweigh the drawbacks, and I don't even see evidence that the so called positives are even unique to religion. Even you have already partially admitted the latter.

 

[krameriffic]

I wish people were able to distinguish religious feelings from religious claims.

Those are two entirely different discussions, and they keep getting mixed up. If someone says "I feel calm and at peace due to my faith in god", that's a personal feeling. That can't be debated or discussed. No baby eating atheist can ever take that away from you. But when someone says "god created the universe we live in, god inspired a collection of books, god had a son who was resurrected, god answers prayers, god gave us all morals, the bible says X" and so on, that is a specific claim about the external world, the world that believers and nonbelievers both live in.

At that point, evidence has to come into play if those claims are to be taken seriously. You don't get to say "well that's just my belief!" anymore than I can say "circles are the same as squares, that's just my belief!". That's why things like science and evidence is useful: a claim can be true no matter what your personal beliefs are. That's really the only useful type of discussion for any sort of diverse group (like this thread).

If one side is discussing personal religious feelings (which is what believers tend to end up doing when their claims aren't backed up by evidence), while the other side is discussing religious claims (which is what nonbelievers tend to do, since, well, that's the only thing that can be discussed), obviously there's going to be a miscommunication.

I'm a fan of Carlin's two (three) commandments, particularly his last one:

"Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
to the provider of thy nookie.

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course
they pray to a different invisible man than you.

Two is all you need; Moses could have carried them down the hill in his fuckin' pocket. I wouldn't mind those folks in Alabama posting them on the courthouse wall, as long as they provided one additional commandment:

Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."

 

[Mgoblue201]

By other Christian, you are referring to the guy you quoted- a YEC. I'm not one. However. he doesn't have the ability to change a term any more than I do. I am explaining what the word day means. He's the one adding an extra stipulation to it. If day only meant 24 hours, then Jupiter's day would be that long too wouldn't it?

Is God only hovering around the earth?

For most of human history, Jupiter was also thought to orbit around the Earth. The fact that it has separate days probably would have been foreign to the author of Genesis. So that has no effect upon anything.

What is a word if not a stipulation? It must mean something. You're so quick to say that the Bible denotes yom as a length of time that could mean anything, which itself is a stipulation, but Ham merely makes a different sort of stipulation that this only refers to indefinite lengths of time without end points. Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. I know what you think the word means. But I still need to be convinced. Since Ham is making a negative argument, it is contingent on you to contradict that claim with a few verses that prove the positive. All this run around would have been avoided had you just showed me a proof for your claim that it can absolutely mean a definite period of long time. However, a quick Google search provided a few good articles that support your position, though for different reasons. This article and this one I find convincing enough, so I'll retract my former argument. I have minor quibbles with those articles, like whether there is a difference between singular and plural forms, but there is enough there to contradict Ham, so it appears that yom in isolation could literally mean anything - could as in, we still need textual clues.

And the site's day-age theory is really bad. If one were reading the Bible, then it would be normal to think that god simply created light and separated it from darkness, and that would equal a day, if merely for the juxtaposition of god deeming everything good immediately after he creates it (the light was deemed good, therefore he must have just created it). To get to where the author is saying, there would have to be darkness without any light for millions of years into the Earth's existence. But that is incoherent. The Earth had received light from the very beginning of its existence. And it still receives light even with cloud covers. I believe you were advocating something like this, but it's a horrible way to describe what actually happened. The creation text also implies that seasons and years hadn't happened yet since they were contingent on the sun's creation a couple of days in.

And the fact that god waits until the ninth and tenth verses to create and then name dry ground implies that it is the first time that it happened. But again, the Earth was a rock from the beginning. If the author of Genesis really meant what this article is implying, then why not say that god created ground, then water, then he shifted the ground around, representing tectonic forces? That would be the proper way to say it. Once again, the fact that it fits so badly means that the author of the article is doing whatever he can to suit his purpose.

The standard should be: if you were reading Genesis without a single knowledge of fact, would you come to a conclusion that is anything like what actually happened? Absolutely not. We know this because it took scientific advancement to discover it. Some people in the ancient and medieval world questioned the Biblical account, but most still saw it as young earth creationism, and no one came that close to the truth. By the way, it's funny that the article is starting that we must apply the scientific method to the Bible just to get at his strange theory, when everybody always says that we shouldn't.

Let me address a few things specifically:

God's the one who decides who is good and bad.

This in isolation is irrelevant. If two people make opposite claims about god with equal conviction, then who is to decide between them? There is the Bible, but...

If a group's actions do not match up with Christian teaching, then why would it be Christion or good for them to do?

The "Christian teaching" teaches that god can kill for any disobedience against him, and it can be carried out by other people. Your point is immaterial when the Bible gives people a license to listen to a voice inside their heads without any standard that can be appealed to. Does it give people the license to kill abortion doctors, or does it not? After all, god has done just as much for far less.

I've done an OK job explaining stuff. The day thing is a great example of that because if you don't understand that day can mean more than 24 hours, then I question your education, not mine.

This right here proves that you still don't know what I'm talking about. It wasn't about whether it could mean more than 24 hours. I said that it could. It was about whether it could mean a period with a definite or indefinite length of time. This useless argument has carried on across several posts, and not once has the point been addressed by you, much less with verifiable proof from the Bible. I looked it up using Google. I was convinced one way. That's how an argument is supposed to work. But what does it say that I'm having better arguments with myself?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I can only speak on my behalf. Someone asked me recently "How old do you think the Earth is?" I told him, "It could be 4.5billion years old or a few thousand years old, it honestly wouldn't affect my view". He was puzzled. I continued, "If Abraham never existed and hence none of the texts were written and talked about creation, if none of that happened, I would still probably be drawn to a faith in God or a higher being".

It's difficult to explain but my personal feelings are not entrenched or based to do with established doctrine and so I don't feel they are in conflict with that, and consequently with scientists. This is similar to many Christian scientists and their unique belief that the creation story was metaphorical rather than an accurate history recollection. The essence of their faith is personal. Even though they were raised with these doctrines and may have come across evidence to them which contradicts it, they still manage to hold on to their spiritual beliefs. There is still something inherently powerful to it in their eyes. And therefore I have no issue with either group.

At the end of the day, it is your life and if you want to believe in certain things to act as answers to questions you can't answer, then who is anyone to challenge it or question it. We as a species are just beginning to put toe into the pond of understanding existence. When we're trying to figure out how to measure the Universe or if that's even feasible, who are we to refuse others the right to choose what the meaning of life is to them?

No fact is philosophically neutral. It's not quite a zero sum game, but the age of the Earth and Abraham's existence should work to either confirm or deny certain beliefs...and if a god is tied up in certain truth claims, then as a consequence god. Personal belief divorced from all of that to me isn't belief because claims cannot weather every single fact of truth. Otherwise, you're just not making a very specific claim (the more specific the claim, the less likely it is to be true too). So the belief is just abstract sensation, which you don't need god for at all.

 

[Joel Was Right]

No fact is philosophically neutral. It's not quite a zero sum game, but the age of the Earth and Abraham's existence should work to either confirm or deny certain beliefs...and if a god is tied up in certain truth claims, then as a consequence god. Personal belief divorced from all of that to me isn't belief because claims cannot weather every single fact of truth. Otherwise, you're just not making a very specific claim (the more specific the claim, the less likely it is to be true too). So the belief is just abstract sensation, which you don't need god for at all.

That's a valid point. But although "belief" is tied to certain truths, these truths (i.e. the age of Earth) are not the basis for that faith people have in a supreme deity. Similarly no specific truth (in the context that which science can tackle, such as history or that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids) is the reason which draws people to a faith. I guess it comes to down whether God is this supreme creator or whether or not he is the one who did it all in 6 days. The creation story on it's own creates heated debates and discussions within theological circles and this is why some have no issue in redefining certain specifics in that story. Ultimately that is something limited to a question of doctrine, not universal faith in the unseen.

 

[soul creator]

That's a valid point. But although "belief" is tied to certain truths, these truths (i.e. the age of Earth) are not the basis for that faith people have in a supreme deity. Similarly no specific truth (in the context that which science can tackle, such as history or that Adam and Eve were the first humanoids) is the reason which draws people to a faith. I guess it comes to down whether God is this supreme creator or whether or not he is the one who did it all in 6 days. The creation story on it's own creates heated debates and discussions within theological circles and this is why some have no issue in redefining certain specifics in that story. Ultimately that is something limited to a question of doctrine, not universal faith in the unseen.

But a large majority of people do tie their faith to openly debatable claims. "Jesus was resurrected, god created the universe, and god wrote this bible, god told us what is good and bad" are not just vague personal feelings. Those are claims about history and the world we all live in. If one calls themselves a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, a homeopath, etc. (as plenty of people do), then by definition, you're making claims about the external world. Those are not just "personal feelings"

Of course, I see your general point about "people have a vague sense of spirituality". The problem is that specific religions take that vague sense, and exploit the hell out of it. And since those specific religions are far more numerous, than people who only claim "vague spirituality" they'll obviously get called out more often.

I think the larger issue is that people do think that the only way to express their vague sense of "spirituality" is by tieing it to some sort of historical religion. But the problem with doing that is that you now have a ton of baggage that comes along with that ancient religion. It's sort of a "have cake and eat it too" thing. People want all the vague feel good stuff they hear is associated with a religion, but don't want to actually deal with the claims that make that religion unique, and the history of that religion. So one possible reason you end up getting irrational defenses of supernatural claims is because they feel that there is "no place else to go".

Shitty analogy time!

It's like popular religious faiths are Windows 98. People keep trying to patch it up to work in modern times (taking more and more things as metaphors, developing bad apologetics that don't fit in with reality, etc.), because that's the only OS they know. Switching to Windows 7 would actually make things work far more smoothly in the future, but that would require one to completely throw out their old system, which can be tough for some people.

And then there are some people who dual boot Windows 98 and Windows 7 on the same machine. I think those are called theistic evolutionists!

 

[Ashes]

I've seen people apply that same logic to science though. Its how knowledge and understanding works. It usually improves over time.

 

[JGS]

For most of human history, Jupiter was also thought to orbit around the Earth. The fact that it has separate days probably would have been foreign to the author of Genesis. So that has no effect upon anything.

It was simply an example, but you are assuming something not mentioned in the Bible but that is par for course. Even if the writer didn't know the Jupiter cycle (Which wasn't the point), he knew day meant other things than 24 hours.

What is a word if not a stipulation? It must mean something. You're so quick to say that the Bible denotes yom as a length of time that could mean anything, which itself is a stipulation, but Ham merely makes a different sort of stipulation that this only refers to indefinite lengths of time without end points. Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. I know what you think the word means. But I still need to be convinced. Since Ham is making a negative argument, it is contingent on you to contradict that claim with a few verses that prove the positive. All this run around would have been avoided had you just showed me a proof for your claim that it can absolutely mean a definite period of long time. However, a quick Google search provided a few good articles that support your position, though for different reasons. This article and this one I find convincing enough, so I'll retract my former argument. I have minor quibbles with those articles, like whether there is a difference between singular and plural forms, but there is enough there to contradict Ham, so it appears that yom in isolation could literally mean anything - could as in, we still need textual clues.

And the site's day-age theory is really bad. If one were reading the Bible, then it would be normal to think that god simply created light and separated it from darkness, and that would equal a day, if merely for the juxtaposition of god deeming everything good immediately after he creates it (the light was deemed good, therefore he must have just created it). To get to where the author is saying, there would have to be darkness without any light for millions of years into the Earth's existence. But that is incoherent. The Earth had received light from the very beginning of its existence. And it still receives light even with cloud covers. I believe you were advocating something like this, but it's a horrible way to describe what actually happened. The creation text also implies that seasons and years hadn't happened yet since they were contingent on the sun's creation a couple of days in.

I thought we had covered this before. God created the heavens and earth first- meaning the sun, stars, etc... already existed prior to the creative days. There had always been a sun and stars. We know this because not only does it match up with the first verse, it matches up with the scientific fact that light takes time to get here.

The later verses have to do with how the are used to mark times and seasons. The season being marked could mean one of two things. Because of it's condition, the season hadn't developed to what we know them as. Another possibility is that the season the stars and luminaries would be used for man to determine the times of particular seasons.

And the fact that god waits until the ninth and tenth verses to create and then name dry ground implies that it is the first time that it happened. But again, the Earth was a rock from the beginning. If the author of Genesis really meant what this article is implying, then why not say that god created ground, then water, then he shifted the ground around, representing tectonic forces? That would be the proper way to say it. Once again, the fact that it fits so badly means that the author of the article is doing whatever he can to suit his purpose.

You're being nitpicky again. I have a hard time beoieving you expect the Bible to talk about tectonic plates.

The implication from previous verses was the earth was covered with water (Wouldn't this relate the primordial ooze theory?), The water was split exposing dry land, just like in our day when waters recede after a flood. This splitting left dry land and seas and rivers.

The standard should be: if you were reading Genesis without a single knowledge of fact, would you come to a conclusion that is anything like what actually happened? Absolutely not. We know this because it took scientific advancement to discover it. Some people in the ancient and medieval world questioned the Biblical account, but most still saw it as young earth creationism, and no one came that close to the truth. By the way, it's funny that the article is starting that we must apply the scientific method to the Bible just to get at his strange theory, when everybody always says that we shouldn't.

I can't really address this now since your orginial points are flawed. There were a lot of the things the Middle Ages went backwards on because no one was allowed to read. They were spponfed things and they were steeped insuperstitions. Since theyy weren't allowed to learn anything religious or scientific, there was no reason for anyone to believe anything except what was taught to them.

Those were different times than now where it is pretty easy to find the meanings of words and find out translations and read the Bible cover to cover in order to figure out stuff.

Let me address a few things specifically:

This in isolation is irrelevant. If two people make opposite claims about god with equal conviction, then who is to decide between them? There is the Bible, but...


The "Christian teaching" teaches that god can kill for any disobedience against him, and it can be carried out by other people. Your point is immaterial when the Bible gives people a license to listen to a voice inside their heads without any standard that can be appealed to. Does it give people the license to kill abortion doctors, or does it not? After all, god has done just as much for far less.

You would have to tell me when this happens because if it's anything like the forst chapter of genesis there is some context missing. As the standard setter, God can do what he wants. His people do what he wants.

Christianity does not give a license to kill anyone (Unless you can show it). The killing is left to God or the one he appointed to do it- Jesus. So if a person is out killing abortion doctors, they belong in prison regardless of the voices in their head. No issues. so not quite sure what "Christian teaching" you're referring to unless it's some guy names Christian.

This right here proves that you still don't know what I'm talking about. It wasn't about whether it could mean more than 24 hours. I said that it could. It was about whether it could mean a period with a definite or indefinite length of time. This useless argument has carried on across several posts, and not once has the point been addressed by you, much less with verifiable proof from the Bible. I looked it up using Google. I was convinced one way. That's how an argument is supposed to work. But what does it say that I'm having better arguments with myself?

Sorry for misunderstanding, but what does it matter if it's definite or indefinite? Let's say each creative day was a definite amount of time. So what? It's irrelevant because we don't know how long the definite amount of time is. So I guess we could say each creative day took an indeterminate amount of time. A day can indeed mean that too.

 

[jdogmoney]

Has anyone heard of the "No gold in China" argument?

 

[soul creator]

I've seen people apply that same logic to science though. Its how knowledge and understanding works. It usually improves over time.

if this is in response to my post, there's a pretty big difference: religious doctrines (at least, religions that heavily involve supernatural creators and entities) tend to claim some sort of divinely revealed truth. A huge appeal of a lot of religions is that they already have the answers, and we just gotta believe strong enough, and read our holy books enough to find them.

If "god's eternal truth" plays out the same way as any other normal human cultural endeavor, then what exactly is the basis for considering it special and influenced by god? It's like on one hand, people want to pretend that religious claims are special, and they need to be taken far more seriously and given more respect than any other idea, because they are from God...but when those claims are challenged, all of a sudden it becomes "oh, it's just a work in progress, of course it's not perfect, you're expecting too much"

I don't expect scientific knowledge to be 100% perfect all the time. But if someone claims to have a personal relationship with the divine creator of all existence, then don't be surprised if I expect a bit more accuracy than the average human endeavor :lol

 

[Sibylus]

Has anyone heard of the "No gold in China" argument?

I believe a good portion of Gaffers interested in religion would have heard of it, yeah.

 

[jdogmoney]

I figured. I just asked because I hadn't until a couple of days ago, and was hoping nobody took it all that seriously...

 

[Dever]

I thought we had covered this before. God created the heavens and earth first- meaning the sun, stars, etc... already existed prior to the creative days. There had always been a sun and stars. We know this because not only does it match up with the first verse, it matches up with the scientific fact that light takes time to get here.

So in the beginning, God made the heavens and the earth. But before the beginning, God made the sun and the stars? How is that in any way what the text says? It sounds like a desperate attempt to reconcile science with the Bible. Do you think anyone in the world interpreted the Bible in this way before science figured out that the sun and the stars came before the earth?

matches up with the scientific fact that light takes time to get here

You know what else matches up with that fact? That Genesis means what it says and is wrong.

 

[Ashes]

... etc

That's certainly one way of looking at what I said. There are others.