Support NeoGAF

[Ashes]

question: does the study of stories from Ancient Egypt or Ancient Greece fall under the term "theology"?

A classical interpretation would cover those areas and more. Theology at academia level usually incorporates the sociology and anthropology of religion. I dare say theologians would consider these parts of their field even they themselves may not have expertise on the matter.

 

[MrSerrels]

I thought this part was interesting: "Rather than explore the complex and daunting existential challenges involved in attempting to live a life without God, the new atheists rudely insist, usually without argument, that atheism is a glorious, unambiguous benefit to mankind both individually and collectively. There are no disappointments recorded in the pages of their books, no struggles or sense of loss. Are they absent because the authors inhabit an altogether different spiritual world than the catastrophic atheists?"

I mentioned this in the other religious thread going gangbusters at the moment, but I actually really enjoyed that article, and it raises a lot of the issues that I, as an atheist, have a lot of problems with – new atheists' refusal to engage with Christians on a theological level, makes their task of 'de-converting' infinitely more difficult IMO.

I posted the link up on my blog and funnily enough the pull quote I took from it on my blog was the exact same part you just quoted! :lol

 

[jdogmoney]

I mentioned this in the other religious thread going gangbusters at the moment, but I actually really enjoyed that article, and it raises a lot of the issues that I, as an atheist, have a lot of problems with – new atheists' refusal to engage with Christians on a theological level, makes their task of 'de-converting' infinitely more difficult IMO.

I posted the link up on my blog and funnily enough the pull quote I took from it on my blog was the exact same part you just quoted! :lol

To me, engaging in theological debates (which I do) gives too much credit to the religious side of the argument. If we argue "there's no god", it's simpler than "here's why your god is a logical contradiction". Maybe de-converting is more difficult by this, I don't know, but I can certainly understand why people don't do it.

[Also, each theological argument is going to have to be tailored to the person you're debating; a Lutheran will have a different view from a Catholic will have a different view from a Hindu etc. forever.]

 

[MrSerrels]

To me, engaging in theological debates (which I do) gives too much credit to the religious side of the argument. If we argue "there's no god", it's simpler than "here's why your god is a logical contradiction". Maybe de-converting is more difficult by this, I don't know, but I can certainly understand why people don't do it.

[Also, each theological argument is going to have to be tailored to the person you're debating; a Lutheran will have a different view from a Catholic will have a different view from a Hindu etc. forever.]

Yeah, absolutely. But if de-converting Christians is your goal (it isn't mines, I'm more of a live and let live guy) then highlighting the internal discrepancies of their core text is a pretty fool proof way of influencing them!

 

[soul creator]

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Interesting article.

This means that beliefs are designed to operate independent of sensory data. In fact, the whole survival value of beliefs is based on their ability to persist in the face of contradictory evidence. Beliefs are not supposed to change easily or simply in response to disconfirming evidence. If they did, they would be virtually useless as tools for survival. Our caveman would not last long if his belief in potential dangers in the jungle evaporated every time his sensory information told him there was no immediate threat. A police officer unable to believe in the possibility of a killer lurking behind a harmless appearance could easily get hurt or killed.

As far as our brain is concerned, there is absolutely no need for data and belief to agree.

 

[Shanadeus]

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Interesting article.

That was reallyy interesting.

 

[Zaptruder]

Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Interesting article.

Fantastic article...

It crystallizes many of the thoughts I've had on the subject matter, and puts another spin on why discussion and argument is so tricky.

But what I'm getting out of it might necessarily not be quite as noble as the conclusion of the article itself.

I mean according to the article, to convince a person of any belief change, you may well have to deal with the entire web of beliefs in a person... an absurdly difficult and ungratifying proposition for any person, much more so one with the intellectual capacity to do so, in an ad-hoc argumentative situation that most encounter.

Instead... the part about

"Skeptics must learn to always discuss not just the specific topic addressed by the data, but also the implications that changing the related beliefs will have for the fundamental worldview and belief system of the affected individuals."


Rings the loudest to me. As in, it is a hint at how we might naturally change our belief systems piece by piece. Not by flipping the whole edifice of a belief system over, but by allowing each piece of data to compromise the integrity of the belief system partially; enough for that data to be accepted, but not enough to trigger the survival mechanism of the belief.

In practice, it may well mean lying about aspects of its implication, or rather creating a rationalization that helps the data fit into the current belief system of the other party even if that rationalization doesn't fit with *your* belief system.

I often liken to changing people's belief systems as defusing a bomb; you gotta make the right sequential series of steps with an extreme amount of care, otherwise it all kind of blows up in your face.

 

[Ashes]

stuff

Good god, that was depressing. :/

 

[Mario]

Yeah, absolutely. But if de-converting Christians is your goal (it isn't mines, I'm more of a live and let live guy) then highlighting the internal discrepancies of their core text is a pretty fool proof way of influencing them!

The fundamental problem with trying to use contradictions, inconsistencies, and outright errors in religious texts such as the Bible as a way to convert the religious is that the counter arguments are built into the religion via "God moves in mysterious ways".

In my experience, any issue raised with individual passages or between individual passages in the Bible or Quran will result in a response of "God moves in mysterious ways", "Man is not supposed to/cannot understand", convenient switching between "history vs parable", relying on tenuous interpretations or analogies, or even outright ignoring or denial of the problem. I've also found actual first hand knowledge of religious texts amongst a lot of Christians is poor to the point where it becomes a barrier to intelligent discussion.

While you may chip away at someone's faith with this approach over time, you aren't going to rock their foundation in the same way that exposing or discussing much higher level issues might.

If it were easy to convert people based on issues with religious texts then the religious would be in the minority because the issues are numerous, well documented, and broadly discussed.

 

[Ashes]

Okay, so is this alturism on your part?

 

[Mario]

Okay, so is this alturism on your part?

Just lunch break NeoGAF discussion participation.

 

[Ashes]

good answer.
Let me ask another. When's the last time you looked at your own beliefs?

 

[Mario]

When's the last time you looked at your own beliefs?

Every day.

 

[Ashes]

...

 

[Zaptruder]

Good god, that was depressing. :/

The point is; giving data unvarnished means that it becomes 'interpreted' (i.e. ignored) through their lens or perception of reality.

When you provide information/data/etc, it needs to be done in a way that is empathetic towards the recipient; it needs to be done in a way that can exist within their belief ecosystem.

To put it another way... belief systems are kind of like a non-newtonian fluid; you strike them hard and it'll resist the impact. You put it in slowly and gently and it goes right through.

You eventually fill a belief system with enough contradiction and it's forced to reanalyze to create congruency in order to maintain any semblance of usefulness to the owner of said belief system. After all, irrespective of the robustness of beliefs, it's difficult to maintain an obviously contradicting belief, such as a specific apple is both white and not white.

The trick is of course to get those smaller beliefs and ideas in there in the first place, without triggering that system-wide belief defense mechanism.

 

[Ashes]

Hmm. Interesting concept to say the least. It seems to be one directional dictation instead of engaging with the topic again and again your self.

 

[Mario]

I was going to ask about love. But you've avoided that. How about you relay some of the criticisms you have of evidence based systems, if you have any, of asserting the truth. Like the courts for example.

Er, what? Are you addressing me?

 

[Ashes]

:lol
You can sort of answer the question, I guess.

Spoiler

hah, I saved it. I was speaking with somebody else. The bigger question is how I didn't notice I'd typed it in here. I guess I should read my own posts more often.

 

[Zaptruder]

Hmm. Interesting concept to say the least. It seems to be one directional dictation instead of engaging with the topic again and again your self.

As it applies to this discussion at hand...

The more effective strategy may be for the non-theists to discuss secular ideas within the framework of gospel... not contradicting the words of the gospel but using those ideas presented to enhance the point been made.

Such as; you want to point out how important it is to further education; you implore the parable of jesus mentioning the development of talent; a cognitive ability that rises above base urges and allows for inter-generational learning is the unique talent of humanity; it is a divine imperative that we further develop these skills.

 

[Ashes]

Okay so DMD is being discussed in its own thread, so I don't really want to discuss it here. But I wanted to ask, what do the scriptures say about offending the prophet? What did he do or suggest?

 

[ronito]

I know that this is Mormon stuff, so no one will care but this is rather big news for the LDS church:

http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/20/the-death-of-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine/

Last night on KUTV in Utah, an announcement was made which signals the end of an era. It was reported that Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine will no longer be published by the Church, and that it will not be sold by Deseret Book. Since I didn’t see the newscast, I’m not sure what reasons were given, but one viewer stated, “Why? For tighter correlative control, because of the book’s embarrassing clarity, and because of some controversial assertions in the book.” He also said that the publisher asserted the book was withdrawn because of poor sales.

Sandra Tanner was interviewed on the 5:30 segment of the news, with her collection of every edition of McConkie’s book. She provided me with her view of the decision:

I believe the main reason McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” was taken out of print was due to its candid discussion of LDS doctrines that the church is now trying to hide. Such teachings as God once being a man, his wife–Heavenly Mother, and Jesus being the literal, physical son of God are just a few of the doctrines that are being minimized in current manuals. If the LDS Church felt “Mormon Doctrine” presented a faulty compilation of their doctrines, why haven’t they issued an authorized compendium of their beliefs? Mormons often say to me, “That’s not official doctrine” as though there was some place to look up the official teachings. Where is the official systematic theology of Mormonism?

Interestingly, KUTV has posted their news stories from last night online, omitting any mention of this segment. There is speculation that it was held due to criticism of the way it was reported. We will update you here as more details become available.

Written in 1958, Mormon Doctrine has served as a reference book for members of the Church for over 50 years, but has recently gone out of vogue. References to McConkie’s work were taken out of the Gospel Principles manual when it was reissued this year for use in Priesthood and Relief Society classes. Now it seems it is being further phased out. It is only surprising that this has not been done before, since Mormon Doctrine has not enjoyed the support of every member of the highest Church Councils over the years.

For those not "in the know", the book in question "Mormon Doctrine" is, or rather was, THE source of Mormon theology and nearly every mormon house has a copy and some people even quote it along with the bible and the book of mormon. Some Mormon leadership even called it divinely inspired and "modern revelation" in years passed.

And now Deseret Book (the Mormon church's publishing arm/sanctioned bookstore) is not only not going to print any more copies they're not even going to sell any of the copies they have on hand. Pretty much signals the church is actively running away from the teachings in the book, and their own theology in a sense.

It's very strange, but I would've expected this from the prior prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, as he was always trying to get the Mormon church to be more mainstream. But Thomas Monson (the current Prophet) is far more conservative so it's surprising to see him take this step.

Which all leads me to ask. If the mormon church no longer believes in the writings in Mormon Doctrine, what DOES it believe?

 

[Aaron]

Which all leads me to ask. If the mormon church no longer believes in the writings in Mormon Doctrine, what DOES it believe?

I'm no expect, but I've learned this:

1. Tell the truth even if it gets you in trouble.
2. Make pizza for old people.
3. Prevent gays from getting married.

 

[Blackace]

I know that this is Mormon stuff, so no one will care but this is rather big news for the LDS church:

http://mormonmatters.org/2010/05/20/the-death-of-mcconkies-mormon-doctrine/



For those not "in the know", the book in question "Mormon Doctrine" is, or rather was, THE source of Mormon theology and nearly every mormon house has a copy and some people even quote it along with the bible and the book of mormon. Some Mormon leadership even called it divinely inspired and "modern revelation" in years passed.

And now Deseret Book (the Mormon church's publishing arm/sanctioned bookstore) is not only not going to print any more copies they're not even going to sell any of the copies they have on hand. Pretty much signals the church is actively running away from the teachings in the book, and their own theology in a sense.

It's very strange, but I would've expected this from the prior prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, as he was always trying to get the Mormon church to be more mainstream. But Thomas Monson (the current Prophet) is far more conservative so it's surprising to see him take this step.

Which all leads me to ask. If the mormon church no longer believes in the writings in Mormon Doctrine, what DOES it believe?

Always found it strange how much the LDS church changes and how often... I mean all faiths go through it, just seems like LDS does more often..

 

[ronito]

Always found it strange how much the LDS church changes and how often... I mean all faiths go through it, just seems like LDS does more often..

I think the church is in a real crisis.

It's shrinking and the main part of their growth is by simple population growth of mormons having mormon kids.

But when those kids grow up they're likely to leave.

So the church is trying to be more mainstream and back off from some of the crazy stuff (EG: God was once a man, and Jesus is the literal son of god, etc) in order to keep the younger generation because they can't hide their teachings anymore with the internet.

But when they do this the older generation notices these changes and get disillusioned and some leave because of that (my in laws are a good example of this though they haven't left).

The church has always changed its doctrine here and there as it saw fit but now it's really starting to abandon swathes of doctrine at a time. I've asked several Mormon teachers about some of the old beliefs (IE: do we become gods in the after life, etc) and just about 15 years back the answers were obvious now I just get "Well, I don't know. There's nothing OFFICIAL about this written anywhere."

 

[Joel Was Right]

A child in Africa is born into extreme poverty and lives a miserable, painful short life never to know his name.

A) This is an example of the absence of God
B) If God did not exist, then suffering is all that child will ever know. For that, I cannot believe God is absent. I want/have to believe that child's soul will know of a peace after death.

Which of those arguments is the better argument for morality or a lack of it?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Keep in mind that many major religions would call that suffering child a condemned sinner.

 

[JGS]

Keep in mind that many major religions would call that suffering child a condemned sinner.

Some may consider that God isn't the reason that kid is suffering...

 

[Joel Was Right]

Keep in mind that many major religions would call that suffering child a condemned sinner.

Do you mind explaining that?

 

[jdogmoney]

Meus is back! Yay!

[That's genuine, btw. I've always admired your reasonable-ness.]

Okay, you guys, I kind of lost my cool when talking to this pastor I know on Facebook...it's a long conversation that, if pressed, I'll link to, but the final straw, so to speak, was this post:

[tl;dr warning]

It seems that we've come to an impasse. You are correct that we don't think alike. You believe you are correct and you have all of your rational thought to prove it. I could say the same for myself.

We can debate about evolution all day. People better educated than us do it all the time with no better results than we can get between the two of us. You say it's science and that's that. I say it's a misinterpretation of things put in place by a Creator.

You say evolution simply is and atheism simply is, but I disagree. I disagree for reasons not connected to Christian thinking. The supernatural is there if you just open your eyes.

That's the catch though isn't it? You say the same about evolution.

There are people that disagree with evolution that are scientist, but they are generally not accepted because their evidence is not convenient. Not all of them are Christian, some are as atheist as can be. There are people out there that did agree with evolution that changed their minds after looking into the facts a bit deeper.

And evolution is someone's idea, or a group of someones if you prefer. It's well thought out and well presented, but still an idea. Not an idea in the sense of an intangible or abstract thing, but an idea about origins just as much as any other concept.

I don't think we'll ever come to terms on this without one of us drastically changing our opinions on how the world functions. We can go round and round both "proving our points", but at the end of the day our belief system (even if you refuse to call it that) is based on what we as individuals consider to be fact. Evolutionist will say I'm blind or ignorant, and intelligent design people will say something similar about evolutionist.

Here's what I typed out, being annoyed an' all:

How many scientist that don't "believe in" evolution are biologists?

Evolution simply is, sure. It's a process. You say I should open my eyes, but you don't accept evolution. Evolution! The Catholic church accepts evolution! Plenty of Christians accept evolution. You can do an experiment at home, with no training as a scientist, to demonstrate evolution. What possible evidence is there for the supernatural? Enlighten me.

Seems to me the supernatural, by its very (super)nature, doesn't have any evidence.

I will pay you cash money if you can find me a scientist with a background in biology who doesn't accept evolution. I don't care if they're Christian, Pastafarian, whatever.

Evolution's not an idea. It was, at first, before it was proven right. Now it's more than that. It's biology. It's the study of life. There is literally no reason, aside from religious hesitation, not to accept it.

This isn't one of those things where both sides have some merit, and maybe, if we all take a step back, we can see that we're not so different, and we should live in harmony. We should live in harmony, of course, but this is a question of basic fact.

[The logical fallacy, for those interested, is the Argument to Moderation, and you can learn about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_compromise]

We can debate about the existence of God. There's no way of knowing, and I think there isn't one, and you think there is. That's a good debate, and I'll happily take part.

Evolution cannot be debated. Plugging your ears and going LALALA is not debating.

~~~

Atheism isn't an idea. Atheism isn't an idea. Atheism isn't an idea. Atheism isn't an idea. Atheism isn't an idea. Atheism isn't an idea.

...

Atheism isn't an idea.

It is a lack of belief.

I don't have a creed.

Atheism provides no answers.

Atheism provides nothing, in and of itself.

Secular humanism, sure. Futurism, yeah. Anthrocentricism, why not. These are all schools of thought, most of which have atheist aspects, and one of which I think I made up. These schools of thought have tenets. Teachings. Ideas.

Atheism does not.

He hasn't replied. Did I go over the top? I can't tell how I "sound" in written language...

More importantly, did I say anything that was, you know, flat-out wrong?

 

[Slightly Live]

Did I go over the top? I can't tell how I "sound" in written language...

More importantly, did I say anything that was, you know, flat-out wrong?

You sound like a bitter tween with a stick up your ass. What the heck has the poor guy done to deserve you getting angry at him? His statements seems very polite, he's simply saying that you've reached a point where you both can't agree. You reply like a whiny ass.

Obviously his religion is blinding him from fact. Evolution is a fact at this point, but I don't think you are getting that across. Why not give passing examples to impossible to deny evidence such as vaccinations and genetic research?

If someone chooses to belief in faith and religion over indisputable facts, acting like a superior, angry child isn't going to convince them otherwise.

And wrong? Yeah, there are biologists that don't accept evolution. They are certified and have degrees but little to no respect within the wider scientific community for obvious reasons. Hope he doesn't take you up on that bet.

The link you sent him won't work because you omitted a space at the end of it before the bracket.

You should be ashamed of yourself if your little segment on atheism that you wrote is your idea of trying to be mature, reasonable or even halfway intelligent when speaking with another human being. It's downright insulting you'd speak to anyone like that.

 

[Peronthious]

I linked it earlier in the thread, but now that I'm almost done with the book I cannot recommend Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years enough. Fabulous book if you want to get some perspective on the evolution of Christianity over the millenia, and how much it has effected politics, especially in Europe. Latter part of the book may as well be a history of the "Western" world given how much the reformation ties in to the enlightenment and the various awakenings into American thought in general.

Unfortunately the price for the Kindle version on Amazon has almost doubled since I bought it, but I think it's still worth the price they have it at now. Very readable and very dense in content.

NYT Review

 

[Peronthious]

Do you mind explaining that?

Predestination. Those who are destined for heaven are already part of Christianity or will come upon Christianity at some point in life. Those who aren't, won't.

Not that I subscribe to those beliefs.

 

[JetBlackPanda]

I think the church is in a real crisis.

I am not sure about that, I for one am glad they are stripping away things that are not official doctrine, it confuses the true message of that church and gives critics more ammo.

All religions are weird as shit and honestly I am not sure that we can really understand some of the things that may be going on outside of this existence.

that's if you believe all this stuff :lol

 

[BocoDragon]

I linked it earlier in the thread, but now that I'm almost done with the book I cannot recommend Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years enough. Fabulous book if you want to get some perspective on the evolution of Christianity over the millenia, and how much it has effected politics, especially in Europe. Latter part of the book may as well be a history of the "Western" world given how much the reformation ties in to the enlightenment and the various awakenings into American thought in general.

Unfortunately the price for the Kindle version on Amazon has almost doubled since I bought it, but I think it's still worth the price they have it at now. Very readable and very dense in content.

NYT Review

I watched the companion BBC series recently "BBC A History of Christianity", hosted by that same author Diarmaid MacCulloch... it was EPIC. Probably about 6 hours long. AMAZING viewing IMO. I've done my share of reading history, but it details entire branches of Christianity I had no idea about. Truth is stranger than fiction. (I'm craving a similar series on Buddhism and Islam)

Anyone interested should probably just torrent it.

I will check out that book, too. It's probably the same material, but video and text give you different perspectives on it, I imagine.

 

[Beer Monkey]

Why do I keep driving by the LDS church and seeing them all standing around in the parking lot with their hoods popped? Are they checking their fluid levels?

 

[JetBlackPanda]

Why do I keep driving by the LDS church and seeing them all standing around in the parking lot with their hoods popped? Are they checking their fluid levels?

wtf? was there children around? maybe it was a scout thing and they were getting a mechanic badge?

otherwise that sounds bizzaro

 

[jdogmoney]

You sound like a bitter tween with a stick up your ass.

Haha. I should have been clearer. The conversation was much longer than what I posted. I've had a back and forth with this guy for a while. The straight facts and impossible to deny evidence were dismissed long ago. This is at the tail end of the long conversation I mentioned earlier.

If it were merely a matter of faith overcoming fact, I'd be okay with that...well, not really, but for the sake of argument...but the fact that he refuses to admit that is what bugs me. He thinks that ID and creationism have scientific merit, moreso than evolution, which he brought up, actually, so I was at long last asking him to back it up. The original question was "Can an atheist and a Christian settle down together?" Which I guess is relevant to evolution?

Could you provide a link to some of these biologists? If they do exist, I'm exceptionally curious to see how. Most people who are bad at their jobs get fired.

And when someone doesn't get something (what atheism is) when it's explained again and again, one is naturally inclined to use different techniques to hammer the point home.

[You're right about the bracket thing, my b. Although, since it's Facebook, the link works fine. ]

 

[For Want Of]

Haha. I should have been clearer. The conversation was much longer than what I posted. I've had a back and forth with this guy for a while. The straight facts and impossible to deny evidence were dismissed long ago. This is at the tail end of the long conversation I mentioned earlier.

If it were merely a matter of faith overcoming fact, I'd be okay with that...well, not really, but for the sake of argument...but the fact that he refuses to admit that is what bugs me. He thinks that ID and creationism have scientific merit, moreso than evolution, which he brought up, actually, so I was at long last asking him to back it up. The original question was "Can an atheist and a Christian settle down together?" Which I guess is relevant to evolution?

Could you provide a link to some of these biologists? If they do exist, I'm exceptionally curious to see how. Most people who are bad at their jobs get fired.

And when someone doesn't get something (what atheism is) when it's explained again and again, one is naturally inclined to use different techniques to hammer the point home.

[You're right about the bracket thing, my b. Although, since it's Facebook, the link works fine. ]

I didn't find your response offensive, though I am biased in your favor. I do object to you saying evolution and atheism aren't ideas. An idea is anything that can be thought of, so both qualify. I think you meant that they're just not "faith-based", being instead the result of critical thinking.

To persuade him/her, I suggest giving a very simple example involving heredity. Something like, "a man who has sex with the girl passes on his traits to future generations and the one who didn't doesn't". If your friend can accept that then he/she is very close to grasping the obvious validity of evolutionary theory.

The movie "Expelled" features interviews with science types who got fired after rejecting evolution. I don't remember being at all convinced by their arguments though.

It looks like the debate you're in will end like 99.9% of them do, with no one swayed from their position.

 

[Beer Monkey]

wtf? was there children around? maybe it was a scout thing and they were getting a mechanic badge?

otherwise that sounds bizzaro

Happens to me several times a year, the LDS church is around the corner and on my daily commute. Freaked me out this morning (a Wednesday).

The movie "Expelled" features interviews with science types who got fired after rejecting evolution. I don't remember being at all convinced by their arguments though.

The movie 'Expelled' was created by, anyone, anyone?

Raving lunatics. RAVING lunatics.

 

[soul creator]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=397777&page=2

Since it's more appropriate to discuss here, and it's something I always find interesting. JGS mentioned that "good or bad things happening doesn't mean there isn't a god", which is a technically true statement. But I think the difference is that lots of those who are believers in a traditional God do actually attempt to use "good things happening" as evidence of God.

After all, "I have a relationship with Jesus", "my life was in the dumps until I found god", "helping poor people is evidence of gods love!", and "I've seen things happen that could only be explained by god" are almost always used to show how awesome god (and usually some associated religion) is. Yet, if one points out a counterexample, it's always "what do you expect atheist, god to just come down and hold your hand every time something bad happens?"

Is it just me or is that not the most obvious example of "special pleading" there is? And then of course, if one says that God doesn't do anything at all, good or bad, then the question comes up: what made you start worshiping in the first place? (assuming we're not discussing generic deism). After all, there's a big gap from "generic god that made the universe" to "god that made the universe...and loves you, and gave his only son, and inspired this book, and looks out for people, and I will refer to myself as his follower".

As implied in the other thread, no one's saying that bad things happening is automatically evidence that god doesn't exist (god could very well exist, and not give a shit about us either way. or he could just be a dick, who knows), but it does seem like even if a god did exist, I find it fascinating that one could look at the world and say "That guy must be awesome! Yep, I'll dedicate my life to worshiping him!"

Of course, I'm sure this was probably discussed at some point in the thread already, but that other side discussion just reminded me of it.

 

[jdogmoney]

The movie 'Expelled' was created by, anyone, anyone?

Raving lunatics. RAVING lunatics.

Haven't seen it. Is it funny enough in that black humor kind of way?

 

[ronito]

I am not sure about that, I for one am glad they are stripping away things that are not official doctrine, it confuses the true message of that church and gives critics more ammo.

All religions are weird as shit and honestly I am not sure that we can really understand some of the things that may be going on outside of this existence.

that's if you believe all this stuff :lol

I beg to differ.

The mormon church was defined by these beliefs.

It used to be defined by polygamy, the belief that man could become like god, and their insistence that minorities not get the priesthood.

Now polygamy is gone, and the minority beliefs, and now even the belief that man can become as God is gone. So like I said, if mormons don't believe mormon doctrine then what exactly do they believe? The things that they are stripping away are things that were cornerstones of the church in the past (don't believe me check out Mormon History). It seems that the only beliefs left to the church are that the Book of Mormon is true (even though some apostles think that it's divine fiction instead of 100% true) and eternal marriage. But without the belief in eternal progression what's the point of eternal marriage?

 

[JGS]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=397777&page=2

Since it's more appropriate to discuss here, and it's something I always find interesting. JGS mentioned that "good or bad things happening doesn't mean there isn't a god", which is a technically true statement. But I think the difference is that lots of those who are believers in a traditional God do actually attempt to use "good things happening" as evidence of God.

After all, "I have a relationship with Jesus", "my life was in the dumps until I found god", "helping poor people is evidence of gods love!", and "I've seen things happen that could only be explained by god" are almost always used to show how awesome god (and usually some associated religion) is. Yet, if one points out a counterexample, it's always "what do you expect atheist, god to just come down and hold your hand every time something bad happens?"

Is it just me or is that not the most obvious example of "special pleading" there is? And then of course, if one says that God doesn't do anything at all, good or bad, then the question comes up: what made you start worshiping in the first place? (assuming we're not discussing generic deism). After all, there's a big gap from "generic god that made the universe" to "god that made the universe...and loves you, and gave his only son, and inspired this book, and looks out for people, and I will refer to myself as his follower".

As implied in the other thread, no one's saying that bad things happening is automatically evidence that god doesn't exist (god could very well exist, and not give a shit about us either way. or he could just be a dick, who knows), but it does seem like even if a god did exist, I find it fascinating that one could look at the world and say "That guy must be awesome! Yep, I'll dedicate my life to worshiping him!"

Of course, I'm sure this was probably discussed at some point in the thread already, but that other side discussion just reminded me of it.

My personal feeling about blessing is that it's a personal picker upper. If someone has a bad disease and are suddenly cured even though there is no evidence in the Bible that God randomly cures some people and lets others die even amongst believers (Without a very clear sign/miracle, that that's the case), it makes them feel good to think that God personally cares for them.

Whether I believe in God or not, I have no reason to tell them that it probably had more to do with the doctors and scientists that found a cure. However, that doesn't take away from the gratitude one has for God for another day of life. Why should it?

It does work both ways too. Many have left religion because they attributed bad things to God. There were a couple of Psalms I think that spent the whole time complaining about how bad things happen to good people. At the end of the day, you still thank God for your life if you believe in him.

After all, "I have a relationship with Jesus", "my life was in the dumps until I found god", "helping poor people is evidence of gods love!", and "I've seen things happen that could only be explained by god" are almost always used to show how awesome god (and usually some associated religion) is. Yet, if one points out a counterexample, it's always "what do you expect atheist, god to just come down and hold your hand every time something bad happens?"

I hope I didn't sound that way but the neat thing is that God isn't holding our hands for good or bad. The decision is always ours and we get help when asked for. All of your quotations could easily be true to the people who make them and it involves them making choices that better their lives and follows what God wants them to do. However, if you follow God, many believe they are personally helped by him too since the Bible does say that happenes. Again, no reason to dispute that at all. I personally don't think that involves removing tumors and what not, but to each his own I say.

What happens often is the suffering is blamed for God too since he is not solving it. The reality is he did solve it by providing the answers- Feed the poor, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc...

The suffering we often face is entirely man made so no reason to be mad at God for stuff we cause/can stop. However, since he is our creator, we always owe him for that.

 

[jdogmoney]

Why is God given credit for the good and not the bad?

If someone feeds the poor, God works through them. If someone doesn't, they are a bad person.

 

[Ashes]

Depends on what the deity in question whispers and acts upon. We are the ones who are responsible for the conjecture.

 

[soul creator]

So what methodology is used to determine when a claim about god is just a "personal picker upper", and when a claim about god is an actual real thing?

I think that's the most confusing thing about "progressive" religious belief. On one hand, god is just a personal motivating factor. It makes people feel good, so who are we to judge! On the other hand, god is also the creator of the universe, all life in it, and had a son who died and was resurrected. Wait a minute, how did a "personal motivating factor" do all of those actions?

I hope I didn't sound that way but the neat thing is that God isn't holding our hands for good or bad. The decision is always ours and we get help when asked for. All of your quotations could easily be true to the people who make them and it involves them making choices that better their lives and follows what God wants them to do. However, if you follow God, many believe they are personally helped by him too since the Bible does say that happenes. Again, no reason to dispute that at all. I personally don't think that involves removing tumors and what not, but to each his own I say.

If I'm reading this correctly, you just went from "God is a metaphor we use to make ourselves feel better", to "the bible describes that God will actually help people", then right back to "to each his own, it's just my personal belief". That seems...contradictory. Either god does help people like the bible says, or god is just a personal idea in our heads. Or, I suppose, god does help people, but it's completely random and human beings will never be able to determine when it actually happens.

Spoiler

The "my psychic powers only work when no one's looking" defense

What happens often is the suffering is blamed for God too since he is not solving it. The reality is he did solve it by providing the answers- Feed the poor, love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, etc...

These seem like awfully generic things to give credit to the all powerful creator of the universe for. I mean, obviously they're not bad things, and I'd love to have more of it. But I never understood why this is seen as some grand divine revelation.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that there are a lot of issues that need more than just 2000 year old platitudes to solve. And also, now you're saying that God did actually do something -- he gave us certain things to follow along with. So when did God do this? If the answer is "in the bible", then there's a lot of other things in the bible that God supposedly did that I'm sure any halfway nice human being would disagree with...but then we'd just be back to "good things god, bad things something else".

The suffering we often face is entirely man made so no reason to be mad at God for stuff we cause/can stop. However, since he is our creator, we always owe him for that.

This ignores a ton of suffering that isn't man made. That's kind of why in that other post I specifically linked to the story of the woman who was killed by a lightning strike, right before her boyfriend was about to propose to her. There was no "human malice" or "free will" involved in that. Unless we're saying it's "their fault" for going up on a mountain top...

Now of course, as mentioned before, if one's god is the type that just lays back and doesn't get involved in anything at all, then none of this even applies. Of course, the question then becomes, "why worship?" After all, the vast majority of people in this world aren't deists...

tl;dr version: god is either just a metaphor in our heads, or he's a magical being that does shit. Pick one!

 

[For Want Of]

Haven't seen it. Is it funny enough in that black humor kind of way?

No. Here are biologists in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled_(movie)#The_.22Expelled.22

 

[Mgoblue201]

Some may consider that God isn't the reason that kid is suffering...

God created the rules; or at least, all rules are contingent upon the nature of his being. If a child not only lives a miserable existence but is fated to be condemned based on something that he or she had no choice but to do, then I'm going to call it for what it is.

Do you mind explaining that?

Religion regularly uses free will as a defense. Yet many religions also say that we are condemned to sin, regardless of the choices we make. It follows that a child who lives in squallor is condemned as the same sinner as everybody else for a choice he or she didn't really get to make. It's kicking them while they're down. And it's especially egregious when you realize that many suffering children may never get the choice whether to believe in the correct God or not.

 

[JGS]

So what methodology is used to determine when a claim about god is just a "personal picker upper", and when a claim about god is an actual real thing?

I actually gave the answer. In the Bible there was always a pretty clear cut way of identifying a miracle had tajken place. Someone personally experiencing it does not necessarily fit into that criteria.

However, as atheists are often quick to point out, there is no methodology in faith to someone who desn't have it. Therefore, there is no way to "prove it". Why does someone need to prove a blessing to someone else anyway? When someone tells you that, you nod/smirk/slap your forehead and move on.

I think that's the most confusing thing about "progressive" religious belief. On one hand, god is just a personal motivating factor. It makes people feel good, so who are we to judge! On the other hand, god is also the creator of the universe, all life in it, and had a son who died and was resurrected. Wait a minute, how did a "personal motivating factor" do all of those actions?

I didn't say that. in fact, I said the opposite. God helps those who follow him. I've repeatedly said that in a hundred other posts. God is partial to those who follow him and he helps them. I'm just saying that the "help" does not necessarily include getting us out of a bind or stopping us for the effects of illness or dying.

The progressive religious belief is what been in the Bibnle for thousands of years so not sure why it's unusual now.

If I'm reading this correctly, you just went from "God is a metaphor we use to make ourselves feel better", to "the bible describes that God will actually help people", then right back to "to each his own, it's just my personal belief". That seems...contradictory. Either god does help people like the bible says, or god is just a personal idea in our heads. Or, I suppose, god does help people, but it's completely random and human beings will never be able to determine when it actually happens.

Spoiler

The "my psychic powers only work when no one's looking" defense

You are reading me incorrectly.

]These seem like awfully generic things to give credit to the all powerful creator of the universe for. I mean, obviously they're not bad things, and I'd love to have more of it. But I never understood why this is seen as some grand divine revelation.

Well, if you think life is a generic thing then I guess you're right. However, I was thinking you are arguing why people thank God for the little things. I'm saying that it's all tied to our life. There is nothing wrong with thinking about God in all of our activities. It's not a grand divine revelation since people have been doing it for thousands of years (Acoss any number of different religions no less) and won't stop anytime soon. If anything it's a natural revelation.

Of course, this also ignores the fact that there are a lot of issues that need more than just 2000 year old platitudes to solve.

Like what?

And also, now you're saying that God did actually do something -- he gave us certain things to follow along with. So when did God do this? If the answer is "in the bible", then there's a lot of other things in the bible that God supposedly did that I'm sure any halfway nice human being would disagree with...but then we'd just be back to "good things god, bad things something else".

Proofs?

This ignores a ton of suffering that isn't man made. That's kind of why in that other post I specifically linked to the story of the woman who was killed by a lightning strike, right before her boyfriend was about to propose to her. There was no "human malice" or "free will" involved in that. Unless we're saying it's "their fault" for going up on a mountain top...

Ok, I left out unforseen occurrence which is not suffering by a long shot. It's just death. It happens. Don't forget that no one is thanking God that the man survived either because it was a tragedy all the way around. Still not tied to God unless you think he should have made it stop lightening.

Now of course, as mentioned before, if one's god is the type that just lays back and doesn't get involved in anything at all, then none of this even applies. Of course, the question then becomes, "why worship?" After all, the vast majority of people in this world aren't deists...

God does get involved. He's just not the Superman atheists seem to want him to be.

tl;dr version: god is either just a metaphor in our heads, or he's a magical being that does shit. Pick one!

You don't get to make up the options! But you do have the option of thinking you can make the options. :/

 

[JGS]

God created the rules; or at least, all rules are contingent upon the nature of his being. If a child not only lives a miserable existence but is fated to be condemned based on something that he or she had no choice but to do, then I'm going to call it for what it is.

That's true. God created the rules that humans need to eat. He also created the rules that in the event the family could not take care of the child, the people as a whole would. It worked perfectly fine for both Jews and Christians.

Hmm, I wonder what changed...

Why is God given credit for the good and not the bad?

If someone feeds the poor, God works through them. If someone doesn't, they are a bad person.

This ties in to what you stated. God made the rules that provide for feeding the poor/hungry. When someone does not do that, they are working contrary to the goodwill of their neighbor.

I will state that I have never heard of anyone not thanking the person feeding them (& I've fed a lot), but you may know some more zealous for God, poor, starving people than me.