That is a great one, CK! I love that you find these amazing "one picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words type posters...Smashing!
About Arnie...He was busy listening to Bushie put down a NOT SO VEILED swipe at the leaders of Louisianna....Oh The Humanity!!!! OY GEVALT, as we say in Yiddish!
Naomi said: About Arnie...He was busy listening to Bushie put down a NOT SO VEILED swipe at the leaders of Louisianna....Oh The Humanity!!!!
Well.. If I was the praying type [grin] I'd be sending up a few messages to the 'Big Guy' to keep you safe from all the fires & stuff. You are in my thoughts...
wunelle said: Yeah, I don't know where you find 'em, but they hit the nail on the head!
It's amazing what you can find with a Google images search... [grin]. I have extensive files.....
It's a bit alarming to think that more people believe in ghost than believe in evolution. It's also strange how often people's beliefs are in direct opposition to one another. Christians who believe in the resurrection (where everyone's supposed to jump out of their graves) have no trouble believing in ghosts (spirits who immediately survive the body after death). All said and done, I think we should have stuck with our faith in the Easter Bunny. At least he (or was it she?) brought us all gifts and candies consistently without too much fuss over our pecadilloes. Post Easter bunny cosmologies all seem to go downhill, to Santa who, like some Taoist deity, keeps a constant tally of our good and bad deeds, to the Christian god who is so insecure over someone not believing in him that he tortures them for all eternity.
karlo sez...Christians who believe in the resurrection (where everyone's supposed to jump out of their graves) have no trouble believing in ghosts (spirits who immediately survive the body after death).
I just a Kwistian wiff wee wittle bwain. Kan u pweeze expwain what u meen? Duz u fink dis is a....wait...I wook up da words...
laughing boy said: I just a Kwistian wiff wee wittle bwain. Kan u pweeze expwain what u meen? Duz u fink dis is a....wait...I wook up da words...
Do I detect a loss of patience with us hard-headed atheists? I've come to expect a higher lever of maturity from you. We may disagree on some very fundamental issues but I don't think there is a need for that kind of response... It doesn't really do your case any favours.
Nonsense and superstition... those are two words that I quite often see on your blog CK in regards to belief in God. If I value your ideals but you do not value mine, then we are at an impasse, no?
I know that based on scientific reason, the collective cognizance of your intellectual peers, and all the great weight of your ‘understanding’ of the universe that a silly old book and a bunch of irritating ‘barriers to progress’ (Christians) is not deserving of any peaceable accord.
CK you say you want both types of posters here and that you enjoy theist posts. Is it just the angry ones you like?
I’d suppose, due to the un-theistic friendly sentiment offered that you propose to create the same atmosphere on your blogoshpere for Theists as you believe exists in the world against Atheists. I’m assuming this is untrue, since that’d be hypocritical, and something Atheists do despise being. Hurts the defense against us hypocrite Christians, you see.
To be less harsh I’d just say that since you get the benefit of having so MUCH scientific information to bolster your cause that you’d all do better, case wise, (Dawkins and Harris immensely so) to be much less emotional in your efforts against the Christians. Of course pure science & reason is boring and I doubt Dawkins or Harris would be as well off now if they hadn’t learned the same thing all those rich corrupt preachers have, emotion is power.
Karlo said: ... to the Christian god who is so insecure over someone not believing in him that he tortures them for all eternity.
Karlo, however, makes some very good points and this is one of the most succinct that I've ever seen.
I’ll choose to respond to a collected thought against religion that actually displays an understanding for something that is being taught in Churches today rather then the blanket ‘nonsense and superstition’ clause.
Karlo, what you’re hitting on is both what drives many people away from Christianity (because why would you feel welcome believing in such an entity as the one you describe) and also something that is fundamental to faith itself. If I’m believing in God simply because I don’t want to burn forever then I should quickly switch to your camp and raise the Atheist flag.
Since faith is a matter of belief and belief is a very complex and personal thing I can’t give you any more than my own perception. However, my perception is based on a lifetime of bible study coupled with memberships to a Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, and Non-denominational church. I’ve belonged to each of these for several years throughout my life. Currently I’m not much of a church goer, but I do not believe less in God. Church is just a collection place and I’ll be the first to admit that the problems with Christianity are more often found in the ‘leadership’ and not the ‘masses’.
Now, based on the rather ‘standard’ version of the bible (one that would be accepted at each of the above listed denominations) I’d say that you have to focus on the New Testament if you want to be ‘current’. Not to ‘pick what I like’ from the bible, because that’s not the point. Rather it’s clearly indicated in the name… New and Old. Following from the ‘New’ I would say we’re mainly instructed to live a life that is based on two pillars. One is being kind and a good example to those around you throughout your life (the Golden Rule) and the other which is believing that Christ was exactly that and his sacrifice was for us and to be thankful of that.
Now, while this would seem to enforce Karlo’s comment this is where I believe most ‘fire and brimstone’ Christians are incorrect. The bible does indicate that it is of great detriment to your judgment to come to Jesus (to believe he is your savior) and then leave him. Now if you look at this with something of a philosophical reasoning you can see that the inverse of this statement indicates that there must be some ‘degree’ to which people who are not believers are ‘better’ than those who believe and then throw it away.
If all nonbelievers burnt in Hell I highly doubt you could consider the ones that got there through never knowing Jesus would be any ‘better’ off than the other kind.
I’ll kindly remind you all, as CK will note I’ve done a time or two before, that stereotypes cut deep from either side of the fence. The blue suited parishioner from the poster is a good example of this. I’m sure I could find several likely inciting and not very useful quips about Atheists that I could get a number of theists to stand around and laugh at with me. I guess I just have better things to do.
P.S. Lady of the Hills I’ll send up a few ‘messages’ to the ‘Big Guy’ for you. My father works for the Department of Natural Resources and as such has fought several forest fires such as yours across the US so I know what it means to have loved ones exposed to such destruction.
sirkolgate said: Nonsense and superstition... those are two words that I quite often see on your blog CK in regards to belief in God.
Well... that *is* my opinion on the subject.
sirkolgate said: If I value your ideals but you do not value mine, then we are at an impasse, no?
That really depends on what you mean by 'value'. Do you *really* value my ideals? If so why? If I valued your ideals how would that change the tone of my Blog? Would I need to stop being critical of what I see as wrong-headed beliefs?
sirkolgate said: I know that based on scientific reason, the collective cognizance of your intellectual peers, and all the great weight of your ‘understanding’ of the universe that a silly old book and a bunch of irritating ‘barriers to progress’ (Christians) is not deserving of any peaceable accord.
Correct - except that my 'understanding' of the Universe is rather limited. Oh, and I'm rather sceptical about the idea of 'progress'too....
sirkolgate said: CK you say you want both types of posters here and that you enjoy theist posts. Is it just the angry ones you like?
Actually I prefer reasoned debate rather than heated argument. Theists in particular often get angry with me because I don't take their word for things and dispute the foundations of their beliefs. It's actually rather difficult (and surprisingly frustrating) even discussing basic concepts when two vastly different and opposing belief systems come into contact. Much of what we both take for granted the other side sees as sheer nonesense. No wonder we have difficulty communicating without ocassional fireworks.
sirkolgate said: I’d suppose, due to the un-theistic friendly sentiment offered that you propose to create the same atmosphere on your blogoshpere for Theists as you believe exists in the world against Atheists.
I'm actually astounded by some of the things I've heard atheists say on their Blogs regarding they way they have been treated. I have *never* felt in any way discriminated against because of my beliefs (or lack thereof). So I have no experience to draw on to create such an atmosphere here. I am, an will probably remain, very sceptical towards theism. This Blog is, and will probably remain, an uncomfortable place for theists to visit. I make no applogy for that. I am an atheist and proud of that fact. I am also happy to debate my beliefs with theists - but expect that any debate will be a two way street. If they can't stand the heat I can only suggest that they stay out of my kitchen. I will attempt to remain polite enough - having been brought up that way - but I retain the right to call bullshit on any argument that I think deserves the name.
sirkolgate said: To be less harsh I’d just say that since you get the benefit of having so MUCH scientific information to bolster your cause that you’d all do better, case wise, (Dawkins and Harris immensely so) to be much less emotional in your efforts against the Christians.
I wasn't aware that I was being particulary 'emotional'. I don't think that it's a word that would spring to mind if friends were asked to describe me [grin].
sirkolgate said: Of course pure science & reason is boring..
Quite the contrary actually....
sirkolgate said: emotion is power.
Actually I prefer "Knowledge is Power"
sirkolgate said: I’m sure I could find several likely inciting and not very useful quips about Atheists that I could get a number of theists to stand around and laugh at with me. I guess I just have better things to do.
I like cartoons - as you may have noticed. Some of them are even funny.... though many I post here also have a modicum of 'bite' attached.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. And I do apologize for sounding negative. That said, I think that if a person persues truth with an open mind (i.e., not starting from a specific position), the chances of their ending up with Christianity, when we take away cultural and historical factors, are approximately one over infinity. There is an infinite number of things that we can choose to "believe in", after all. If, on the other hand, we assume that events are held together by some sort of causal glue, Christianity seems extremely unlikely. For one thing, if God's goal was to be believed, why wouldn't he appear levitating on CNN each night. Or better yet, why doesn't he constantly appear levitating right next to me with a constant fountain of intermixed fire and ice shooting forth from his halo. Even a dense, slow-witted nonbeliever like myself would be willing to reconsider my beliefs in a causal universe if my experience directly contradicted it. To tell you the truth, though, theists' non-causal universe where everything occurs to the whim of a God whose mind we can't peer into strikes me as horrific. In such a universe, there's no set of events that would give me any information whatsoever. The omnipotent force(s) could at any minute choose to make things otherwise for no reason. God wouldn't even be constrained by his own promises. I find such a universe incredibly bizarre. Of course, most theists don't really follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions. I think most Christians imagine a powerful old man who emerges out of the clouds occasionally to cast a few lightning bolts into our causally-controlled world.
Well, I certainly got a lot of information back, thanks to both of you for the responses.
Now, let’s see if I can do the turn justice.
CK said: That really depends on what you mean by 'value'. Do you *really* value my ideals? If so why? If I valued your ideals how would that change the tone of my Blog? Would I need to stop being critical of what I see as wrong-headed beliefs?
CK not only do I value what you think about religion and I would say that if we had a true ‘discourse’ of the subject I’d find much of relevance in your rebuttal of my faith. I am a man of ‘science’ and hopefully intelligent enough to reason as you do and to see your reasoning’s and follow your logic. I’d also honor you enough to do so.
I guess if you valued my ideals you’d not degrade them to ‘superstition’ and ‘nonsense’ because that simply removes the ability for me to debate anything from the table. What’s the point of me commenting if my views are partially based on ‘nonsense’ in your eyes?
As an Atheist you have it much harder than me. It’s easy for me to understand your POV if I understand science, however, for you to understand my POV requires a little more effort. We are not all brainwashed Zionists. Some of us achieved an understanding of our faith through some rather scientific methods of deduction and reasoning.
Your last question about whether you could still be ‘critical’ of my ‘wrong-headed’ beliefs is a bit juvenile. Of course I want you to be critical CK, what would be the point of having a debate if you couldn’t be critical? Writing something off as nonsense and then refusing to discuss it is arrogant.
We’ve talked this line before CK and you admit that you can not disprove my ‘nonsense’ and you did in this very response say you ‘have a rather limited understanding of the Universe’. I don’t say “Well, I don’t see why you can’t just believe.” So you shouldn’t be able to say “Religion is nonsense.”
I’ll make you a deal. When science can assert a more than candid knowledge of the emotional responses of the brain, the meaning of feelings, and the reason for love, then I shall allow you to call religion nonsense. I see this trend in the Atheistic community of immediately referring to religion as ‘superstition’ and I find it a clever way of disassembling, but your argument is not as easy as you’d make it.
None of us know what happens when we die and there is no science that I know of which can explain why we are all so different and unique, even those who are identical twins raised in similar environments, while having some eerie connection, are still very much their own person.
Without knowing these important questions to what ‘makes us tick’ no one has any right and can lay any claim on the knowledge which my religion provides me. In this instance your guess is indeed ONLY as good as mine.
CK said: I'm actually astounded by some of the things I've heard atheists say on their Blogs regarding they way they have been treated. I have *never* felt in any way discriminated against because of my beliefs (or lack thereof). So I have no experience to draw on to create such an atmosphere here. I am, an will probably remain, very sceptical towards theism. This Blog is, and will probably remain, an uncomfortable place for theists to visit. I make no applogy for that. I am an atheist and proud of that fact. I am also happy to debate my beliefs with theists - but expect that any debate will be a two way street. If they can't stand the heat I can only suggest that they stay out of my kitchen. I will attempt to remain polite enough - having been brought up that way - but I retain the right to call bullshit on any argument that I think deserves the name.
I’ve seen some of the other Atheists blogs and frankly I think some of them go ‘looking’ for negative responses. However, this is not to say that some Christians or any other religious people aren’t assholes. Believing in God does not equate to not having your head up your ass. I’m sorry that I wasn’t there because those people, especially if they were Christian, would have had some immediate emotional scaring because I have zero tolerance for jerks.
Call BS on stuff CK, but just realize that by creating an “Atheist Club House” you are even dampening your own argumentative skills. When you surround yourself by like minded individuals it becomes easier and easier to just get stuck in the same ‘rut’ of understanding.
CK said: I wasn't aware that I was being particulary 'emotional'. I don't think that it's a word that would spring to mind if friends were asked to describe me [grin].
CK it’s emotion when you post posters like this last one. That’s not really a very ‘scientific’ poster, and I’d say that it’s clearly got an ‘agenda’. Call it what you will, but it’s not cold reason.
sirkolgate said: Of course pure science & reason is boring..
CK said the following regarding pure Science & Reason being boring… Quite the contrary actually....
Contrary is exactly what you’re being. Good word.
Pure (note the use of the word P U R E) science and reason is exciting if you really want to know what the atomic weight of hydrogen is, but should you argue in it all the time without using a tone that would indicate all religious folk are idiots (as Harris does in his 10 myths/facts about Atheists your posted not long ago) it’s much less appealing to the masses. Argue in Pure Science and Reason and I will not bother you Atheist, argue with a tone and a clear agenda and I will stomp on your spin for what it is.
You see, that’s where I get my leverage when I can’t fight your facts, I can quite easily fight your agenda.
CK in reference to ‘emotion is power’ said: Actually I prefer "Knowledge is Power"
Yes CK, knowledge is power, and so is emotional response. Whipping a crowd up into a frenzy has achieved all sorts of evil throughout time. Dawkins book posted on your blog as “The God Delusion” is a great way to piss people off, and to tickle those who are glad those people are getting pissed off. I guess “A Study on Why God Doesn’t Exist” is too tame for our famous antagonizer.
First off, I think your first logical foray is a sound one. Given the removal of all cultural, social, and historical events from a life, and given they are not predisposed to religion or not, what would bring them to Christianity?
I argue such an 'isolated' person would contribute a wellspring of knowledge to all the humanity driven sciences as this person would be that ‘blank slate’ from which many such hypothesis are founded, and it would give us a measure to test against to truly see what a ‘human disposition’ to religion (or many other things) would be.
But not to dodge your question, I’d argue from my ‘faith’ standpoint that if such a ‘pure being’ existed that we may see one of those rare things known as ‘miracles’ that would vastly enhance the ‘religious’ ratio from 1:Infinity to 1:1.
Reasoning strictly through logic with no allowance for faith I’d have to say our ‘blank slate’ would most likely reject religion if throughout their existence they were fed only pure science and reason, taught purely without bias to learn through empirical observation alone, and to not follow whim in any circumstance. However, I would argue that if several works of fiction be introduced including the bible and say not a single person would force that book upon the ‘blank’ but rather only set it there to be wholly unbiased and at least ALLOW our ‘blank’ a chance to be exposed (and I’d say add the Koran, and various other western and eastern philosophies and religious texts) that our ‘blank’ may surprise you.
*shrug* Best I can do on that matter.
I consider the question of “Why doesn’t God just appear so we all believe?” to be a rather easy one.
The question is not whether or not you believe, it is why you do. If God just appeared to all of us and asserted his presence could you say he’s really allowing us ‘free will’? I mean, if you knew God existed and he did appear next to you in a boisterous mass of fire, ice and lightning, what would say anything you did from that point was specifically ‘yours’?
What point would there be in Judgment if everyone knew without a doubt it was coming?
We’d all be perfect angels even if we were black as sin in our hearts. And after all this when everyone was admitted into heaven what would these ‘dark’ souls do now that they were free from the fiasco of death?
No, I think of God not as you’ve portrayed him. He is not crazy, His mind is mysterious but His ways are not all hidden. You see there is a great filter in the mystery that He is. People have to chose to be good people without knowing and therin lies the beauty. For if I was to clean your house and afterwards you paid me $100 and another was to demand $100 and after being guaranteed the funds cleaned your house, who would you prefer to call friend?
A popular atheistic view of God is an angry and jealous child. You even indicated a feeling of ‘terror’ at knowing there might exist an entity which could obliterate all reason in a breath. That’s not unlike the feeling of those few prophets and apostles who did actually come to know that there was a God in a way similar to your expected ‘belief inciting’ incident.
What most Atheists focus on are natural disasters, disease, plagues, horrible things that happen to humanity, and multitudes of bad and ‘evil’ things that continually plague us. Why would a God allow these things to happen if he was loving, knowing, and all powerful?
Well, I’d argue that maybe what happens here, albeit terrible and heart wrenching, may not be the ‘picture’ that He’s seeing. I mean, after all, what is 100 years of suffering and hard life only to die in the dirt to be given an eternal life lasting forever.
*shrug* It’s really all myth to you folk. I can’t imagine how I can argue this to someone who doesn’t believe.
Here… let me try one more thing.
Bible says we were created in God’s ‘image’. Now you can take this to mean we ‘look’ like him, but you can also take this to mean that we share other qualities that he does. Perhaps emotion… as is evident in large part in the old testament.
If we think about what we personally know about emotion, then we attach to that the other biblical indicators that God is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful and then we consider that we are all like ‘children’ to him.
Let me ask you this… what suffering can we know if He is aware of all our suffering, all our pain and everything we do terrible to each other at all times?
Now I ask you, why would a lake of fire be a possible end to someone who destroys the lives of others? Is it perhaps that there is a justice at work that we may just be able to understand when we look at things on this sort of ‘macro’ scale?
So why doesn’t he just appear, make everything good now, and call it a day?
I can only suppose it has something to do with ‘free will’ and that above all that binds His hands. We have an environment that we can control very nicely. We don’t freeze in the winter, we don’t fry in the summer, we jet around this planet like it’s as big as our backyard, and will still grow, strive and prosper. We have all this science not to disprove God, but to make the most of what we have. It’s always what life has been about, and it is a fine quality for us to have. You can have both science and religion Karlo. There is nothing that forbids me from science, it’s just knowing that science handles the here and now, and religion handles the later. I find great solace in that knowledge, not that I’m ‘living for death’ but just that as screwed up as everything is here that it’s really not the way it was ‘supposed’ to be. I’m not deluded, I simply refuse to take away my belief when there’s no reason to. Surprisingly faith can coincide with evolution and big-bang and your ‘causal’ universe because the bible isn’t really all that concerned with explaining those things. The bible focuses primarily on ethics, morality, and how to live a good life.
I’m the Christian to which the Atheist has no argument. I will accept all your science and your reasoning if it’s factual, logical and accurate, but I will believe in God.
I don't see why God's making his existence obvious would destroy human free will. And regarding the last part of your argument, I don't think science can be mixed with theism. If an omniscient God exists, than God causes everything, in which case we don't live in a world of facts. I'm not claiming that this is impossible. But if it's true, "knowledge" in the normal sense of the word (in the sense of seeing the fabric that connects events in the world) can't exist: all there is is belief, which can at times, coincidentally be correct. As for the 1 over infinity problem, I think you side-step the issue. Those blank slates in a blank slate world who abandon science don't rush out to become Christians or Muslims, they end up believing one of the infinite possible cosmologies that human dreams can imagine. Since the university isn't fundamentally a causal universe, there's nothing to lead them to the truth.
One final detail: there's no reason to lump Buddhism in with the other religions. The Buddha believed in causality and in fact thought it was a central element in people's "right view" regarding reality. He also didn't believe that there were gods or divine beings standing outside of causality.
sirkolgate... Thanks for your long post. It does seem that your answer to many of Karlo's questions falls back on the idea of faith. The need for faith is why God is hidden from us, the reason why there is evil in the world and why we have been given free-will. If we did not need faith there would be no problem with the idea of living in a perfect world where God appears to each of us in person whenever we or He feels the need. But what is Religion without faith...?
sirkolgate said: A popular atheistic view of God is an angry and jealous child.
That pretty much sums Him up in the OT anyway!
sirkolgate said: We’d all be perfect angels even if we were black as sin in our hearts. And after all this when everyone was admitted into heaven what would these ‘dark’ souls do now that they were free from the fiasco of death?
But God can see into the 'hearts of men' - so that would never happen right?
sirkolgate said: what suffering can we know if He is aware of all our suffering, all our pain and everything we do terrible to each other at all times?
So God suffers more than we do - and this makes *our* suffering Ok? I think not.
sirkolgate said: why would a lake of fire be a possible end to someone who destroys the lives of others? Is it perhaps that there is a justice at work that we may just be able to understand when we look at things on this sort of ‘macro’ scale?
How exactly is suffering for eternity any kind of justice - no matter what the crime? Surely justice should be reasonable & proportionate in order to be justice at all?
sirkolgate said: It’s really all myth to you folk. I can’t imagine how I can argue this to someone who doesn’t believe.
I have the greatest of difficulty arguing with people who *do* believe. [grin]
sirkolgate said: You can have both science and religion Karlo.
But only if they both stay on their sides of the 'fence'.
sirkolgate said: There is nothing that forbids me from science, it’s just knowing that science handles the here and now, and religion handles the later.
So... God does not or cannot intervene in the 'here & now'?
sirkolgate said: Surprisingly faith can coincide with evolution and big-bang and your ‘causal’ universe because the bible isn’t really all that concerned with explaining those things.
Probably because the authours of The Bible didn't know anything about these things... [grin].
sirkolgate said: The bible focuses primarily on ethics, morality, and how to live a good life.
That's certainly *one* view point.
sirkolgate said: I will accept all your science and your reasoning if it’s factual, logical and accurate, but I will believe in God.
Does that mean any science/reason that contradicts the existence of God could not be 'factual, logical or accurate'?
karlo said: I don't see why God's making his existence obvious would destroy human free will.
Ditto. You would still have a choice regarding what you actually *did* following the certainty that God existed.
karlo said: I don't think science can be mixed with theism. If an omniscient God exists, than God causes everything, in which case we don't live in a world of facts.
I totally agree. The existence of God and the world of science are mutually exclusive. If God exists & can change anything in the Universe as He desires then scientific endeavour is impossible.
karlo said: there's no reason to lump Buddhism in with the other religions. The Buddha believed in causality and in fact thought it was a central element in people's "right view" regarding reality. He also didn't believe that there were gods or divine beings standing outside of causality.
Very true. In a real sense Buddhism isn't a religion at all.
sirkolgate... Thanks for your long post. It does seem that your answer to many of Karlo's questions falls back on the idea of faith. The need for faith is why God is hidden from us, the reason why there is evil in the world and why we have been given free-will. If we did not need faith there would be no problem with the idea of living in a perfect world where God appears to each of us in person whenever we or He feels the need. But what is Religion without faith...?
I’m going to respond to this one having already commented everything else. CK you just don’t think faith matters. It doesn’t matter what I tell you you’re still going to think it’s a glorified ‘hoax’.
I went out on an edge with that lengthy post and I showed a lot more heart than maybe I should have because the entire purpose of that treatise was to try to inform you that I thought God did in fact love us, that He doesn’t get much involved because he wants us to do it on our own (just as any good parent would) and He wants us to come to him because we want to, not because we saw him on the 9’o’clock news saving the orphanage.
But God can see into the 'hearts of men' - so that would never happen right?
Sure it would. Christian faith teaches that we are judged by ‘deed’ and not by what we ‘think’. Muslim faith believes that every good/bad thought as well as good/bad deed is ‘balanced’ at the end.
So given Christian ‘rules’ God would allow people in to heaven who managed to behave (knowing that He was in fact there watching) in life and then they could do as they pleased for eternity.
So God suffers more than we do - and this makes *our* suffering Ok? I think not.
So it’s a contest of suffering is it? That’s rather off the mark even for you CK. I’m just trying to unvilify my deity. Almost every atheist argument wants him to remove all suffering and yet let us maintain a very healthy control of our destinies. What do you want? Because I guarantee that once He started helping everyone there’d be a few people unhappy with the outcome. Or maybe if you throw a tantrum because you didn’t get your way He should help you too.
How exactly is suffering for eternity any kind of justice - no matter what the crime? Surely justice should be reasonable & proportionate in order to be justice at all?
I don’t want to bore you with the details, but I guarantee that any judgment handed down from God is what you’d call ‘perfection in judgment’. I mean, who else can judge but the one who knows absolutely everything about everything.
I have the greatest of difficulty arguing with people who *do* believe. [grin]
Yes, and I have greatest difficulty arguing with people who can’t climb over the ‘obstacle’ of their own point of view. =)
But only if they both stay on their sides of the 'fence'.
Not really CK, they don’t overlap because they can’t. I wish you’d take a few minutes to understand this sometime, but science and religion aren’t on ‘separate sides of the fence’. They are two different perspectives of the same universe in which we live.
You chose to reject religion because you can’t use science to explain it. I chose to accept science because it doesn’t threaten my faith and makes fine sense.
So... God does not or cannot intervene in the 'here & now'?
Sure he can, and does. People tend to call these things ‘miracles’, but I don’t want to bore you with ‘fanatics’.
Probably because the authours of The Bible didn't know anything about these things... [grin].
What did they need to know? They weren’t writing a science textbook.
Does that mean any science/reason that contradicts the existence of God could not be 'factual, logical or accurate'?
Sure CK, contradict away. I will listen. You’ve already said in your own words you can’t disprove God, are you going to step over that statement now and contradict yourself? Not a good way to win an argument on contradiction unless you’re set on showing examples.
Karlo said: I don't see why God's making his existence obvious would destroy human free will.
I’m sorry man, I went for the argument that I’d give a bunch of people who already kinda believed in God. Let me get out my little hammer and break my ‘only in case of emergency’ glass on my ‘Hard Core Atheist’ debate extinguisher and see what I can do.
God making His existence known would destroy free will. Why? Well, considering what God is being that he’s all knowing and all powerful he’d be something of a celebrity. Everyone who was anyone would try to put in some ‘good face’ for the ‘big guy’ and maybe ‘earn’ something. The world would turn upside down as people tried to buy His favor.
I think what you’re considering is ‘free will’ in general. Going over to the desk and picking up a glass of water and drinking it as a matter of ‘free will’. That’s fine, but there’s also a ‘broad’ definition of free will (especially in God’s case) where presence alone would ‘influence’ people to do things a certain way. That application of ‘influence’ is a destruction of ‘free will’.
Even if He immediately withdrew after his ‘cameo’ there would be such a ripple in the way people behaved. Can you imagine church attendance alone?
Sure, there would be those who would go on living, but there would be a complete change.
Karlo said: And regarding the last part of your argument, I don't think science can be mixed with theism. If an omniscient God exists, than God causes everything, in which case we don't live in a world of facts. I'm not claiming that this is impossible. But if it's true, "knowledge" in the normal sense of the word (in the sense of seeing the fabric that connects events in the world) can't exist: all there is is belief, which can at times, coincidentally be correct.
You must think of the world as a machine. After all it very much is, a very powerful, and infinitesimally intricate, continually self perpetuating machine. If you created a lawn mower and some kid ran over his foot did you CAUSE the lawn mower to destroy that child’s foot?
Nope. Just as this ‘machine’ around us functions according to rules that have always been there and that we’ve discovered, so to does God remove himself from it’s workings. See creation is so tunneled in on. God creates this and that, but no one ever says God created science. Those rules, effects, molecules, atoms… etc… etc.
How does His ability to change those rules cause it to be ‘bad’ or ‘cease to be scientific’? He clearly isn’t changing them all that much. Planetary movements have been traced for thousands of years and those old stone monuments that once told time still do.
Just as God isn’t going to expose himself on CNN he’s not going to suddenly change the coefficients of friction and gravity. That’s that ‘angry kid of the OT’ that CK keeps going on and on about. Try reading the NEW testament CK (yeah, the NEW one, not the OLD one).
The bible stresses above all the God is all knowing and all powerful. This means He’s much smarter than you or I. It also means that He most likely knows what’s best for us, knows how best to handle the universe that He created, and probably knows how to make a mean apple pie.
But you don’t believe, so why worry about it? I do and I like it, so I keep believing. Sue me.
"God making His existence known would destroy free will. Why? Well, considering what God is being that he’s all knowing and all powerful he’d be something of a celebrity."
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that most Christians deep down in their hearts really aren't sure and so they don't try to curry favor with God. If they are sure (as I'm sure many are, having blindly accepted what those around them believe), how is their belief somehow better than if God had made his existence more obvious?
"...there’s also a ‘broad’ definition of free will (especially in God’s case) where presence alone would ‘influence’ people to do things a certain way. That application of ‘influence’ is a destruction of ‘free will’."
From this it would follow that Jesus destroyed human free will by appearing before people. At any rate, influence only destroys free will to the extent that it eliminates choice. Even if God were to appear before all of us constantly, there would be those of us who still decided to not be Christians. Isn't this precisely the choice Satan made? Does Satan's knowledge of God's existence destroy Satan's free will so that Satan is no more than an automaton?
"Even if He immediately withdrew after his ‘cameo’ there would be such a ripple in the way people behaved. Can you imagine church attendance alone? Sure, there would be those who would go on living, but there would be a complete change."
So God's worried about the infrastructure implications of sudden surges in church attendance. As the song says: Hmmmm Hmmm Hmmmm...
To the extent the world's knowable, events follow a pattern (i.e., causality).
"If you created a lawn mower and some kid ran over his foot did you CAUSE the lawn mower to destroy that child’s foot?"
The point I'd like to make here is that if we live in a world where causal forces really don't explain many things, knowledge becomes impossible. If you conduct an experiment and I'm able to walk into the room at any point when you're not looking and rearrange things, what possible interpretation can you give to your experimental results. You might find the example odd but this is precisely the world we live in if theism or any dualist belief in other-worldly forces is accepted. We'll never know if any experimental outcome is wholly or partially influenced by some other-worldly force and we'll never know anything about the other-worldly force (since the same experimental limtiations apply).
"How does His ability to change those rules cause it to be ‘bad’ or ‘cease to be scientific’? He clearly isn’t changing them all that much."
How in the world would anyone know what was changed. Maybe God decided to bury a bunch of dinosaur bones just to amuse people. How would you know? Are you able to peer into the mind of God?
"Try reading the NEW testament CK (yeah, the NEW one, not the OLD one)."
Like I said, no knowledge is possible in a theistic scenario so why does it matter what I read. If you're right, I might as well believe . . . in anything.
"The bible stresses above all the God is all knowing and all powerful. This means He’s much smarter than you or I. It also means that He most likely knows what’s best for us."
How do you know that God isn't evil? Couldn't the world also be explained by assuming that there's an evil demon who fools people into behaving altruistically and then punishes the do-gooders while giving the bad people everlasting life? If we can't peer into the mind of God and if we don't have knowledge, we can't know anything. This is the problem with otherworldly sorts of explanations in a nutshell.
sirkolgate said: CK you just don’t think faith matters. It doesn’t matter what I tell you you’re still going to think it’s a glorified ‘hoax’
That's pretty much true. I know that faith matters to many other people - just not to me. I'm too much of a sceptic and a cynic to accept most things on faith alone.
sirkolgate said: So it’s a contest of suffering is it? That’s rather off the mark even for you CK.
That was my 'take' on what you meant. I presumed that since God sees *all* suffering and not just the stuff we see that He is more deserving of our love/respect.
sirkolgate said: Seeing as how this is what you Atheists believe in anyways there’s nothing unjust about it.
I fully expect to 'perish' when I die. Hell though is often talked about as a place of *eternal* torment. This cannot be a just desert for anyone - no matter what their 'crimes'.
sirkolgate said: Yes, and I have greatest difficulty arguing with people who can’t climb over the ‘obstacle’ of their own point of view.
Oh, I can certainly see your PoV and to some extent appreciate & understand it. I just happen to believe that you're wrong (as you do me).
sirkolgate said: science and religion aren’t on ‘separate sides of the fence’. They are two different perspectives of the same universe in which we live.
..and there we must disagree again. Also - if that is the case then why do some theists attack Darwin with such fervour? Because it (apparently) goes against their religious beliefs. Some theists at least singularly fail to reconcile the two magisteria.
sirkolgate said: You chose to reject religion because you can’t use science to explain it.
Actually I have said many times that I reject religion because there is no evidence to support either its foundations nor its conclusions. Also science *can* indeed 'explain' religion - just not to the satisfaction of theists!
sirkolgate said: Sure he can, and does. People tend to call these things ‘miracles’, but I don’t want to bore you with ‘fanatics’.
I agree with karlo that science cannot exist in a Universe which allows 'miracles' to happen.
sirkolgate said: I will listen. You’ve already said in your own words you can’t disprove God, are you going to step over that statement now and contradict yourself?
It is indeed very difficult to disprove the existence of God - maybe even impossible. It is also virtually impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns or the Easter buuny.
sirkolgate said: That’s that ‘angry kid of the OT’ that CK keeps going on and on about.
Really...? I 'keep going on about' the God of the OT? Anyway - wasn't He always wrathful and jealous.... He certainly appeared to have calmed down a lot by the time of the NT. Almost like it was a different God.
sirkolgate said: This means He’s much smarter than you or I. It also means that He most likely knows what’s best for us, knows how best to handle the universe that He created.
So we should trust His judgement no matter what happens. Its all for the best... We're back to faith again aren't we?
karlo said: The point I'd like to make here is that if we live in a world where causal forces really don't explain many things, knowledge becomes impossible.
I've been reading some philosophy recently which basically says that we can't draw an infference from any cause to any effect and that any such belief is unsupportable. Putting that aside for one moment [grin] I agree that if God can change the rules whenever He wishes then scientific knowledge - based on repeatable experimental results - becomes impossible because you never know if the rules have been interfered with at any point.
karlo said: How do you know that God isn't evil? Couldn't the world also be explained by assuming that there's an evil demon...
Ah, the heresy of Gnosticism.... [grin].
karlo said: If we can't peer into the mind of God and if we don't have knowledge, we can't know anything. This is the problem with otherworldly sorts of explanations in a nutshell.
Karlo, given your example of Satan who knows of God’s existence and yet behaves contrary, I’d say that you’re correct. He is not an automaton, and neither would any of us should God make a ‘visit’.
The way I’m using the term ‘free will’ in this argument is flawed. We can still have free will in the presence of a creator. Of course we can because we can always chose unless that ability to chose has been removed.
However, I will defend the argument because what I am referring to is the “Free Will” to believe or not believe. If He were here and in your face then you’d no long have the “Free Will” to make a choice to believe. You’d believe in God as you believe in water. There it is and you accept it.
Now this is highly contested in the previous posts as well; the reason for belief is not important. You don’t assign any value to the ‘believing’ it is simply ‘following the masses’ and there’s no reason it matters.
In my eyes there is a value to belief. The fact that I believe without evidence or proof is not a weakness. You see that attribute as a fallacy, a corruption in reason, and a lack of common sense. I was merely trying to describe the reason there’s value, but that’s all conceptual. If you don’t value the currency of my reasoning then I won’t be able to buy any respect with it.
Why is there value to believing in God without knowing through sensory perception? There is value in the same way there is value if we meet as strangers and I believe something you tell me. I can not know that what you say is true based on anything scientific, but yet I believe. I may be gullible or naive, but I am also trusting. While I, the believer, could end up in trouble, you as the person who has nothing to lose from the exchange reap a benefit from my trust. If you are a kind person and not out to hurt me then most likely you will appreciate my trust and from that there is value for me.
My belief is intrinsically better than the belief of someone who actually has to ‘witness’ to believe, because my belief is based on trust, while the other person’s belief is based on fact. The logical value of the belief is the same, since in equations they would both be equal to ‘believing in something’, but there’s a perceived weight to believing in something simply because you want to, not because you were handed the truth.
Karlo I can’t peer into the mind of God, and I don’t know his movements, but I trust that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s(squared) and I’d bet a lot of money on that. Why is it that the existence of a God makes you so nervous? Why are you so sure that if there would be a God that he’d want to wreck such havoc?
Karlo this leads to your point on an ‘inverse’ consideration of faith. Should I believe in a God why not believe he is evil, since there is no scientific fact upon which I base my claim he’s good then the contrary answer is equally as possible.
This had me laughing Karlo and I thank you for that. It helped me understand the true breadth of the gaping chasm between us. I am not saying it’s a foolish statement, quite the contrary your entire response was brilliant.
I believe that God because of my understanding of the bible. I believe He is good because of my life’s experiences and there is no doubt in my mind otherwise. Evil is by its nature selfish and destructive. If you strapped ultimate power to evil I doubt you’d get any order to anything and I’d imagine that our lives would be far more like the movies and less like they are. I also don’t think an evil God could possibly remove himself from view, but maybe your definition of evil is different than mine.
The ‘problem’ with otherworldly explanations in a nutshell is that we have reached a stage in our ‘evolution’ that doesn’t allow for a lot of ‘faith’. We don’t trust each other much and we trust everything else even less. Cynical bunch of bastards the lot of us.
Funny thing is, we take a lot of garbage on trust that we probably shouldn’t. Wikipedia is an excellent example of this. As much as I love the Wiki, there’s still a good chance you’re getting someone else’s BS (and I’m not talking their Bachelors in Science).
Most of us are so far removed from what we’re ‘told’ that someone at the base level could be feeding us just what they want. But that sort of conspiracy is more CK’s department than mine.
In response to CK I’d just like to say that it is true that a lot of ‘typical’ arguments against Atheistic reasoning from Theists is rather ‘small minded’ and it often tends to get overly emotional. Emotion is a rather strong part of faith and because of the conviction that people tend to have they are defensive, and they get angry.
I don’t think it’s correct, but it tends to happen to religious people who try to attack what they usually don’t fully understand. That and they rarely consider the cool casual response to their attack coming back and aggravating them further.
Reasoning scientific philosophers on the other hand are generally more low-key. You yourself CK are a fine example. Most times when you show frustration it’s merely in response to someone else being irrational and oft times rude.
In lieu of that I’d like to say that I try hard to visualize that rift between us so I know what parts of my ‘argument’ will actually mean anything to you. If I just hurl scripture then I might as well throw myself into the rift because I’m not making a dent. The only hope I can have at defeating an atheistic argument is to calmly use reasoning to the best extent that I can (given my lack of factual evidence to contend with) and to stick religiously (Ha, pun!) to the one book that holds weight merely because it’s what helped teach me why to believe.
To say that because miracles exist science is worthless is foolish. You must see this. Science is tied to what we know to be true based on studies and empirical experiments that those before us have performed. The knowledge is proven to be sound in many areas and becomes stronger with each advance forward.
That a diety exists and can disrupt this ‘system’ doesn’t make it invalid. It simply makes the diety more than the system.
Therein lies the paradox of using any evidence of science to argue the existence of God. You are using a system that doesn’t ever concern itself with God ever, at any point. If He doesn’t exist in the system than how can you use it against Him?
Throwing away that I’m religious just look at one thing. If God did exist He would not exist within Science. God would exist in a ‘spiritual/metaphysical’ context that disregarded every law, hypothesis, study, and discovery that created the body that is ‘science’. Just that He existed would remove him from that body. However, there is nothing that says He would do anything to destroy ‘our’ science (it is in fact OURS, not His).
And as to God in the OT being wrathful and full of jealousy… remember that the Bible was written by men. God may have authored the bible, but he allowed man to transcribe it. It is from the perception of man that we see God’s emotion in the Old Testament. The only reason that view changes in the New Testament is because now we’re seeing the acts of God through Jesus’ teachings. Given my faith he was a bit ‘more’ informed and carried some extra insight that those original authors did not have.
Also, and more historically, the Old Testament stretches back ages before the New Testament was written. We don’t know that nature of those who lived then. They were most likely vastly different from the relatively civilized dwellers of the last stages of BC. Even with the age of the New Testament approaching two millennium, we are learned of those who lived in that time. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others are part of what created our present society. We share much more with the men of that era than we share with the hunters and gatherers of the ancient times.
That is why the OT God is not someone you should use as your ‘model’ for God. To do so is to argue against a diety that even I don’t believe in. At least argue over the correct God and to do that I’d recommend that you ‘catch yourself’ up in my PoV as much as I’ve caught myself up in yours.
I think you can see I’m intelligent enough to know science and philosophies of the current era. So have a foundation on which to build the point of view that you use. If you only ever had a cursory reading of the New Testament or you have forgotten most of it because it’s been so long… I suggest you read it so that you may be able to better argue against me. You should at least honor my one record as I honor the plentitudes of yours.
"You don’t assign any value to the ‘believing’ it is simply ‘following the masses’ and there’s no reason it matters. In my eyes there is a value to belief."
For those who believe in Apollo (or for believers in evil deities), is there still a value to belief? Wouldn't you agree that Satan worshippers would be better off in they were unable to believe?
"If you don’t value the currency of my reasoning then I won’t be able to buy any respect with it."
I don't see how we can "reason" about "belief" if the belief doesn't have sort of logical or empirical foundation. About all we can do, it seems to me, is state our beliefs. The act of "reasoning" involves stating "reasons" that have "grounds". Belief, by itself, doesn't have any reasons.
"Why is there value to believing in God without knowing through sensory perception? There is value in the same way there is value if we meet as strangers and I believe something you tell me."
I think there are very sound logical and empirical reasons for believing some people (and disbelieving others). I don't consider this blind faith. I didn't say anywhere that we need to have direct experience of everything. In reality, we rarely do. But we still have good reasons when we look at the world for believing that it's a certain kind of world (i.e., a world of causal forces).
"My belief is intrinsically better than the belief of someone who actually has to ‘witness’ to believe, because my belief is based on trust, while the other person’s belief is based on fact."
You may be right in saying that some of us might arrive at truth more easily by believing someone else who has seen truth. But at some point, someone must have seen or understood something or we end up with an infinite regress. That said, I think there's good reason to believe that many people are wrong about many things. I choose to use the power of my own mind to sort things out and get at truth. There's too much at stake to rely solely on what my community or parents happened to believe.
"Why is it that the existence of a God makes you so nervous?"
I'm quite open to the possibility that the universe might, in many ways, be radically different than I understand it. But I do find it upsetting if all knowledge is impossible. If God exists, then for all we know, he created me two seconds ago with all my memories intact and will make me disappear two seconds in the future. In such a world, even the shifting sands under our feet cease to exist.
"Why are you so sure that if there would be a God that he’d want to wreck such havoc?"
How do you know he wouldn't? The truth is, we both don't know and can't know.
"I believe that God because of my understanding of the bible. I believe He is good because of my life’s experiences and there is no doubt in my mind otherwise."
For some people, life can be quite horrific and for others not. Looking at the world as it is, all evidence would suggest that God(s) if he/she/it/they existed, is/are amoral--he does whatever he does without any concern at all for the balance of human suffering. Even your average good person living anywhere in the world (and given enough power), would cure the sick child and banish the torturer of the innocent. It's hard to imagine a God that's anything at all like us who fails to do even this much. If a human being clearly had the power to save millions from suffering and didn't lift a finger, we not only would be repulsed, we'd probably toss the unfeeling fellow in jail. Some states (Alaska with its good Samaritan laws) even consider such behavior a crime.
"The ‘problem’ with otherworldly explanations in a nutshell is that we have reached a stage in our ‘evolution’ that doesn’t allow for a lot of ‘faith’. We don’t trust each other much and we trust everything else even less. Cynical bunch of bastards the lot of us."
I don't think that those who don't believe in God and don't rely on faith are cynical. Many strike me as extremely idealistic. I even consider myself to be on the highly idealistic end of the spectrum.
"Wikipedia is an excellent example of this. As much as I love the Wiki, there’s still a good chance you’re getting someone else’s BS (and I’m not talking their Bachelors in Science)."
Actually, they did a study on this a few years back and Wikipedia came out in pretty much a dead heat against all the hard-bound encyclopedias. I guess the old dusty bibles of information don't do much better than the average wiki netizen at conducting research. The study did find that all encyclopedias contained far too many errors.
sirkolgate said: In my eyes there is a value to belief. The fact that I believe without evidence or proof is not a weakness.
I think that is a *huge* weakness.
sirkolgate said: My belief is intrinsically better than the belief of someone who actually has to ‘witness’ to believe, because my belief is based on trust, while the other person’s belief is based on fact.
I found this hard to believe - actually I was totally bowled over by this statement. You are saying that belief without proof or evidence is *superior* to belief with evidence or proof. Well, I must say that if I'm ever in court I do hope that you or people who think like you are not on my jury!
Of course if you have proof or evidence for something you no longer need to believe in it - you *know* it. But to believe things without any evidence - that's amazing.
sirkolgate said: The ‘problem’ with otherworldly explanations in a nutshell is that we have reached a stage in our ‘evolution’ that doesn’t allow for a lot of ‘faith’.
We have learnt especially over the last 200-300 years that reasonable scientific explanations *actually* explain stuff and don't require faith to make sense of things. What I stiff find surprising is the number of people who still fall back on faith of various kinds.
sirkolgate said: We don’t trust each other much and we trust everything else even less. Cynical bunch of bastards the lot of us.
Actually we're a gulliable bunch of bastards who are simply not cynical nor sceptical enough.
sirkolgate said: But that sort of conspiracy is more CK’s department than mine.
Huh? I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. Most of them are fantasist BS.
sirkolgate said: Emotion is a rather strong part of faith and because of the conviction that people tend to have they are defensive, and they get angry.
Indeed they do - I've been on the receiving end of that anger more than once!
sirkolgate said: Reasoning scientific philosophers on the other hand are generally more low-key. You yourself CK are a fine example. Most times when you show frustration it’s merely in response to someone else being irrational and oft times rude.
Thanks. But why do you say Reasoning *scientific* philosophers? You mean as opposed to theistic philosophers?
sirkolgate said: If I just hurl scripture then I might as well throw myself into the rift because I’m not making a dent.
Indeed. People have made that mistake before. Quoting scipture at me makes my eyes glaze over and I start yawning. Quoting the Bible in any kind of debate with me is worse than pointless - because as far as I'm concerned its meaningless.
sirkolgate said: In parting let me just say that science can exist with God and his occasional miracle as long as the consistency of science maintains its cohesion.
But miracles - and Gods ability to change the Rules - actually destroy that cohesion. If we do an experiment 100 times and get the same result its a pretty fair indication that we know something and can generalise from that. But if because of God's intervention experiments 101 - 200 give a different result then our confidence is shattered. Under these conditions we can *never* know for sure how any experiment will turn out - thereby destroying any kind of predictabilty which is a major pillar of science itself.
sirkolgate said: If you only ever had a cursory reading of the New Testament or you have forgotten most of it because it’s been so long… I suggest you read it so that you may be able to better argue against me.
Never read it - though I seem to have absorbed at least some of the stories along the way. Not interested in reading it either. I'm actually not that interested in arguing Scripture. I mean, what would the point be?
I agree with CyberKitten on this. For that matter, if we were to read "scripture" or immerse ourselves in ancient beliefs, why would we pick Christianity when there so many options out there. Christianity may seem to normal and plausible since we're immersed in it, but why not read scriptures praising Dionysus or Apollo (or some native-American deity) in our search for wisdom. Once we conclude that belief is intrinsically good, it seems like anything's fair game.
*smile* I want to do a long comment, but alas busy day... only 10 minutes left before I leave.
I hope to respond more in depth later... let me just be general for a moment.
First off, you two, my belief is Christian. Hence you can pick whatever religion you want, but my stance is founded in Christian ideals so then you’d have to find someone else to argue with.
Secondly the bible just so happens to be the book that I base my belief on. It is what I have, sorry I can’t give you a book list for Amazon, but I can’t.
I do know one resounding point I can make against both of your arguments and that’s this: belief in God does not destroy science. The examples you give of him changing the outcome of experiments or creating and destroying your existence in a blink is irrelevant because it’s out of context. You are just allowing into existence a being that you’ve manufactured with the same ‘criteria’ as God and then you start having this Frankenstein of your mind DO things.
God could cure all the disease in the world, God could kill me send me to hell for a thousand years, make me forget the experience and rewind time to now, God could…
Yes, God could do anything He damn well pleases, but the fact of the matter remains that we are here. We have this discussion. You the ‘non-believer’ has a great load of knowledge that can explain away almost any circumstance with satisfaction and I argue my belief against you.
God’s there, and he’s not doing these ‘mischievous’ things that would destroy our ‘science and reason’. We still have working postulates, our theorems and proofs still hold true, so I’d say that either you’re right and we live in a casual world with no extra ‘help’, or we live in a casual world with extra help that operates outside your understanding.
I prefer the second option. That is my preference and it can easily include everything about yours except your non-belief.
You can continue to break apart my comments and argue each point with some ‘contrived’ hypothesis that uses this experimental ‘God’ that is so convenient for you because since he doesn’t exist to you he can function however you’d like. You fail with this because you argue with a God you’ve created. You do yourself no favors because you are simply saying “This is fantasy and anything goes… I can do fantasy… blah”
Don’t create God for your arguments. Presume He does exist and then argue based on what’s going on right now, what’s scientifically proven, and what you know.
That my Atheistic friends is how you correctly argue against a Theist.
sirkolgate said: Don’t create God for your arguments. Presume He does exist and then argue based on what’s going on right now, what’s scientifically proven, and what you know. That my Atheistic friends is how you correctly argue against a Theist.
But if we 'presume that God exists' in order to debate with you - we'd no longer *be* athists so wouldn't *be* arguing with you - except about minute interpretations of Scripture.
Also (again) can I say that Science has very little to say on the God Question - except in a very roundabout manner. The God Question belongs firmly in the area of Philosophy *not* Science. Science by definition does not concern itself with the Supernatural and assumes (rightly in my opinion) that the Supernatural does not exist.
CK, I'm not asking you believe in God, just that you pretend to in order to see things from my point of view. That's all, and I don't think pretending is hard, I pretend to be atheist all the time.
You're 100% on the money with that statement about Science and Religion. Scientific fact is not really that pertinent to religion as religion tends to steer clear of defining the ‘physical’ world around us. My bible doesn’t say anything about molecular structure, physics vectors, chemistry compositions, or even biology. It’s focused primarily on providing some guidance on how to live my life, a history of my religion, and an understanding of the ‘key players’.
Religion is only ever argued correctly in the plane of philosophical reasoning. This of course can incorporate scientific knowledge and factual evidence, but it is an argument in reason.
The argument that you and Karlo touched on before in the “God must be amoral if he doesn’t follow ‘good Samaritan law’ and allows bad things to happen to good, innocent people that he can stop.” Is a philosophical argument that is one of the best arguments against God. It is kind of like the statement: “If God is all powerful then can he create an object which he can’t lift?” Implying that if he can’t he’s not all powerful, and if he can he is also not.
This however is not a paradox that merely exists because of the infinite nature of God. This is a very potent and clever argument against God’s capacity to be “All Good”.
This goes back to the ‘free will’ argument. If I was going to torture you, and God prevented me from doing so, then that would be an infringement of my ‘free will’. As I’ve stated before I don’t think God interferes ‘much’ with the world (at least its you can’t perceive it) but I believe that God primarily works in the ‘rules’ of our world when he does act on it.
Giving a soldier a premonition or some slightly enhanced sense in a battle so that he knows to move his comrade out of the way before a shell strikes, an ‘inkling’ someone gets to check a bush to find a baby abandoned, etc … That’s how I think God works.
Why main reason to believe this is because there is over whelming ‘wordly’ evidence and testimony from regular people, not necessarily always religious, that suggests that sometimes we seem to get extraordinarily ‘lucky’ in something that we needed to get lucky with. This is either for our own personal aid, or the aid of another.
For some reason God has made the choice to not be an active member of our world. He’s separated himself out and left us to ‘do as we would’.
That’s the answer to why he ‘doesn’t get invovled’.
That answer to the “How can he remain good?” is found only if you look at perspective. Me getting tortured and killed in this world with only an Atheist’s view is damn terrible. I’ve had my ‘right to life’ removed from someone else and suffered terribly at their hands. However, from a Christian view where this world is merely ‘temporary’ that’s still terrible, but it’s not permanent. And in the scheme of things even 20 years of torture followed by a violent death is nothing compared to an eternity of comfort. Against infinity that time is nothing.
It is like God gave us a 15 minute recess and we’re allowed to do whatever we want, but after the 15 minutes are up he’ll pick us up, clean off the dirt, and set us down as perfect as before it all started.
And finally to Karlo and the point that there are infinite ways to ‘make religion’ so why not believe whatever the hell you wanted.
My argument against this is simple. I don’t believe that any other religion is unique enough to command my attention. I’ve studied many, and they’re all very easily disdained. By me, this is, this is not to say that anyone from any other faith would not find mine silly.
I’ll use the Koran as an example. Mohammed, the ‘hero’ of this book is very much a hero. The story reads almost like a comic book with him magical ascending on the backs of human faced winged mounts, and it clearly portrays him in a very demanding and unquestionable might. He is also the one who authored the entire book. This is not even considering the ‘all good’ God who suggests that killing the infidels is the most assured way to heaven.
The ‘hero’ of the bible is Jesus, and he did rise from the dead, and he ascended to heaven. He also was tortured and killed by the very people who had supported him prior. His most prized apostle denied his very existence to complete strangers the night he was captured, and his message to us is simple “Believe that I died for you, and be kind to your fellow man.”
The Bible just makes sense to me, I can see the correlation amongst the stories and to me it seems very real. Then again this is my opinion.
To more directly answer your question Karlo I believe as I do because I choose to.
That’s all that life is about in the end. It’s choices, whether you be Atheist or Theist, Muslim or Jew, you still have choices and it’s based on those that your life progresses. If we perish at the end of life and are no more, or if we die and find ourselves caught up in some form of ‘afterlife’ (or reincarnation or whatever) then it may be on the choices that we made in life that we are judged, or it may be that we’ve got another set of choices to make and more paths to follow.
The one unifying fact is regardless of the path we chose we are never sure of the outcome. Unless we’ve got a picture and a brochure of what’s waiting us at the end, then we don’t know.
I've come to expect a higher lever of maturity from you.
Every once in a while, when with being told that I'm an mental gimp because I believe in God, it just feels good to play along. Anyway, I showed no more disrespect in my response than the cartoon showed for me, with it's implication that I'm intellectually infantile. My response merely made your taunt explicit.
Re: The one unifying fact is regardless of the path we chose we are never sure of the outcome. Unless we’ve got a picture and a brochure of what’s waiting us at the end, then we don’t know.
I think people do know. Since small brain lesions and other neurological insults remove memory and even people's entire personality, it's a pretty sound hypothesis that we won't survive death in our current state. I do agree with those who say that we shouldn't identify too closely with our physical state or our particularly mental state in each moment; we should aim to see life and meaning as something beyond our narrow egos. But one things for sure: these egos are not going to survive death--we don't need a brochure to tell us that.
laughing boy said: Every once in a while, when with being told that I'm an mental gimp because I believe in God, it just feels good to play along.
I can't recall saying that you're stupid. Actually I have said several times here and on other Blogs that belief (or otherwise) in God has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.
laughing boy said: Anyway, I showed no more disrespect in my response than the cartoon showed for me, with it's implication that I'm intellectually infantile.
Oh, I wouldn't call theism infantile. I'm guessing that a Freudian would say so but I've never been a fan of Sigmund. I personally would use the word primitive.
laughing boy said: That being said, I apologize for submitting such unworthy comments to your blog. I will be more mindful in the future.
Thanks. We may hold very different views on things but there's no reason that we can't be civilised about our clash of perspectives.
karlo said: But one things for sure: these egos are not going to survive death--we don't need a brochure to tell us that.
I can't recall saying that you're stupid. Actually I have said several times here and on other Blogs that belief (or otherwise) in God has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.
That's what you say, but your choice of cartoons seems to belie a different opinion, one you're unwilling to say explicitly in your own words but are perfectly willing to let others say for you.
OTOH, it is just a cartoon. If we can't have a little fun why bother?
laughing boy said: That's what you say, but your choice of cartoons seems to belie a different opinion, one you're unwilling to say explicitly in your own words but are perfectly willing to let others say for you.
I like my humour like my food - with a bit of bite to it. No doubt you'll like few (if any) of my religious cartoons. What do you think of my non-religious ones? I'd like to think they have bite too. I guess you don't object to them because they don't call your core beliefs into question?
But I say again, intellience has nothing to do with belief. Bright & dumb people believe. Bright and dumb people don't believe. Personally I think that religion is a dumb belief but that intelligent people just happen to believe it. There is, however, no causal link between a persons intelligence and their stance on the God question.
Karlo, you’re right that our conscience is a fragile thing. Our lives are fragile. If you operate a vehicle the chances of you being removed from existence in short order are good.
Here’s the thing though. You know we’re gone when we die just as assuredly as I know we’re not and for no more factual evidence than I do.
You can hypothesis your ‘exit’ on death by observing things such as coma, brain damage, and other applications in which science provides some data, but there is no data on death.
You hypothesis no soul because shaving off the first few millimeters of the frontal lobe will ‘reset’ your brain.
I hypothesis my soul because of my keenly observable ability to define myself uniquely as well as my range of emotion, interest, drive, and taste. None of these easily observable items are explained in science in any way that is satisfactory to me.
Science can’t say why I love the woman I love. Science can’t say why I prefer sweet and sour while another prefers hot. Science can’t say why I like this movie but dislike that one, or the range of emotions I may feel while watching either.
Science falls short on many things regarding the human mind. I am bi-polar and in the prognosis and treatment of my disorder I was exposed to the ‘best’ in which science had to offer on the study of the mind. It was a joke in ‘hit or miss’ techniques and drugs which cured one person while having an adverse affect on me.
You can lord a thing or two over me Atheist, but you can’t lord over me the understanding of death, or what makes us who we are. In that realm you tread as shakily as if you had just picked up my bible and tried to believe in it.
With that I’ll restate the MOST obvious.
Without your brochure you do NOT know what awaits you when you die. To claim you do is to cross over into my realm. And if you’re going to claim assurance in that which you have absolutely NO scientific evidence, then I caution you, for now you’re relying on faith.
CK karlo said: But one things for sure: these egos are not going to survive death--we don't need a brochure to tell us that.
Very true.
CK how do you know if this is true?
Truth is something many of us look for but never find, especially on the subject of death and afterlife.
Have you two claimed to have answered this question which has plagued mankind for thousands of years?
You know, there's a stereotype which make Atheists out to be pompous assholes who claim full understanding of everything... you want to claim more ownership of that stereotype or would you like to rephrase your rather ludicrous statements.
Let me HELP you.
Karl: “I claim, based on my opinion, that there is no afterlife.”
CK: “As I am an Atheist (which does not allow for afterlife silliness) I do bolster and agree with you Karlo. Bravo!”
That’s better.
Keep making up facts like that and you could probably find yourself a home in the US Senate or Congress.
Egos don't survive brain damage or Alzeimers. Does it then make sense to say that they survive death? Once again, how are we supposed to have a rational discussion if all reasons and evidence are disallowed since they imply dogmatism. The loss of egos that I'm referring to isn't my opinion--it's a medical fact.
Karlo, you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about physical illness in our physical world. That has no correlation to metaphysical or a soul.
My main caution to your argument is that Science doesn’t have anything more than a cursory understanding of how the brain functions. Brain surgery still requires the patient be awake in order to make sure that the ‘section’ the doctor is operating on does in fact control what they’re trying to fix, and this surgery is still only focused on nervous disorders, tremors and such.
Show me the operation that can remove my ‘religion’ and I’ll buy what you’re selling. Show me the gay man who can have the ‘operation’ to become straight, or vice versa. Show me the surgery that makes me more artistic or better at math or even just smarter.
You can do none of this.
We are clearly ‘defined’ in some sense and that is much more than science has an answer for. Even ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate can fully define what makes us who we are. DNA hasn’t unlocked those secrets either.
You can’t claim a panacea for the question of death. We do not exist in a vacuum of science where all we know is explained. Karlo, I understand what you’re saying and of course you could not except any other argument, your Atheistic beliefs don’t allow for afterlife so that’s that.
My belief doesn’t allow for ‘dead egos’ so I don’t accept your solution.
That’s perfectly acceptable, but you are wrong to think you can solve that question with your argument. Until you can use science to directly manipulate the human psyche then you are only generalizing.
Neuroscience is a fairly young science, but the finding that neurological events parallel thoughts is robust. I don't know of any study that has ever shown people engaged in all sorts of different cognitive tasks without corresponding differences in blood flow or electrical currents to different areas of the brain. I think a strict mind-body dualism is hard to maintain--even at this early stage in our knowledge of the brain.
Karlo, I agree and I do know what you mean. I was shown several pictures of the ‘manic’ mind versus the ‘normal’ mind after my bi-polar fiasco, and there are clear electric signals that correspond to the occurrence. I do not doubt the ‘brain/personality’ link that appears most evident.
I just wanted to hint at the inability of science to yet explicitly determine what is ‘us’ in all that. Think of your life, your abilities, your very core emotions, and I think you see that there’s something there that ‘can’ exist outside of science. Something that has not been ‘discovered’ yet because that body of ‘knowledge’ that such a ‘discovery’ would encompass would probably eclipse the entire combined learnings of all other science’s from all time.
I would be very saddened by that ‘discovery’ if it ever where to happen. Even if I was to lose my faith to that discovery, that wouldn’t be the sadness. That discovery would create an ability for us to understand ourselves to such a degree that I believe a ‘mystery’ would be destroyed that would impact us all. This is saying nothing of the ways in which people could abuse such knowledge.
I guess I just like some mystery in my life. Just like that video game that was such great fun till your friend told you how to get infinite lives, or ammo, or invincibility it could take some of the ‘fun’ out of life to be sure. I remember sitting in my Psychology 101 many years ago and thinking that what I was learning was bordering on information I don’t want to know.
I guess I just would rather not know the deepest inner workings of my own mind. I’d rather get a surprise once in a while.
However, as to the original argument. The belief that I carry over the existence of my soul is what it is. I believe as I do because that’s the choice that I made. I think your argument is strong Karlo, but don’t think I’m ignoring it. I just feel that knowledge you share reflects positively as advancement for our species, but I don’t see it as a destruction of my faith.
The reason I believe is part of that ‘ball’ of mystery I mentioned above, the one that science hasn’t cracked just yet. I think we should catch up to the ‘mainstream’ posts now, but I thank you for your witty discourse.
Cartoon Time.
39 comments:
That is a great one, CK! I love that you find these amazing "one picture-is-worth-a-thousand-words type posters...Smashing!
About Arnie...He was busy listening to Bushie put down a NOT SO VEILED swipe at the leaders of Louisianna....Oh The Humanity!!!! OY GEVALT, as we say in Yiddish!
Yeah, I don't know where you find 'em, but they hit the nail on the head!
Naomi said: About Arnie...He was busy listening to Bushie put down a NOT SO VEILED swipe at the leaders of Louisianna....Oh The Humanity!!!!
Well.. If I was the praying type [grin] I'd be sending up a few messages to the 'Big Guy' to keep you safe from all the fires & stuff. You are in my thoughts...
wunelle said: Yeah, I don't know where you find 'em, but they hit the nail on the head!
It's amazing what you can find with a Google images search... [grin]. I have extensive files.....
It's a bit alarming to think that more people believe in ghost than believe in evolution. It's also strange how often people's beliefs are in direct opposition to one another. Christians who believe in the resurrection (where everyone's supposed to jump out of their graves) have no trouble believing in ghosts (spirits who immediately survive the body after death). All said and done, I think we should have stuck with our faith in the Easter Bunny. At least he (or was it she?) brought us all gifts and candies consistently without too much fuss over our pecadilloes. Post Easter bunny cosmologies all seem to go downhill, to Santa who, like some Taoist deity, keeps a constant tally of our good and bad deeds, to the Christian god who is so insecure over someone not believing in him that he tortures them for all eternity.
karlo sez...Christians who believe in the resurrection (where everyone's supposed to jump out of their graves) have no trouble believing in ghosts (spirits who immediately survive the body after death).
I just a Kwistian wiff wee wittle bwain. Kan u pweeze expwain what u meen? Duz u fink dis is a....wait...I wook up da words...
(looking...cutting...pasting...)
logical inconsistency
Whew! Datza watta sillwabuls!
laughing boy said: I just a Kwistian wiff wee wittle bwain. Kan u pweeze expwain what u meen? Duz u fink dis is a....wait...I wook up da words...
Do I detect a loss of patience with us hard-headed atheists? I've come to expect a higher lever of maturity from you. We may disagree on some very fundamental issues but I don't think there is a need for that kind of response... It doesn't really do your case any favours.
Nonsense and superstition... those are two words that I quite often see on your blog CK in regards to belief in God. If I value your ideals but you do not value mine, then we are at an impasse, no?
I know that based on scientific reason, the collective cognizance of your intellectual peers, and all the great weight of your ‘understanding’ of the universe that a silly old book and a bunch of irritating ‘barriers to progress’ (Christians) is not deserving of any peaceable accord.
CK you say you want both types of posters here and that you enjoy theist posts. Is it just the angry ones you like?
I’d suppose, due to the un-theistic friendly sentiment offered that you propose to create the same atmosphere on your blogoshpere for Theists as you believe exists in the world against Atheists. I’m assuming this is untrue, since that’d be hypocritical, and something Atheists do despise being. Hurts the defense against us hypocrite Christians, you see.
To be less harsh I’d just say that since you get the benefit of having so MUCH scientific information to bolster your cause that you’d all do better, case wise, (Dawkins and Harris immensely so) to be much less emotional in your efforts against the Christians. Of course pure science & reason is boring and I doubt Dawkins or Harris would be as well off now if they hadn’t learned the same thing all those rich corrupt preachers have, emotion is power.
Karlo said: ... to the Christian god who is so insecure over someone not believing in him that he tortures them for all eternity.
Karlo, however, makes some very good points and this is one of the most succinct that I've ever seen.
I’ll choose to respond to a collected thought against religion that actually displays an understanding for something that is being taught in Churches today rather then the blanket ‘nonsense and superstition’ clause.
Karlo, what you’re hitting on is both what drives many people away from Christianity (because why would you feel welcome believing in such an entity as the one you describe) and also something that is fundamental to faith itself. If I’m believing in God simply because I don’t want to burn forever then I should quickly switch to your camp and raise the Atheist flag.
Since faith is a matter of belief and belief is a very complex and personal thing I can’t give you any more than my own perception. However, my perception is based on a lifetime of bible study coupled with memberships to a Lutheran, Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, and Non-denominational church. I’ve belonged to each of these for several years throughout my life. Currently I’m not much of a church goer, but I do not believe less in God. Church is just a collection place and I’ll be the first to admit that the problems with Christianity are more often found in the ‘leadership’ and not the ‘masses’.
Now, based on the rather ‘standard’ version of the bible (one that would be accepted at each of the above listed denominations) I’d say that you have to focus on the New Testament if you want to be ‘current’. Not to ‘pick what I like’ from the bible, because that’s not the point. Rather it’s clearly indicated in the name… New and Old. Following from the ‘New’ I would say we’re mainly instructed to live a life that is based on two pillars. One is being kind and a good example to those around you throughout your life (the Golden Rule) and the other which is believing that Christ was exactly that and his sacrifice was for us and to be thankful of that.
Now, while this would seem to enforce Karlo’s comment this is where I believe most ‘fire and brimstone’ Christians are incorrect. The bible does indicate that it is of great detriment to your judgment to come to Jesus (to believe he is your savior) and then leave him. Now if you look at this with something of a philosophical reasoning you can see that the inverse of this statement indicates that there must be some ‘degree’ to which people who are not believers are ‘better’ than those who believe and then throw it away.
If all nonbelievers burnt in Hell I highly doubt you could consider the ones that got there through never knowing Jesus would be any ‘better’ off than the other kind.
So, with just a little piece of scripture, and not even considering many other things that I’ve come to understand in faith, I would say that any Christian who leaves you with the impression that God is going to burn you just for not believing is not a very good Christian. ‘Judgment Day’ for all it’s hype and cliché is something someone with just a nominal understanding of the bible would believe in and it very clearly takes into consideration far more than whether or not you believe in God. Otherwise it’d not be so much a ‘Book of Life’ as a postcard, or maybe just a symbol on your left breast like a barcode for your soul that determined your fate.
I’ll kindly remind you all, as CK will note I’ve done a time or two before, that stereotypes cut deep from either side of the fence. The blue suited parishioner from the poster is a good example of this. I’m sure I could find several likely inciting and not very useful quips about Atheists that I could get a number of theists to stand around and laugh at with me. I guess I just have better things to do.
P.S.
Lady of the Hills I’ll send up a few ‘messages’ to the ‘Big Guy’ for you. My father works for the Department of Natural Resources and as such has fought several forest fires such as yours across the US so I know what it means to have loved ones exposed to such destruction.
sirkolgate said: Nonsense and superstition... those are two words that I quite often see on your blog CK in regards to belief in God.
Well... that *is* my opinion on the subject.
sirkolgate said: If I value your ideals but you do not value mine, then we are at an impasse, no?
That really depends on what you mean by 'value'. Do you *really* value my ideals? If so why? If I valued your ideals how would that change the tone of my Blog? Would I need to stop being critical of what I see as wrong-headed beliefs?
sirkolgate said: I know that based on scientific reason, the collective cognizance of your intellectual peers, and all the great weight of your ‘understanding’ of the universe that a silly old book and a bunch of irritating ‘barriers to progress’ (Christians) is not deserving of any peaceable accord.
Correct - except that my 'understanding' of the Universe is rather limited. Oh, and I'm rather sceptical about the idea of 'progress'too....
sirkolgate said: CK you say you want both types of posters here and that you enjoy theist posts. Is it just the angry ones you like?
Actually I prefer reasoned debate rather than heated argument. Theists in particular often get angry with me because I don't take their word for things and dispute the foundations of their beliefs. It's actually rather difficult (and surprisingly frustrating) even discussing basic concepts when two vastly different and opposing belief systems come into contact. Much of what we both take for granted the other side sees as sheer nonesense. No wonder we have difficulty communicating without ocassional fireworks.
sirkolgate said: I’d suppose, due to the un-theistic friendly sentiment offered that you propose to create the same atmosphere on your blogoshpere for Theists as you believe exists in the world against Atheists.
I'm actually astounded by some of the things I've heard atheists say on their Blogs regarding they way they have been treated. I have *never* felt in any way discriminated against because of my beliefs (or lack thereof). So I have no experience to draw on to create such an atmosphere here. I am, an will probably remain, very sceptical towards theism. This Blog is, and will probably remain, an uncomfortable place for theists to visit. I make no applogy for that. I am an atheist and proud of that fact. I am also happy to debate my beliefs with theists - but expect that any debate will be a two way street. If they can't stand the heat I can only suggest that they stay out of my kitchen. I will attempt to remain polite enough - having been brought up that way - but I retain the right to call bullshit on any argument that I think deserves the name.
sirkolgate said: To be less harsh I’d just say that since you get the benefit of having so MUCH scientific information to bolster your cause that you’d all do better, case wise, (Dawkins and Harris immensely so) to be much less emotional in your efforts against the Christians.
I wasn't aware that I was being particulary 'emotional'. I don't think that it's a word that would spring to mind if friends were asked to describe me [grin].
sirkolgate said: Of course pure science & reason is boring..
Quite the contrary actually....
sirkolgate said: emotion is power.
Actually I prefer "Knowledge is Power"
sirkolgate said: I’m sure I could find several likely inciting and not very useful quips about Atheists that I could get a number of theists to stand around and laugh at with me. I guess I just have better things to do.
I like cartoons - as you may have noticed. Some of them are even funny.... though many I post here also have a modicum of 'bite' attached.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. And I do apologize for sounding negative. That said, I think that if a person persues truth with an open mind (i.e., not starting from a specific position), the chances of their ending up with Christianity, when we take away cultural and historical factors, are approximately one over infinity. There is an infinite number of things that we can choose to "believe in", after all. If, on the other hand, we assume that events are held together by some sort of causal glue, Christianity seems extremely unlikely. For one thing, if God's goal was to be believed, why wouldn't he appear levitating on CNN each night. Or better yet, why doesn't he constantly appear levitating right next to me with a constant fountain of intermixed fire and ice shooting forth from his halo. Even a dense, slow-witted nonbeliever like myself would be willing to reconsider my beliefs in a causal universe if my experience directly contradicted it. To tell you the truth, though, theists' non-causal universe where everything occurs to the whim of a God whose mind we can't peer into strikes me as horrific. In such a universe, there's no set of events that would give me any information whatsoever. The omnipotent force(s) could at any minute choose to make things otherwise for no reason. God wouldn't even be constrained by his own promises. I find such a universe incredibly bizarre. Of course, most theists don't really follow their beliefs to their logical conclusions. I think most Christians imagine a powerful old man who emerges out of the clouds occasionally to cast a few lightning bolts into our causally-controlled world.
Well, I certainly got a lot of information back, thanks to both of you for the responses.
Now, let’s see if I can do the turn justice.
CK said:
That really depends on what you mean by 'value'. Do you *really* value my ideals? If so why? If I valued your ideals how would that change the tone of my Blog? Would I need to stop being critical of what I see as wrong-headed beliefs?
CK not only do I value what you think about religion and I would say that if we had a true ‘discourse’ of the subject I’d find much of relevance in your rebuttal of my faith. I am a man of ‘science’ and hopefully intelligent enough to reason as you do and to see your reasoning’s and follow your logic. I’d also honor you enough to do so.
I guess if you valued my ideals you’d not degrade them to ‘superstition’ and ‘nonsense’ because that simply removes the ability for me to debate anything from the table. What’s the point of me commenting if my views are partially based on ‘nonsense’ in your eyes?
As an Atheist you have it much harder than me. It’s easy for me to understand your POV if I understand science, however, for you to understand my POV requires a little more effort. We are not all brainwashed Zionists. Some of us achieved an understanding of our faith through some rather scientific methods of deduction and reasoning.
Your last question about whether you could still be ‘critical’ of my ‘wrong-headed’ beliefs is a bit juvenile. Of course I want you to be critical CK, what would be the point of having a debate if you couldn’t be critical? Writing something off as nonsense and then refusing to discuss it is arrogant.
We’ve talked this line before CK and you admit that you can not disprove my ‘nonsense’ and you did in this very response say you ‘have a rather limited understanding of the Universe’. I don’t say “Well, I don’t see why you can’t just believe.” So you shouldn’t be able to say “Religion is nonsense.”
I’ll make you a deal. When science can assert a more than candid knowledge of the emotional responses of the brain, the meaning of feelings, and the reason for love, then I shall allow you to call religion nonsense.
I see this trend in the Atheistic community of immediately referring to religion as ‘superstition’ and I find it a clever way of disassembling, but your argument is not as easy as you’d make it.
None of us know what happens when we die and there is no science that I know of which can explain why we are all so different and unique, even those who are identical twins raised in similar environments, while having some eerie connection, are still very much their own person.
Without knowing these important questions to what ‘makes us tick’ no one has any right and can lay any claim on the knowledge which my religion provides me. In this instance your guess is indeed ONLY as good as mine.
CK said:
I'm actually astounded by some of the things I've heard atheists say on their Blogs regarding they way they have been treated. I have *never* felt in any way discriminated against because of my beliefs (or lack thereof). So I have no experience to draw on to create such an atmosphere here. I am, an will probably remain, very sceptical towards theism. This Blog is, and will probably remain, an uncomfortable place for theists to visit. I make no applogy for that. I am an atheist and proud of that fact. I am also happy to debate my beliefs with theists - but expect that any debate will be a two way street. If they can't stand the heat I can only suggest that they stay out of my kitchen. I will attempt to remain polite enough - having been brought up that way - but I retain the right to call bullshit on any argument that I think deserves the name.
I’ve seen some of the other Atheists blogs and frankly I think some of them go ‘looking’ for negative responses. However, this is not to say that some Christians or any other religious people aren’t assholes. Believing in God does not equate to not having your head up your ass. I’m sorry that I wasn’t there because those people, especially if they were Christian, would have had some immediate emotional scaring because I have zero tolerance for jerks.
Call BS on stuff CK, but just realize that by creating an “Atheist Club House” you are even dampening your own argumentative skills. When you surround yourself by like minded individuals it becomes easier and easier to just get stuck in the same ‘rut’ of understanding.
CK said:
I wasn't aware that I was being particulary 'emotional'. I don't think that it's a word that would spring to mind if friends were asked to describe me [grin].
CK it’s emotion when you post posters like this last one. That’s not really a very ‘scientific’ poster, and I’d say that it’s clearly got an ‘agenda’. Call it what you will, but it’s not cold reason.
sirkolgate said: Of course pure science & reason is boring..
CK said the following regarding pure Science & Reason being boring…
Quite the contrary actually....
Contrary is exactly what you’re being. Good word.
Pure (note the use of the word P U R E) science and reason is exciting if you really want to know what the atomic weight of hydrogen is, but should you argue in it all the time without using a tone that would indicate all religious folk are idiots (as Harris does in his 10 myths/facts about Atheists your posted not long ago) it’s much less appealing to the masses. Argue in Pure Science and Reason and I will not bother you Atheist, argue with a tone and a clear agenda and I will stomp on your spin for what it is.
You see, that’s where I get my leverage when I can’t fight your facts, I can quite easily fight your agenda.
CK in reference to ‘emotion is power’ said:
Actually I prefer "Knowledge is Power"
Yes CK, knowledge is power, and so is emotional response. Whipping a crowd up into a frenzy has achieved all sorts of evil throughout time. Dawkins book posted on your blog as “The God Delusion” is a great way to piss people off, and to tickle those who are glad those people are getting pissed off. I guess “A Study on Why God Doesn’t Exist” is too tame for our famous antagonizer.
Karlo I will get to you. Sorry this one got long.
Karlo...
First off, I think your first logical foray is a sound one. Given the removal of all cultural, social, and historical events from a life, and given they are not predisposed to religion or not, what would bring them to Christianity?
I argue such an 'isolated' person would contribute a wellspring of knowledge to all the humanity driven sciences as this person would be that ‘blank slate’ from which many such hypothesis are founded, and it would give us a measure to test against to truly see what a ‘human disposition’ to religion (or many other things) would be.
But not to dodge your question, I’d argue from my ‘faith’ standpoint that if such a ‘pure being’ existed that we may see one of those rare things known as ‘miracles’ that would vastly enhance the ‘religious’ ratio from 1:Infinity to 1:1.
Reasoning strictly through logic with no allowance for faith I’d have to say our ‘blank slate’ would most likely reject religion if throughout their existence they were fed only pure science and reason, taught purely without bias to learn through empirical observation alone, and to not follow whim in any circumstance. However, I would argue that if several works of fiction be introduced including the bible and say not a single person would force that book upon the ‘blank’ but rather only set it there to be wholly unbiased and at least ALLOW our ‘blank’ a chance to be exposed (and I’d say add the Koran, and various other western and eastern philosophies and religious texts) that our ‘blank’ may surprise you.
*shrug* Best I can do on that matter.
I consider the question of “Why doesn’t God just appear so we all believe?” to be a rather easy one.
The question is not whether or not you believe, it is why you do. If God just appeared to all of us and asserted his presence could you say he’s really allowing us ‘free will’? I mean, if you knew God existed and he did appear next to you in a boisterous mass of fire, ice and lightning, what would say anything you did from that point was specifically ‘yours’?
What point would there be in Judgment if everyone knew without a doubt it was coming?
We’d all be perfect angels even if we were black as sin in our hearts. And after all this when everyone was admitted into heaven what would these ‘dark’ souls do now that they were free from the fiasco of death?
No, I think of God not as you’ve portrayed him. He is not crazy, His mind is mysterious but His ways are not all hidden. You see there is a great filter in the mystery that He is. People have to chose to be good people without knowing and therin lies the beauty. For if I was to clean your house and afterwards you paid me $100 and another was to demand $100 and after being guaranteed the funds cleaned your house, who would you prefer to call friend?
A popular atheistic view of God is an angry and jealous child. You even indicated a feeling of ‘terror’ at knowing there might exist an entity which could obliterate all reason in a breath. That’s not unlike the feeling of those few prophets and apostles who did actually come to know that there was a God in a way similar to your expected ‘belief inciting’ incident.
What most Atheists focus on are natural disasters, disease, plagues, horrible things that happen to humanity, and multitudes of bad and ‘evil’ things that continually plague us. Why would a God allow these things to happen if he was loving, knowing, and all powerful?
Well, I’d argue that maybe what happens here, albeit terrible and heart wrenching, may not be the ‘picture’ that He’s seeing. I mean, after all, what is 100 years of suffering and hard life only to die in the dirt to be given an eternal life lasting forever.
*shrug* It’s really all myth to you folk. I can’t imagine how I can argue this to someone who doesn’t believe.
Here… let me try one more thing.
Bible says we were created in God’s ‘image’. Now you can take this to mean we ‘look’ like him, but you can also take this to mean that we share other qualities that he does. Perhaps emotion… as is evident in large part in the old testament.
If we think about what we personally know about emotion, then we attach to that the other biblical indicators that God is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful and then we consider that we are all like ‘children’ to him.
Let me ask you this… what suffering can we know if He is aware of all our suffering, all our pain and everything we do terrible to each other at all times?
Now I ask you, why would a lake of fire be a possible end to someone who destroys the lives of others? Is it perhaps that there is a justice at work that we may just be able to understand when we look at things on this sort of ‘macro’ scale?
So why doesn’t he just appear, make everything good now, and call it a day?
I can only suppose it has something to do with ‘free will’ and that above all that binds His hands. We have an environment that we can control very nicely. We don’t freeze in the winter, we don’t fry in the summer, we jet around this planet like it’s as big as our backyard, and will still grow, strive and prosper. We have all this science not to disprove God, but to make the most of what we have. It’s always what life has been about, and it is a fine quality for us to have.
You can have both science and religion Karlo. There is nothing that forbids me from science, it’s just knowing that science handles the here and now, and religion handles the later. I find great solace in that knowledge, not that I’m ‘living for death’ but just that as screwed up as everything is here that it’s really not the way it was ‘supposed’ to be. I’m not deluded, I simply refuse to take away my belief when there’s no reason to. Surprisingly faith can coincide with evolution and big-bang and your ‘causal’ universe because the bible isn’t really all that concerned with explaining those things. The bible focuses primarily on ethics, morality, and how to live a good life.
I’m the Christian to which the Atheist has no argument. I will accept all your science and your reasoning if it’s factual, logical and accurate, but I will believe in God.
I don't see why God's making his existence obvious would destroy human free will. And regarding the last part of your argument, I don't think science can be mixed with theism. If an omniscient God exists, than God causes everything, in which case we don't live in a world of facts. I'm not claiming that this is impossible. But if it's true, "knowledge" in the normal sense of the word (in the sense of seeing the fabric that connects events in the world) can't exist: all there is is belief, which can at times, coincidentally be correct. As for the 1 over infinity problem, I think you side-step the issue. Those blank slates in a blank slate world who abandon science don't rush out to become Christians or Muslims, they end up believing one of the infinite possible cosmologies that human dreams can imagine. Since the university isn't fundamentally a causal universe, there's nothing to lead them to the truth.
One final detail: there's no reason to lump Buddhism in with the other religions. The Buddha believed in causality and in fact thought it was a central element in people's "right view" regarding reality. He also didn't believe that there were gods or divine beings standing outside of causality.
Some how "universe" became "university." It's toooo late. I think small demon is corrupting my posts.
sirkolgate... Thanks for your long post. It does seem that your answer to many of Karlo's questions falls back on the idea of faith. The need for faith is why God is hidden from us, the reason why there is evil in the world and why we have been given free-will. If we did not need faith there would be no problem with the idea of living in a perfect world where God appears to each of us in person whenever we or He feels the need. But what is Religion without faith...?
sirkolgate said: A popular atheistic view of God is an angry and jealous child.
That pretty much sums Him up in the OT anyway!
sirkolgate said: We’d all be perfect angels even if we were black as sin in our hearts. And after all this when everyone was admitted into heaven what would these ‘dark’ souls do now that they were free from the fiasco of death?
But God can see into the 'hearts of men' - so that would never happen right?
sirkolgate said: what suffering can we know if He is aware of all our suffering, all our pain and everything we do terrible to each other at all times?
So God suffers more than we do - and this makes *our* suffering Ok? I think not.
sirkolgate said: why would a lake of fire be a possible end to someone who destroys the lives of others? Is it perhaps that there is a justice at work that we may just be able to understand when we look at things on this sort of ‘macro’ scale?
How exactly is suffering for eternity any kind of justice - no matter what the crime? Surely justice should be reasonable & proportionate in order to be justice at all?
sirkolgate said: It’s really all myth to you folk. I can’t imagine how I can argue this to someone who doesn’t believe.
I have the greatest of difficulty arguing with people who *do* believe. [grin]
sirkolgate said: You can have both science and religion Karlo.
But only if they both stay on their sides of the 'fence'.
sirkolgate said: There is nothing that forbids me from science, it’s just knowing that science handles the here and now, and religion handles the later.
So... God does not or cannot intervene in the 'here & now'?
sirkolgate said: Surprisingly faith can coincide with evolution and big-bang and your ‘causal’ universe because the bible isn’t really all that concerned with explaining those things.
Probably because the authours of The Bible didn't know anything about these things... [grin].
sirkolgate said: The bible focuses primarily on ethics, morality, and how to live a good life.
That's certainly *one* view point.
sirkolgate said: I will accept all your science and your reasoning if it’s factual, logical and accurate, but I will believe in God.
Does that mean any science/reason that contradicts the existence of God could not be 'factual, logical or accurate'?
karlo said: I don't see why God's making his existence obvious would destroy human free will.
Ditto. You would still have a choice regarding what you actually *did* following the certainty that God existed.
karlo said: I don't think science can be mixed with theism. If an omniscient God exists, than God causes everything, in which case we don't live in a world of facts.
I totally agree. The existence of God and the world of science are mutually exclusive. If God exists & can change anything in the Universe as He desires then scientific endeavour is impossible.
karlo said: there's no reason to lump Buddhism in with the other religions. The Buddha believed in causality and in fact thought it was a central element in people's "right view" regarding reality. He also didn't believe that there were gods or divine beings standing outside of causality.
Very true. In a real sense Buddhism isn't a religion at all.
CK in italics:
sirkolgate... Thanks for your long post. It does seem that your answer to many of Karlo's questions falls back on the idea of faith. The need for faith is why God is hidden from us, the reason why there is evil in the world and why we have been given free-will. If we did not need faith there would be no problem with the idea of living in a perfect world where God appears to each of us in person whenever we or He feels the need. But what is Religion without faith...?
I’m going to respond to this one having already commented everything else. CK you just don’t think faith matters. It doesn’t matter what I tell you you’re still going to think it’s a glorified ‘hoax’.
I went out on an edge with that lengthy post and I showed a lot more heart than maybe I should have because the entire purpose of that treatise was to try to inform you that I thought God did in fact love us, that He doesn’t get much involved because he wants us to do it on our own (just as any good parent would) and He wants us to come to him because we want to, not because we saw him on the 9’o’clock news saving the orphanage.
But God can see into the 'hearts of men' - so that would never happen right?
Sure it would. Christian faith teaches that we are judged by ‘deed’ and not by what we ‘think’. Muslim faith believes that every good/bad thought as well as good/bad deed is ‘balanced’ at the end.
So given Christian ‘rules’ God would allow people in to heaven who managed to behave (knowing that He was in fact there watching) in life and then they could do as they pleased for eternity.
So God suffers more than we do - and this makes *our* suffering Ok? I think not.
So it’s a contest of suffering is it? That’s rather off the mark even for you CK. I’m just trying to unvilify my deity. Almost every atheist argument wants him to remove all suffering and yet let us maintain a very healthy control of our destinies. What do you want? Because I guarantee that once He started helping everyone there’d be a few people unhappy with the outcome. Or maybe if you throw a tantrum because you didn’t get your way He should help you too.
How exactly is suffering for eternity any kind of justice - no matter what the crime? Surely justice should be reasonable & proportionate in order to be justice at all?
Another very common misinterpretation of ‘cliché’ scripture… in the bible the only mention of hell is a ‘lake of fire’ in to which souls ‘perish’. Perish is oddly a word that indicates a ceasing to exist. Seeing as how this is what you Atheists believe in anyways there’s nothing unjust about it.
I don’t want to bore you with the details, but I guarantee that any judgment handed down from God is what you’d call ‘perfection in judgment’. I mean, who else can judge but the one who knows absolutely everything about everything.
I have the greatest of difficulty arguing with people who *do* believe. [grin]
Yes, and I have greatest difficulty arguing with people who can’t climb over the ‘obstacle’ of their own point of view. =)
But only if they both stay on their sides of the 'fence'.
Not really CK, they don’t overlap because they can’t. I wish you’d take a few minutes to understand this sometime, but science and religion aren’t on ‘separate sides of the fence’. They are two different perspectives of the same universe in which we live.
You chose to reject religion because you can’t use science to explain it. I chose to accept science because it doesn’t threaten my faith and makes fine sense.
So... God does not or cannot intervene in the 'here & now'?
Sure he can, and does. People tend to call these things ‘miracles’, but I don’t want to bore you with ‘fanatics’.
Probably because the authours of The Bible didn't know anything about these things... [grin].
What did they need to know? They weren’t writing a science textbook.
Does that mean any science/reason that contradicts the existence of God could not be 'factual, logical or accurate'?
Sure CK, contradict away. I will listen. You’ve already said in your own words you can’t disprove God, are you going to step over that statement now and contradict yourself? Not a good way to win an argument on contradiction unless you’re set on showing examples.
Karlo said: I don't see why God's making his existence obvious would destroy human free will.
I’m sorry man, I went for the argument that I’d give a bunch of people who already kinda believed in God. Let me get out my little hammer and break my ‘only in case of emergency’ glass on my ‘Hard Core Atheist’ debate extinguisher and see what I can do.
God making His existence known would destroy free will. Why? Well, considering what God is being that he’s all knowing and all powerful he’d be something of a celebrity. Everyone who was anyone would try to put in some ‘good face’ for the ‘big guy’ and maybe ‘earn’ something. The world would turn upside down as people tried to buy His favor.
I think what you’re considering is ‘free will’ in general. Going over to the desk and picking up a glass of water and drinking it as a matter of ‘free will’. That’s fine, but there’s also a ‘broad’ definition of free will (especially in God’s case) where presence alone would ‘influence’ people to do things a certain way. That application of ‘influence’ is a destruction of ‘free will’.
Even if He immediately withdrew after his ‘cameo’ there would be such a ripple in the way people behaved. Can you imagine church attendance alone?
Sure, there would be those who would go on living, but there would be a complete change.
Karlo said: And regarding the last part of your argument, I don't think science can be mixed with theism. If an omniscient God exists, than God causes everything, in which case we don't live in a world of facts. I'm not claiming that this is impossible. But if it's true, "knowledge" in the normal sense of the word (in the sense of seeing the fabric that connects events in the world) can't exist: all there is is belief, which can at times, coincidentally be correct.
This is another cliché in that God causes everything. I used to believe this and my wife pointed out to me that it’s not true. God doesn’t CAUSE a tornado to ravish a string of towns. God didn’t CAUSE hurricane Katrina.
You must think of the world as a machine. After all it very much is, a very powerful, and infinitesimally intricate, continually self perpetuating machine. If you created a lawn mower and some kid ran over his foot did you CAUSE the lawn mower to destroy that child’s foot?
Nope. Just as this ‘machine’ around us functions according to rules that have always been there and that we’ve discovered, so to does God remove himself from it’s workings. See creation is so tunneled in on. God creates this and that, but no one ever says God created science. Those rules, effects, molecules, atoms… etc… etc.
How does His ability to change those rules cause it to be ‘bad’ or ‘cease to be scientific’? He clearly isn’t changing them all that much. Planetary movements have been traced for thousands of years and those old stone monuments that once told time still do.
Just as God isn’t going to expose himself on CNN he’s not going to suddenly change the coefficients of friction and gravity. That’s that ‘angry kid of the OT’ that CK keeps going on and on about. Try reading the NEW testament CK (yeah, the NEW one, not the OLD one).
The bible stresses above all the God is all knowing and all powerful. This means He’s much smarter than you or I. It also means that He most likely knows what’s best for us, knows how best to handle the universe that He created, and probably knows how to make a mean apple pie.
But you don’t believe, so why worry about it? I do and I like it, so I keep believing. Sue me.
Sirkolgate said...
"God making His existence known would destroy free will. Why? Well, considering what God is being that he’s all knowing and all powerful he’d be something of a celebrity."
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that most Christians deep down in their hearts really aren't sure and so they don't try to curry favor with God. If they are sure (as I'm sure many are, having blindly accepted what those around them believe), how is their belief somehow better than if God had made his existence more obvious?
"...there’s also a ‘broad’ definition of free will (especially in God’s case) where presence alone would ‘influence’ people to do things a certain way. That application of ‘influence’ is a destruction of ‘free will’."
From this it would follow that Jesus destroyed human free will by appearing before people. At any rate, influence only destroys free will to the extent that it eliminates choice. Even if God were to appear before all of us constantly, there would be those of us who still decided to not be Christians. Isn't this precisely the choice Satan made? Does Satan's knowledge of God's existence destroy Satan's free will so that Satan is no more than an automaton?
"Even if He immediately withdrew after his ‘cameo’ there would be such a ripple in the way people behaved. Can you imagine church attendance alone? Sure, there would be those who would go on living, but there would be a complete change."
So God's worried about the infrastructure implications of sudden surges in church attendance. As the song says: Hmmmm Hmmm Hmmmm...
"This is another cliché in that God causes everything. You must think of the world as a machine."
To the extent the world's knowable, events follow a pattern (i.e., causality).
"If you created a lawn mower and some kid ran over his foot did you CAUSE the lawn mower to destroy that child’s foot?"
The point I'd like to make here is that if we live in a world where causal forces really don't explain many things, knowledge becomes impossible. If you conduct an experiment and I'm able to walk into the room at any point when you're not looking and rearrange things, what possible interpretation can you give to your experimental results. You might find the example odd but this is precisely the world we live in if theism or any dualist belief in other-worldly forces is accepted. We'll never know if any experimental outcome is wholly or partially influenced by some other-worldly force and we'll never know anything about the other-worldly force (since the same experimental limtiations apply).
"How does His ability to change those rules cause it to be ‘bad’ or ‘cease to be scientific’? He clearly isn’t changing them all that much."
How in the world would anyone know what was changed. Maybe God decided to bury a bunch of dinosaur bones just to amuse people. How would you know? Are you able to peer into the mind of God?
"Try reading the NEW testament CK (yeah, the NEW one, not the OLD one)."
Like I said, no knowledge is possible in a theistic scenario so why does it matter what I read. If you're right, I might as well believe . . . in anything.
"The bible stresses above all the God is all knowing and all powerful. This means He’s much smarter than you or I. It also means that He most likely knows what’s best for us."
How do you know that God isn't evil? Couldn't the world also be explained by assuming that there's an evil demon who fools people into behaving altruistically and then punishes the do-gooders while giving the bad people everlasting life? If we can't peer into the mind of God and if we don't have knowledge, we can't know anything. This is the problem with otherworldly sorts of explanations in a nutshell.
sirkolgate said: CK you just don’t think faith matters. It doesn’t matter what I tell you you’re still going to think it’s a glorified ‘hoax’
That's pretty much true. I know that faith matters to many other people - just not to me. I'm too much of a sceptic and a cynic to accept most things on faith alone.
sirkolgate said: So it’s a contest of suffering is it? That’s rather off the mark even for you CK.
That was my 'take' on what you meant. I presumed that since God sees *all* suffering and not just the stuff we see that He is more deserving of our love/respect.
sirkolgate said: Seeing as how this is what you Atheists believe in anyways there’s nothing unjust about it.
I fully expect to 'perish' when I die. Hell though is often talked about as a place of *eternal* torment. This cannot be a just desert for anyone - no matter what their 'crimes'.
sirkolgate said: Yes, and I have greatest difficulty arguing with people who can’t climb over the ‘obstacle’ of their own point of view.
Oh, I can certainly see your PoV and to some extent appreciate & understand it. I just happen to believe that you're wrong (as you do me).
sirkolgate said: science and religion aren’t on ‘separate sides of the fence’. They are two different perspectives of the same universe in which we live.
..and there we must disagree again. Also - if that is the case then why do some theists attack Darwin with such fervour? Because it (apparently) goes against their religious beliefs. Some theists at least singularly fail to reconcile the two magisteria.
sirkolgate said: You chose to reject religion because you can’t use science to explain it.
Actually I have said many times that I reject religion because there is no evidence to support either its foundations nor its conclusions. Also science *can* indeed 'explain' religion - just not to the satisfaction of theists!
sirkolgate said: Sure he can, and does. People tend to call these things ‘miracles’, but I don’t want to bore you with ‘fanatics’.
I agree with karlo that science cannot exist in a Universe which allows 'miracles' to happen.
sirkolgate said: I will listen. You’ve already said in your own words you can’t disprove God, are you going to step over that statement now and contradict yourself?
It is indeed very difficult to disprove the existence of God - maybe even impossible. It is also virtually impossible to disprove the existence of unicorns or the Easter buuny.
sirkolgate said: That’s that ‘angry kid of the OT’ that CK keeps going on and on about.
Really...? I 'keep going on about' the God of the OT? Anyway - wasn't He always wrathful and jealous.... He certainly appeared to have calmed down a lot by the time of the NT. Almost like it was a different God.
sirkolgate said: This means He’s much smarter than you or I. It also means that He most likely knows what’s best for us, knows how best to handle the universe that He created.
So we should trust His judgement no matter what happens. Its all for the best... We're back to faith again aren't we?
karlo said: The point I'd like to make here is that if we live in a world where causal forces really don't explain many things, knowledge becomes impossible.
I've been reading some philosophy recently which basically says that we can't draw an infference from any cause to any effect and that any such belief is unsupportable. Putting that aside for one moment [grin] I agree that if God can change the rules whenever He wishes then scientific knowledge - based on repeatable experimental results - becomes impossible because you never know if the rules have been interfered with at any point.
karlo said: How do you know that God isn't evil? Couldn't the world also be explained by assuming that there's an evil demon...
Ah, the heresy of Gnosticism.... [grin].
karlo said: If we can't peer into the mind of God and if we don't have knowledge, we can't know anything. This is the problem with otherworldly sorts of explanations in a nutshell.
Hence the need to have faith - lots of faith....
Karlo, given your example of Satan who knows of God’s existence and yet behaves contrary, I’d say that you’re correct. He is not an automaton, and neither would any of us should God make a ‘visit’.
The way I’m using the term ‘free will’ in this argument is flawed. We can still have free will in the presence of a creator. Of course we can because we can always chose unless that ability to chose has been removed.
However, I will defend the argument because what I am referring to is the “Free Will” to believe or not believe. If He were here and in your face then you’d no long have the “Free Will” to make a choice to believe. You’d believe in God as you believe in water. There it is and you accept it.
Now this is highly contested in the previous posts as well; the reason for belief is not important. You don’t assign any value to the ‘believing’ it is simply ‘following the masses’ and there’s no reason it matters.
In my eyes there is a value to belief. The fact that I believe without evidence or proof is not a weakness. You see that attribute as a fallacy, a corruption in reason, and a lack of common sense. I was merely trying to describe the reason there’s value, but that’s all conceptual. If you don’t value the currency of my reasoning then I won’t be able to buy any respect with it.
Why is there value to believing in God without knowing through sensory perception? There is value in the same way there is value if we meet as strangers and I believe something you tell me. I can not know that what you say is true based on anything scientific, but yet I believe. I may be gullible or naive, but I am also trusting. While I, the believer, could end up in trouble, you as the person who has nothing to lose from the exchange reap a benefit from my trust. If you are a kind person and not out to hurt me then most likely you will appreciate my trust and from that there is value for me.
My belief is intrinsically better than the belief of someone who actually has to ‘witness’ to believe, because my belief is based on trust, while the other person’s belief is based on fact. The logical value of the belief is the same, since in equations they would both be equal to ‘believing in something’, but there’s a perceived weight to believing in something simply because you want to, not because you were handed the truth.
Karlo I can’t peer into the mind of God, and I don’t know his movements, but I trust that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s(squared) and I’d bet a lot of money on that. Why is it that the existence of a God makes you so nervous? Why are you so sure that if there would be a God that he’d want to wreck such havoc?
Karlo this leads to your point on an ‘inverse’ consideration of faith. Should I believe in a God why not believe he is evil, since there is no scientific fact upon which I base my claim he’s good then the contrary answer is equally as possible.
This had me laughing Karlo and I thank you for that. It helped me understand the true breadth of the gaping chasm between us. I am not saying it’s a foolish statement, quite the contrary your entire response was brilliant.
I believe that God because of my understanding of the bible. I believe He is good because of my life’s experiences and there is no doubt in my mind otherwise. Evil is by its nature selfish and destructive. If you strapped ultimate power to evil I doubt you’d get any order to anything and I’d imagine that our lives would be far more like the movies and less like they are. I also don’t think an evil God could possibly remove himself from view, but maybe your definition of evil is different than mine.
The ‘problem’ with otherworldly explanations in a nutshell is that we have reached a stage in our ‘evolution’ that doesn’t allow for a lot of ‘faith’. We don’t trust each other much and we trust everything else even less. Cynical bunch of bastards the lot of us.
Funny thing is, we take a lot of garbage on trust that we probably shouldn’t. Wikipedia is an excellent example of this. As much as I love the Wiki, there’s still a good chance you’re getting someone else’s BS (and I’m not talking their Bachelors in Science).
Most of us are so far removed from what we’re ‘told’ that someone at the base level could be feeding us just what they want. But that sort of conspiracy is more CK’s department than mine.
In response to CK I’d just like to say that it is true that a lot of ‘typical’ arguments against Atheistic reasoning from Theists is rather ‘small minded’ and it often tends to get overly emotional. Emotion is a rather strong part of faith and because of the conviction that people tend to have they are defensive, and they get angry.
I don’t think it’s correct, but it tends to happen to religious people who try to attack what they usually don’t fully understand. That and they rarely consider the cool casual response to their attack coming back and aggravating them further.
Reasoning scientific philosophers on the other hand are generally more low-key. You yourself CK are a fine example. Most times when you show frustration it’s merely in response to someone else being irrational and oft times rude.
In lieu of that I’d like to say that I try hard to visualize that rift between us so I know what parts of my ‘argument’ will actually mean anything to you. If I just hurl scripture then I might as well throw myself into the rift because I’m not making a dent. The only hope I can have at defeating an atheistic argument is to calmly use reasoning to the best extent that I can (given my lack of factual evidence to contend with) and to stick religiously (Ha, pun!) to the one book that holds weight merely because it’s what helped teach me why to believe.
If I quote bible I will quote it correctly and no just hurl incorrect cliché like the “Eternal Torment” gloom and doom.
In parting let me just say that science can exist with God and his occasional miracle as long as the consistency of science maintains its cohesion. Science is after all a human invention and is very prone to rework. I’d argue we’ve made many more ‘revisions’ to science than God has and I assume it will continue that way as we learn.
To say that because miracles exist science is worthless is foolish. You must see this. Science is tied to what we know to be true based on studies and empirical experiments that those before us have performed. The knowledge is proven to be sound in many areas and becomes stronger with each advance forward.
That a diety exists and can disrupt this ‘system’ doesn’t make it invalid. It simply makes the diety more than the system.
Therein lies the paradox of using any evidence of science to argue the existence of God. You are using a system that doesn’t ever concern itself with God ever, at any point. If He doesn’t exist in the system than how can you use it against Him?
Throwing away that I’m religious just look at one thing. If God did exist He would not exist within Science. God would exist in a ‘spiritual/metaphysical’ context that disregarded every law, hypothesis, study, and discovery that created the body that is ‘science’. Just that He existed would remove him from that body. However, there is nothing that says He would do anything to destroy ‘our’ science (it is in fact OURS, not His).
And as to God in the OT being wrathful and full of jealousy… remember that the Bible was written by men. God may have authored the bible, but he allowed man to transcribe it. It is from the perception of man that we see God’s emotion in the Old Testament. The only reason that view changes in the New Testament is because now we’re seeing the acts of God through Jesus’ teachings. Given my faith he was a bit ‘more’ informed and carried some extra insight that those original authors did not have.
Also, and more historically, the Old Testament stretches back ages before the New Testament was written. We don’t know that nature of those who lived then. They were most likely vastly different from the relatively civilized dwellers of the last stages of BC. Even with the age of the New Testament approaching two millennium, we are learned of those who lived in that time. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and many others are part of what created our present society. We share much more with the men of that era than we share with the hunters and gatherers of the ancient times.
That is why the OT God is not someone you should use as your ‘model’ for God. To do so is to argue against a diety that even I don’t believe in. At least argue over the correct God and to do that I’d recommend that you ‘catch yourself’ up in my PoV as much as I’ve caught myself up in yours.
I think you can see I’m intelligent enough to know science and philosophies of the current era. So have a foundation on which to build the point of view that you use. If you only ever had a cursory reading of the New Testament or you have forgotten most of it because it’s been so long… I suggest you read it so that you may be able to better argue against me. You should at least honor my one record as I honor the plentitudes of yours.
sirkolgate said...
"You don’t assign any value to the ‘believing’ it is simply ‘following the masses’ and there’s no reason it matters. In my eyes there is a value to belief."
For those who believe in Apollo (or for believers in evil deities), is there still a value to belief? Wouldn't you agree that Satan worshippers would be better off in they were unable to believe?
"If you don’t value the currency of my reasoning then I won’t be able to buy any respect with it."
I don't see how we can "reason" about "belief" if the belief doesn't have sort of logical or empirical foundation. About all we can do, it seems to me, is state our beliefs. The act of "reasoning" involves stating "reasons" that have "grounds". Belief, by itself, doesn't have any reasons.
"Why is there value to believing in God without knowing through sensory perception? There is value in the same way there is value if we meet as strangers and I believe something you tell me."
I think there are very sound logical and empirical reasons for believing some people (and disbelieving others). I don't consider this blind faith. I didn't say anywhere that we need to have direct experience of everything. In reality, we rarely do. But we still have good reasons when we look at the world for believing that it's a certain kind of world (i.e., a world of causal forces).
"My belief is intrinsically better than the belief of someone who actually has to ‘witness’ to believe, because my belief is based on trust, while the other person’s belief is based on fact."
You may be right in saying that some of us might arrive at truth more easily by believing someone else who has seen truth. But at some point, someone must have seen or understood something or we end up with an infinite regress. That said, I think there's good reason to believe that many people are wrong about many things. I choose to use the power of my own mind to sort things out and get at truth. There's too much at stake to rely solely on what my community or parents happened to believe.
"Why is it that the existence of a God makes you so nervous?"
I'm quite open to the possibility that the universe might, in many ways, be radically different than I understand it. But I do find it upsetting if all knowledge is impossible. If God exists, then for all we know, he created me two seconds ago with all my memories intact and will make me disappear two seconds in the future. In such a world, even the shifting sands under our feet cease to exist.
"Why are you so sure that if there would be a God that he’d want to wreck such havoc?"
How do you know he wouldn't? The truth is, we both don't know and can't know.
"I believe that God because of my understanding of the bible. I believe He is good because of my life’s experiences and there is no doubt in my mind otherwise."
For some people, life can be quite horrific and for others not. Looking at the world as it is, all evidence would suggest that God(s) if he/she/it/they existed, is/are amoral--he does whatever he does without any concern at all for the balance of human suffering. Even your average good person living anywhere in the world (and given enough power), would cure the sick child and banish the torturer of the innocent. It's hard to imagine a God that's anything at all like us who fails to do even this much. If a human being clearly had the power to save millions from suffering and didn't lift a finger, we not only would be repulsed, we'd probably toss the unfeeling fellow in jail. Some states (Alaska with its good Samaritan laws) even consider such behavior a crime.
"The ‘problem’ with otherworldly explanations in a nutshell is that we have reached a stage in our ‘evolution’ that doesn’t allow for a lot of ‘faith’. We don’t trust each other much and we trust everything else even less. Cynical bunch of bastards the lot of us."
I don't think that those who don't believe in God and don't rely on faith are cynical. Many strike me as extremely idealistic. I even consider myself to be on the highly idealistic end of the spectrum.
"Wikipedia is an excellent example of this. As much as I love the Wiki, there’s still a good chance you’re getting someone else’s BS (and I’m not talking their Bachelors in Science)."
Actually, they did a study on this a few years back and Wikipedia came out in pretty much a dead heat against all the hard-bound encyclopedias. I guess the old dusty bibles of information don't do much better than the average wiki netizen at conducting research. The study did find that all encyclopedias contained far too many errors.
sirkolgate said: In my eyes there is a value to belief. The fact that I believe without evidence or proof is not a weakness.
I think that is a *huge* weakness.
sirkolgate said: My belief is intrinsically better than the belief of someone who actually has to ‘witness’ to believe, because my belief is based on trust, while the other person’s belief is based on fact.
I found this hard to believe - actually I was totally bowled over by this statement. You are saying that belief without proof or evidence is *superior* to belief with evidence or proof. Well, I must say that if I'm ever in court I do hope that you or people who think like you are not on my jury!
Of course if you have proof or evidence for something you no longer need to believe in it - you *know* it. But to believe things without any evidence - that's amazing.
sirkolgate said: The ‘problem’ with otherworldly explanations in a nutshell is that we have reached a stage in our ‘evolution’ that doesn’t allow for a lot of ‘faith’.
We have learnt especially over the last 200-300 years that reasonable scientific explanations *actually* explain stuff and don't require faith to make sense of things. What I stiff find surprising is the number of people who still fall back on faith of various kinds.
sirkolgate said: We don’t trust each other much and we trust everything else even less. Cynical bunch of bastards the lot of us.
Actually we're a gulliable bunch of bastards who are simply not cynical nor sceptical enough.
sirkolgate said: But that sort of conspiracy is more CK’s department than mine.
Huh? I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. Most of them are fantasist BS.
sirkolgate said: Emotion is a rather strong part of faith and because of the conviction that people tend to have they are defensive, and they get angry.
Indeed they do - I've been on the receiving end of that anger more than once!
sirkolgate said: Reasoning scientific philosophers on the other hand are generally more low-key. You yourself CK are a fine example. Most times when you show frustration it’s merely in response to someone else being irrational and oft times rude.
Thanks. But why do you say Reasoning *scientific* philosophers? You mean as opposed to theistic philosophers?
sirkolgate said: If I just hurl scripture then I might as well throw myself into the rift because I’m not making a dent.
Indeed. People have made that mistake before. Quoting scipture at me makes my eyes glaze over and I start yawning. Quoting the Bible in any kind of debate with me is worse than pointless - because as far as I'm concerned its meaningless.
sirkolgate said: In parting let me just say that science can exist with God and his occasional miracle as long as the consistency of science maintains its cohesion.
But miracles - and Gods ability to change the Rules - actually destroy that cohesion. If we do an experiment 100 times and get the same result its a pretty fair indication that we know something and can generalise from that. But if because of God's intervention experiments 101 - 200 give a different result then our confidence is shattered. Under these conditions we can *never* know for sure how any experiment will turn out - thereby destroying any kind of predictabilty which is a major pillar of science itself.
sirkolgate said: If you only ever had a cursory reading of the New Testament or you have forgotten most of it because it’s been so long… I suggest you read it so that you may be able to better argue against me.
Never read it - though I seem to have absorbed at least some of the stories along the way. Not interested in reading it either. I'm actually not that interested in arguing Scripture. I mean, what would the point be?
I agree with CyberKitten on this. For that matter, if we were to read "scripture" or immerse ourselves in ancient beliefs, why would we pick Christianity when there so many options out there. Christianity may seem to normal and plausible since we're immersed in it, but why not read scriptures praising Dionysus or Apollo (or some native-American deity) in our search for wisdom. Once we conclude that belief is intrinsically good, it seems like anything's fair game.
*smile* I want to do a long comment, but alas busy day... only 10 minutes left before I leave.
I hope to respond more in depth later... let me just be general for a moment.
First off, you two, my belief is Christian. Hence you can pick whatever religion you want, but my stance is founded in Christian ideals so then you’d have to find someone else to argue with.
Secondly the bible just so happens to be the book that I base my belief on. It is what I have, sorry I can’t give you a book list for Amazon, but I can’t.
I do know one resounding point I can make against both of your arguments and that’s this: belief in God does not destroy science. The examples you give of him changing the outcome of experiments or creating and destroying your existence in a blink is irrelevant because it’s out of context. You are just allowing into existence a being that you’ve manufactured with the same ‘criteria’ as God and then you start having this Frankenstein of your mind DO things.
God could cure all the disease in the world, God could kill me send me to hell for a thousand years, make me forget the experience and rewind time to now, God could…
Yes, God could do anything He damn well pleases, but the fact of the matter remains that we are here. We have this discussion. You the ‘non-believer’ has a great load of knowledge that can explain away almost any circumstance with satisfaction and I argue my belief against you.
God’s there, and he’s not doing these ‘mischievous’ things that would destroy our ‘science and reason’. We still have working postulates, our theorems and proofs still hold true, so I’d say that either you’re right and we live in a casual world with no extra ‘help’, or we live in a casual world with extra help that operates outside your understanding.
I prefer the second option. That is my preference and it can easily include everything about yours except your non-belief.
You can continue to break apart my comments and argue each point with some ‘contrived’ hypothesis that uses this experimental ‘God’ that is so convenient for you because since he doesn’t exist to you he can function however you’d like. You fail with this because you argue with a God you’ve created. You do yourself no favors because you are simply saying “This is fantasy and anything goes… I can do fantasy… blah”
Don’t create God for your arguments. Presume He does exist and then argue based on what’s going on right now, what’s scientifically proven, and what you know.
That my Atheistic friends is how you correctly argue against a Theist.
sirkolgate said: Don’t create God for your arguments. Presume He does exist and then argue based on what’s going on right now, what’s scientifically proven, and what you know. That my Atheistic friends is how you correctly argue against a Theist.
But if we 'presume that God exists' in order to debate with you - we'd no longer *be* athists so wouldn't *be* arguing with you - except about minute interpretations of Scripture.
Also (again) can I say that Science has very little to say on the God Question - except in a very roundabout manner. The God Question belongs firmly in the area of Philosophy *not* Science. Science by definition does not concern itself with the Supernatural and assumes (rightly in my opinion) that the Supernatural does not exist.
CK, I'm not asking you believe in God, just that you pretend to in order to see things from my point of view. That's all, and I don't think pretending is hard, I pretend to be atheist all the time.
You're 100% on the money with that statement about Science and Religion. Scientific fact is not really that pertinent to religion as religion tends to steer clear of defining the ‘physical’ world around us. My bible doesn’t say anything about molecular structure, physics vectors, chemistry compositions, or even biology. It’s focused primarily on providing some guidance on how to live my life, a history of my religion, and an understanding of the ‘key players’.
Religion is only ever argued correctly in the plane of philosophical reasoning. This of course can incorporate scientific knowledge and factual evidence, but it is an argument in reason.
The argument that you and Karlo touched on before in the “God must be amoral if he doesn’t follow ‘good Samaritan law’ and allows bad things to happen to good, innocent people that he can stop.” Is a philosophical argument that is one of the best arguments against God. It is kind of like the statement: “If God is all powerful then can he create an object which he can’t lift?” Implying that if he can’t he’s not all powerful, and if he can he is also not.
This however is not a paradox that merely exists because of the infinite nature of God. This is a very potent and clever argument against God’s capacity to be “All Good”.
This goes back to the ‘free will’ argument. If I was going to torture you, and God prevented me from doing so, then that would be an infringement of my ‘free will’. As I’ve stated before I don’t think God interferes ‘much’ with the world (at least its you can’t perceive it) but I believe that God primarily works in the ‘rules’ of our world when he does act on it.
Giving a soldier a premonition or some slightly enhanced sense in a battle so that he knows to move his comrade out of the way before a shell strikes, an ‘inkling’ someone gets to check a bush to find a baby abandoned, etc … That’s how I think God works.
Why main reason to believe this is because there is over whelming ‘wordly’ evidence and testimony from regular people, not necessarily always religious, that suggests that sometimes we seem to get extraordinarily ‘lucky’ in something that we needed to get lucky with. This is either for our own personal aid, or the aid of another.
For some reason God has made the choice to not be an active member of our world. He’s separated himself out and left us to ‘do as we would’.
That’s the answer to why he ‘doesn’t get invovled’.
That answer to the “How can he remain good?” is found only if you look at perspective.
Me getting tortured and killed in this world with only an Atheist’s view is damn terrible. I’ve had my ‘right to life’ removed from someone else and suffered terribly at their hands. However, from a Christian view where this world is merely ‘temporary’ that’s still terrible, but it’s not permanent. And in the scheme of things even 20 years of torture followed by a violent death is nothing compared to an eternity of comfort. Against infinity that time is nothing.
It is like God gave us a 15 minute recess and we’re allowed to do whatever we want, but after the 15 minutes are up he’ll pick us up, clean off the dirt, and set us down as perfect as before it all started.
And finally to Karlo and the point that there are infinite ways to ‘make religion’ so why not believe whatever the hell you wanted.
My argument against this is simple. I don’t believe that any other religion is unique enough to command my attention. I’ve studied many, and they’re all very easily disdained. By me, this is, this is not to say that anyone from any other faith would not find mine silly.
I’ll use the Koran as an example. Mohammed, the ‘hero’ of this book is very much a hero. The story reads almost like a comic book with him magical ascending on the backs of human faced winged mounts, and it clearly portrays him in a very demanding and unquestionable might. He is also the one who authored the entire book. This is not even considering the ‘all good’ God who suggests that killing the infidels is the most assured way to heaven.
The ‘hero’ of the bible is Jesus, and he did rise from the dead, and he ascended to heaven. He also was tortured and killed by the very people who had supported him prior. His most prized apostle denied his very existence to complete strangers the night he was captured, and his message to us is simple “Believe that I died for you, and be kind to your fellow man.”
The Bible just makes sense to me, I can see the correlation amongst the stories and to me it seems very real. Then again this is my opinion.
To more directly answer your question Karlo I believe as I do because I choose to.
That’s all that life is about in the end. It’s choices, whether you be Atheist or Theist, Muslim or Jew, you still have choices and it’s based on those that your life progresses. If we perish at the end of life and are no more, or if we die and find ourselves caught up in some form of ‘afterlife’ (or reincarnation or whatever) then it may be on the choices that we made in life that we are judged, or it may be that we’ve got another set of choices to make and more paths to follow.
The one unifying fact is regardless of the path we chose we are never sure of the outcome. Unless we’ve got a picture and a brochure of what’s waiting us at the end, then we don’t know.
I've come to expect a higher lever of maturity from you.
Every once in a while, when with being told that I'm an mental gimp because I believe in God, it just feels good to play along. Anyway, I showed no more disrespect in my response than the cartoon showed for me, with it's implication that I'm intellectually infantile. My response merely made your taunt explicit.
That being said, I apologize for submitting such unworthy comments to your blog. I will be more mindful in the future.
Re: The one unifying fact is regardless of the path we chose we are never sure of the outcome. Unless we’ve got a picture and a brochure of what’s waiting us at the end, then we don’t know.
I think people do know. Since small brain lesions and other neurological insults remove memory and even people's entire personality, it's a pretty sound hypothesis that we won't survive death in our current state. I do agree with those who say that we shouldn't identify too closely with our physical state or our particularly mental state in each moment; we should aim to see life and meaning as something beyond our narrow egos. But one things for sure: these egos are not going to survive death--we don't need a brochure to tell us that.
laughing boy said: Every once in a while, when with being told that I'm an mental gimp because I believe in God, it just feels good to play along.
I can't recall saying that you're stupid. Actually I have said several times here and on other Blogs that belief (or otherwise) in God has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.
laughing boy said: Anyway, I showed no more disrespect in my response than the cartoon showed for me, with it's implication that I'm intellectually infantile.
Oh, I wouldn't call theism infantile. I'm guessing that a Freudian would say so but I've never been a fan of Sigmund. I personally would use the word primitive.
laughing boy said: That being said, I apologize for submitting such unworthy comments to your blog. I will be more mindful in the future.
Thanks. We may hold very different views on things but there's no reason that we can't be civilised about our clash of perspectives.
karlo said: But one things for sure: these egos are not going to survive death--we don't need a brochure to tell us that.
Very true.
I can't recall saying that you're stupid. Actually I have said several times here and on other Blogs that belief (or otherwise) in God has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.
That's what you say, but your choice of cartoons seems to belie a different opinion, one you're unwilling to say explicitly in your own words but are perfectly willing to let others say for you.
OTOH, it is just a cartoon. If we can't have a little fun why bother?
laughing boy said: That's what you say, but your choice of cartoons seems to belie a different opinion, one you're unwilling to say explicitly in your own words but are perfectly willing to let others say for you.
I like my humour like my food - with a bit of bite to it. No doubt you'll like few (if any) of my religious cartoons. What do you think of my non-religious ones? I'd like to think they have bite too. I guess you don't object to them because they don't call your core beliefs into question?
But I say again, intellience has nothing to do with belief. Bright & dumb people believe. Bright and dumb people don't believe. Personally I think that religion is a dumb belief but that intelligent people just happen to believe it. There is, however, no causal link between a persons intelligence and their stance on the God question.
Karlo, you’re right that our conscience is a fragile thing. Our lives are fragile. If you operate a vehicle the chances of you being removed from existence in short order are good.
Here’s the thing though. You know we’re gone when we die just as assuredly as I know we’re not and for no more factual evidence than I do.
You can hypothesis your ‘exit’ on death by observing things such as coma, brain damage, and other applications in which science provides some data, but there is no data on death.
You hypothesis no soul because shaving off the first few millimeters of the frontal lobe will ‘reset’ your brain.
I hypothesis my soul because of my keenly observable ability to define myself uniquely as well as my range of emotion, interest, drive, and taste. None of these easily observable items are explained in science in any way that is satisfactory to me.
Science can’t say why I love the woman I love. Science can’t say why I prefer sweet and sour while another prefers hot. Science can’t say why I like this movie but dislike that one, or the range of emotions I may feel while watching either.
Science falls short on many things regarding the human mind. I am bi-polar and in the prognosis and treatment of my disorder I was exposed to the ‘best’ in which science had to offer on the study of the mind. It was a joke in ‘hit or miss’ techniques and drugs which cured one person while having an adverse affect on me.
You can lord a thing or two over me Atheist, but you can’t lord over me the understanding of death, or what makes us who we are. In that realm you tread as shakily as if you had just picked up my bible and tried to believe in it.
With that I’ll restate the MOST obvious.
Without your brochure you do NOT know what awaits you when you die. To claim you do is to cross over into my realm. And if you’re going to claim assurance in that which you have absolutely NO scientific evidence, then I caution you, for now you’re relying on faith.
CK karlo said: But one things for sure: these egos are not going to survive death--we don't need a brochure to tell us that.
Very true.
CK how do you know if this is true?
Truth is something many of us look for but never find, especially on the subject of death and afterlife.
Have you two claimed to have answered this question which has plagued mankind for thousands of years?
You know, there's a stereotype which make Atheists out to be pompous assholes who claim full understanding of everything... you want to claim more ownership of that stereotype or would you like to rephrase your rather ludicrous statements.
Let me HELP you.
Karl: “I claim, based on my opinion, that there is no afterlife.”
CK: “As I am an Atheist (which does not allow for afterlife silliness) I do bolster and agree with you Karlo. Bravo!”
That’s better.
Keep making up facts like that and you could probably find yourself a home in the US Senate or Congress.
"how do you know if this is true?"
Egos don't survive brain damage or Alzeimers. Does it then make sense to say that they survive death? Once again, how are we supposed to have a rational discussion if all reasons and evidence are disallowed since they imply dogmatism. The loss of egos that I'm referring to isn't my opinion--it's a medical fact.
Karlo, you're comparing apples to oranges. You're talking about physical illness in our physical world. That has no correlation to metaphysical or a soul.
My main caution to your argument is that Science doesn’t have anything more than a cursory understanding of how the brain functions. Brain surgery still requires the patient be awake in order to make sure that the ‘section’ the doctor is operating on does in fact control what they’re trying to fix, and this surgery is still only focused on nervous disorders, tremors and such.
Show me the operation that can remove my ‘religion’ and I’ll buy what you’re selling. Show me the gay man who can have the ‘operation’ to become straight, or vice versa. Show me the surgery that makes me more artistic or better at math or even just smarter.
You can do none of this.
We are clearly ‘defined’ in some sense and that is much more than science has an answer for. Even ‘nature vs. nurture’ debate can fully define what makes us who we are. DNA hasn’t unlocked those secrets either.
You can’t claim a panacea for the question of death. We do not exist in a vacuum of science where all we know is explained. Karlo, I understand what you’re saying and of course you could not except any other argument, your Atheistic beliefs don’t allow for afterlife so that’s that.
My belief doesn’t allow for ‘dead egos’ so I don’t accept your solution.
That’s perfectly acceptable, but you are wrong to think you can solve that question with your argument. Until you can use science to directly manipulate the human psyche then you are only generalizing.
Neuroscience is a fairly young science, but the finding that neurological events parallel thoughts is robust. I don't know of any study that has ever shown people engaged in all sorts of different cognitive tasks without corresponding differences in blood flow or electrical currents to different areas of the brain. I think a strict mind-body dualism is hard to maintain--even at this early stage in our knowledge of the brain.
Karlo, I agree and I do know what you mean. I was shown several pictures of the ‘manic’ mind versus the ‘normal’ mind after my bi-polar fiasco, and there are clear electric signals that correspond to the occurrence. I do not doubt the ‘brain/personality’ link that appears most evident.
I just wanted to hint at the inability of science to yet explicitly determine what is ‘us’ in all that. Think of your life, your abilities, your very core emotions, and I think you see that there’s something there that ‘can’ exist outside of science. Something that has not been ‘discovered’ yet because that body of ‘knowledge’ that such a ‘discovery’ would encompass would probably eclipse the entire combined learnings of all other science’s from all time.
I would be very saddened by that ‘discovery’ if it ever where to happen. Even if I was to lose my faith to that discovery, that wouldn’t be the sadness. That discovery would create an ability for us to understand ourselves to such a degree that I believe a ‘mystery’ would be destroyed that would impact us all. This is saying nothing of the ways in which people could abuse such knowledge.
I guess I just like some mystery in my life. Just like that video game that was such great fun till your friend told you how to get infinite lives, or ammo, or invincibility it could take some of the ‘fun’ out of life to be sure. I remember sitting in my Psychology 101 many years ago and thinking that what I was learning was bordering on information I don’t want to know.
I guess I just would rather not know the deepest inner workings of my own mind. I’d rather get a surprise once in a while.
However, as to the original argument. The belief that I carry over the existence of my soul is what it is. I believe as I do because that’s the choice that I made. I think your argument is strong Karlo, but don’t think I’m ignoring it. I just feel that knowledge you share reflects positively as advancement for our species, but I don’t see it as a destruction of my faith.
The reason I believe is part of that ‘ball’ of mystery I mentioned above, the one that science hasn’t cracked just yet. I think we should catch up to the ‘mainstream’ posts now, but I thank you for your witty discourse.
Thanks. It's been fun!
Post a Comment