It’s amazing to think that many people in today’s modern society hold faith up as a virtue. I am not one of those people. There is no sense in replacing reason and evidence with faith -- for anything. Believing in something without good evidence to do so is being intellectually dishonest and downright stupid. But many people do it. Let’s look at some of the reasons why.
Pure faith is powered by these four methods:
- tradition
- hearsay
- desire
- speculation
It’s important to understand that these methods easily transmit beliefs with complete disregard of reality – truth be damned. So just how effective is each medium?
Tradition
To have faith in something simply because “that’s the way it’s always been” is, at best, just lazy. We all do things for certain reasons, and usually when something works, we continue to do it. Indeed, it would be far too ineffective to question and re-evaluate entire processes every single time they’re performed (and this grows exponentially the larger and more complex the process). Tradition can be useful – but only if used for the right reasons. It’s always good to question and re-evaluate ideas, programs, and methods, and not just blindly trudge ahead with them. The problem is, religion despises this. As our understanding changes through the methods of science, we re-evaluate our beliefs, and if needed, change them to suite the evidence.
But we all fall into this “don’t think about it, just do it” mentality sometimes. Think about the common birthday in American culture. We ignite little wax tubes and place them on top of a cake, then sing a song. It’s tradition. Nearly everyone does it, but have you ever stopped to think about why? It doesn’t make sense to set flaming wax anything on top of your food, just to blow it out and then remove it again. But we do it anyway. It’s tradition. It’s something that’s formal, common, and we all know what to expect. It’s an event that is familiar to all who are involved. Sure it’s irrational to some degree, but for the most part, it’s harmless. The traditions we need to be leery about are those who demand more from us than just blowing out tiny fires or ripping off newly-wrapped paper. Of course, I warn of religion.
Hearsay
People are stupid. They are, let’s face it. Our senses can be tricked, we can instantly rationalize something we think we saw, and we hardly question authority or other trusted sources. Just like with tradition, this is for generally good reasons: a child who’s been told, “don’t swim in that water…there’s crocodiles that will get you” is more likely to survive by trusting his parents than by testing out the warning.
But we make mistakes. We assume that the information we garner from those we trust, those in authority, our family, and those who have our best interests at heart has all been checked and double-checked and is 100% accurate and true. Why would our parents lie to us? Why would our government lie to us? Why would our spouses lie to us?
And this is where hearsay is born. What was claimed could have been said for a variety of reasons. The speaker could be lying (either knowingly or not), or they could be telling the truth to the best of their knowledge. Word-of-mouth is subject to each individual’s personal philosophies and thoughts at the time, along with various other external factors. How you relate something is contingent upon your mood about it, your mood at the time of telling, your own thoughts and feelings, and what you hope your recantation will yield. But simply using information you got from someone else as a basis for truth is much less certain than actual scientific testing and methodology (as any courtroom trial would show). Again, religion is bred in this. Probably all religions have started with a “middleman” claiming to have knowledge from a Supreme Entity. It’s all hearsay.
Desire
Faith’s favorite vehicle is that which we desire. If you want something, it feels better to believe it can happen (or that you can attain it) than to not. Nothing in human history holds more fear for us than the realization that anything that lives eventually stops living. Death is an inevitable fact. Faith comes along and allows those with morbid fears to believe they can “cancel out” death. Let’s face it, if your religion said that when you die, that’s it and your body decays and you no longer exist…would it survive as a religion? Hell no! No, it has to get you to think that you can survive your own death, and you’ll get to see and be with all your loved ones who have died, and those who will die. Death is not the end! There is no end! Tada, no more worries. Now we can use this amazing pill on other areas of our lives. Want to be happier? Use Faith™! Wish you had a new job? Faith™’s the answer! How about that new sexily neighbor across the street? Just have Faith™ and you’ll get the girl! Hurricane got you down? Try new improved Faith™ and you’ll be safe and secure in your one-bedroom shack.
Alright look, I have no problem agreeing that having a positive outlook can get shit done. Yes, you can change your live if you say “I’m going to get that job, I’m going to get that job…I WILL get that job!!” But simply wanting something doesn’t change reality. I know a lot of Opera fans seem to think so, but it just isn’t happening. You can want that hurricane to turn east, you can hope for lower gas prices, you can beg and wish and desire for two plus two to not equal four, but it just isn’t going to happen. Things like weather systems, economics, and math have been discovered through specific, systematic methods, not just some wishful thinking. Hope and faith isn’t the same thing. You can hope for lower gas prices (it won’t change based on your degree of hopefulness or anything like that, of course) and that’s completely fine and valid. But when you start claiming to “know” that they will drop, you’ve crossed into the realm of mysticism and lies. Sure, we all want a better world, and wherever there is the downtrodden, there will be religion and faith.
Speculation
Pure speculation can be useful at times. “Hey, I got an idea! What if….” can lead to a more thorough instigation (hopefully using scientific principles) and an honest search for the truth. But the probability of just being right at a blind guess – then claiming it as knowledge based on faith – is a worrisome avenue that many decide is somehow better to take than to follow up with scientific testing. If history has shown anything it’s this: we have to back up our claims with evidence, and those who make a claim bear the burden to provide that evidence as reason for others to accept it. You wouldn’t use mere speculation as a foundation to base big, life-altering decisions on, would you? “My hiccups might be the result of a bad lung…I think I’m going to get a lung transplant!” Would you vote for this person to hold any public office?
We’ve discussed how each of these “vehicles” for faith is perfectly valid and useful in certain circumstances. We’ve also seen how they can convey false beliefs just as readily as true ones; there’s no filtering mechanism built into any one of them. You can hack and slash all night in the dark with each of these, but the amount of false beliefs you’ll hit upon vastly outweighs the number of true ones. We must employ a truth-finding apparatus if we are to be successful in understanding how our universe works. Enter science, our candle in the dark.
The methods of science has lifted humanity out of ignorance and continues to drag religion and ignorant thought kicking and screaming into the light of evidence-based reason. It is our most useful tool and has provided us with more products, knowledge, and longevity than prayer could ever dream of. And yet, standing upon the shoulders of those who have used the method are those who seek to destroy it. Time and again, we hear sickening stories of violence and ignorance perpetrated by people who touted faith as a virtue and shun the knowledge provided by science. This is at the very heart of religion: “Do this because [our ancestors did it | I said so | you want what it will bring | I think it’ll work]”
You Can Call Me Faithless
If you feel like your faith is being attacked, let me pose a question: Name me one thing other than your religion or God that you believe based on faith. Depending on your definition, you might think of things like “the sun will rise tomorrow”. Knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow (or that an object will fall if you let it go) isn’t rooted in faith: it’s the outcome of a reasonable expectation based on evidence, past experience, and scientific understanding (of how gravity works – remember that old theory?). Ultimately, I don’t think anyone can substantially justify anything else in their lives that they take “on faith”. “Knowledge without evidence” isn’t knowledge; it’s a glorified grain of hope couched in the methods described above, and it’s no way to progress. Let’s throw off the chains of faith and try to learn the truth about things we believe and base our lives around.
-STA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 314
My sense of amazement is at it's apex due to the overwhelming number of "believers" who support Sarah Palin....not because of her capabilities as a leader (or lack thereof)..not because they believe she is the right person for the job (or not).... the best qualified (nope again), the most likely to be effective in the office of the vice presidency (not likely), not because she is a woman, not because she is honest (hardly), but because she is a fundamentalist, theocratic, dominionist Christian. She is one of them and nothing else matters.
I remember being like that. Another term for it is, "magical thinking". I was all about that.
Then, I grew up. My life has had much better results, since.
You will be pleased to hear that I am reading The God Delusion. I'll get back to you when I'm done.
Then, I grew up. My life has had much better results, since."
Having never met you on Gather...I went to your page and read your post of April 15 in which you talk about making preparations for some sort of doomsday. (The Problem with Prophesy)
My question is this...have you abandoned your belief in prophesies ("magical thinking"). If so..what has led you to the mindset of the freethinkers...to the land of logic and reason?
If you haven't abandoned your beliefs...what did you mean when you said "I remember being like that"
I'm just curious. Your transformation seems to have been astonishingly speedy. I am not being confrontational...my curiosity is always slipped into gear when someone makes the move from faith based to reality based beliefs...if this is what you have done.
I trust that you're wrong about many things. . .
-Mark
He that answereth a matter before he heareth it,
it is folly and shame unto him.
John, how can you honestly say that God doesn't ask anyone to believe in irrational things? Talking snakes, talking donkeys, dragons, satyrs, unicorns, words controlling weather, sun standing still, universe created in a week, long hair making men stronger, a global flood, magic stick turns to blood, dust turns to lice, people turning to salt, water turning to wine, life after death, zombies...stop me when I start talking about irrational, imaginary things.
It's not "faith", it's science.
Do what? You have made one of the most logically flawed statements I have ever heard. Using your argument as a guide...one can argue for the existence of anything. For instance...I can assert that a giant pink spider lives in a cave on Mars and sends me telepathic messages. You can't prove me wrong so you must agree that the giant pink telepathic spider lives in a cave on Mars....you must believe my claim.
Aaah but the catch is that you don't believe. You just can't accept my claim so you must rely on your faith that you are correct and that I am either wrong or I am mistaken. No...not really. The burden of proof would be mine because I have made the claim. Your faith or lack of faith in my claim has nothing to do with the validity of my claim.
"Many Christian teachers will say that faith is:
Action, based on belief, supported by confidence."
Confidence in one's beliefs do not make those beliefs valid. Delusional actions are supported by confidence in one's convictions for example.
Confidence in one's beliefs don't automatically exclude the validity of those beliefs..but like I said...they do not make those beliefs valid either.
No, it's not science, it's the opinion of many scientists. There's a difference, and the mere fact that you don't see a difference, demonstrates your faith in what scientists tell you, which is fine, but it's still faith.
I believe the "problem" you're having in accepting that you too are essentially acting on faith, is based on nothing more sophisticated or mysterious than some rather simplistic concepts you have adopted about what it is that "people of faith" are actually doing. You seem to think they are projecting a pleasant idea, and then "willing" themselves to accept it, in a sort of insane self delusional game. I've never done anything even remotely resembling that, though no doubt somebody has, for the world is crawling with all sorts of irrational people.
I have met a man that had such faith in "science", that he BELIEVED people could be reduced to energy, and "transported", like on Star Trek, cause scientists "understood" that matter and energy were interchangeable. Now, I suspect you do not want me to presume that is the sort of "faith" you have in science, so, I ask you desist in seeking out the most outrages forms of self delusion you can imagine or have seen evidence of, and ascribing that sort of behaviour to me.
You silly chipmunks add
‘Born Again!’ mirth to
every thread.
Second, and much more fundamental, science does not prove anything at all. It disproves theory. There is no way in science to prove anything. We come up with theories which seem to work OK and then do our best to disprove them. While we are waiting for them to fail we look for more hypotheses based on the remaining theories so that we can devise new ways to disprove them. If a scientist could come up with some disproof for the theory of evolution it would establish his reputation in science as one of the great thinkers in the field. Then everyone would try to come up with a better theory.
Third, and least important. One can always adopt the position the we do not know whether God exists or not. We don't have to be so arrogant and prideful as to think we know everything about the universe.
OK, how about this? You said that nothing we ordinarily believe is based on faith but on "evidence, past experience, and scientific understanding", right? Would I be correct to assume that that also includes the evidence, past experience, and scientific understanding that we receive from others. We don't have to go around doing testing, demanding to experience things ourselves(once we get mature at least) or do the science ourselves. Most of our assumptions and subsequent behaviours based on those assumptions are based on our communication with people who have prior knowledge.
I hesitate to go further in case I'm missing a step that you might see. So, is this reasonable?
Hi Ken, didn't you know I'd show up?
Kat
Good afternoon.
It is always my pleasure to cross your path.
Evolution says nothing about the beginning of life. For that, we're talking about abiogenesis. See the above link I provided and watch the video again. The beginning steps of life have been shown.
Take the Piltdown Man for example. Creationists love to point to this hoax and claim that "there's no evidence for evolution". The fact of the matter is, it was real scientists using the scientific method who figured out it was a fraud.
So Kathleen, it is not by "faith" that we accept what studied professors or knowledgeable scientists tell us -- it's by the methods they use, because it's the method that has proved itself time and time and time again. Science is our best tool to discovering the workings of our universe.
It's not by faith that I accept germ theory, or the theory of tides, or the heliocentric theory. Well, it is if you count Russell M's definition...
Your "video" people are just plain crazy. They start with a freakin' defamation routine, obviously designed to "kill" any possible messenger that does not obey their sophomoric jive, which claims that those they "oppose" are automatically close-minded. How stupid can one be, to not notice that THEY are close-minded?
Look, you can dwell on this silly concept that as long as evolution is possible, then creation is impossible till hell freezes over, but that is just plain poor logic. It has a great big HIDDEN ASSUMPTION, that being, that if evolution theory can be supported by evidence, creation theory cannot. Reality don't work that way. This is elementary debate tom-foolery, not genuine reasoning. I grant fully that the "fossil record" and genetics, can be seen as evidence that life began, and evolved into its many forms, without "intervention" by any "supernatural" agent . . . So what? That was true all along. That does nothing to rule out the possibility that this is NOT what happened.
If you can handle it, I am perfectly willing to discuss the ACTUAL question of what one would EXPECT to see in evidence, if God created life. Not according to YOUR view of what the Book says, cause you don't know, but MINE.But its a complete waste of my time, and anyone else's, to debate a close-minded "believer" in the god of bit by bit, that merely can defeat an imaginary opponent in a debate they already have decided is over, before they even hear what the opposition is thinking.
I warn you though, you will need to think without dogmatic assumptions, such as anything a person that works with objective evidence says, is objective. That's just plain silliness.
So who should we trust? We should trust those who employ the scientific method. If the method is truly being used correctly, we know that it's a self-correcting system -- if someone attempts to use it falsely, it is the very method itself that will show this illegitimacy.
But the method is woefully limited. It must keep God out, ban Him from the world He spoke into existence and currently upholds by the Word of His Power. Consider
". . .Matthew 15:36,37
And He took the seven loaves and the fish and gave thanks, broke [them] and gave [them] to His disciples; and the disciples gave to the multitude. …So they all ate and were filled, and they took up seven large baskets full of the fragments that were left.
Q. 1. If a scientist, even a Christian presuppositionlist, were given a piece of this fish to study, what would he find?
At the very start he would know by simple observation, that the sample was, lets say, several years old. He would not have to resort to carbon dating.
Q. 2. Would he be correct according to the scientific method?
Yes! Whatever else was true about the sample, he could be sure that the fish had been spawned, hatched and grew to maturity, caught, cleaned, cooked and served.
Q. 3. Would he be correct?
No! The fish was only moments old. It was created there on the spot.
Q. 4. What else might he find?
Well, he may find several anomalies. Perhaps the levels of mercury would be far below the norm. Maybe there would be no cell damage or parasites as one might expect in a three year old fish. This might confuse him, but it would not shake his original presupposition as to the approximate age of the fish. He knows that it is at least several years old.
These are the kind of anomalies we find when we study creation. . . "
excerpted from "Creation as Miracle or Blind Fools" by Ed Walsh
Tristan also explains confidently:
So Kathleen, it is not by "faith" that we accept what studied professors or knowledgeable scientists tell us -- it's by the methods they use, because it's the method that has proved itself time and time and time again. Science is our best tool to discovering the workings of our universe. . .
It seems that your glorious method comes up short, gives us false readings on reality in that it makes no provision for the supernatural tendencies of the Creator and Sustainer of all that there is. . .
For you to adhere to the scientific method as the harbinger of truth you must ignore or suppress everything that the sovereign God has revealed to us - you must take it on faith that the supernatural does not come into play. Is that rational?
Quite a reckless leap of faith if you ask me. . .
-Mark
You don't have to "accept on faith" that the spider doesn't exist. You can simply choose to not believe me for any number of reasons...the most important of which is (should be) your need for some evidence...NOT PROOF...but some evidence. I have given you none.
Scientific theory uses the observations of our world and universe and draws conclusions about the causes and effects of nature. Certainly science assumes or bases research on assumptions but those assumptions...hypotheses.. are beginning points to scientific inquiry.
It is at this point that religion and science part ways. The work of scientific inquiry is an ongoing process of elimination. In other words..the effort is to construct a theory, based upon observations and predictions about future observation, which can not be disproved.
When a scientific theory becomes observable...it becomes fact. For example...the Earth was theorized to be spherical. No one could prove this theory to be true, but observable evidence strongly suggested that the theory was true. (One could travel in a straight line and end back at his starting point.) The theory could not be disproved. And then...man left the Earth and traveled around the Earth. The theory of the round Earth was no longer a theory.
Religion...and I am talking about "religion" in the context of the faith based belief in a supreme being... allows for no such examination. The "faithful" are instructed to believe based solely upon the "faith" that what they are taught represents the truth. There is no effort to disprove the Biblical word...in the case of Christianity, for example.
You and I will most likely never agree about the existence of a supreme being. By the way, I don't deny "his" existence...I only suggest that the possibility of the existence is...in my opinion...very, very remote.
You said..."Your willingness to deem God irrelevant or non-existant [sic] based on what you see is no more rational than my willingness to accept His relevance and existence based on what I see."
My response is this...you have seen only what has been presented to you in the Bible and what you have been taught. You accept the Bible as the word of your god....I do not. I can say that my belief is not based upon what I see...but what I don't see....what I don't accept as valid.
"The "faithful" are instructed to believe based solely upon the "faith" that what they are taught represents the truth."
WRONG. You just imagined that. You have "faith" that it is true, but your faith is misplaced. The Book discusses the need for faith because faith is required to believe ANYTHING one cannot directly observe (like evolution), but "science" is not open about this, like the Book, and it has attempted to cover its tracks, by pretending that it is not ALSO based on faith, of many sorts.
You are essentially faulting God, for being forthright.
The scientific method has the interesting property of ignoring truth. People might believe that a scientific theory is absolutely true but the scientific method doesn't require it. Dubitability is the keystone of science.
The word "faith" has a broad meaning and can be used in several different contexts. For the purpose of its use in the discussion of belief in a supreme being, in the context of religion...faith is a trusting belief that supreme beings existence.
Faith can denote an expectation of fidelity or loyalty.
Faith can be an indication of overwhelming possibility of the re-occurrence of a reoccurring event.
Certainly science allows for "faith"...but not in the context of religious dogmas....which are authoritative and not disputed.
The premise of scientific method is one of the encouragement of question and challenge. The premise of religion is one of undisputed authority...based upon religious faith.
You can keep saying it, but that just demonstrates your misplaced faith. You don't seem to realize that the little people in your head are not real. You seem to have accepted your own "faith" blindly. So be it.
" Michael,
You can keep saying it, but that just demonstrates your misplaced faith. You don't seem to realize that the little people in your head are not real. You seem to have accepted your own "faith" blindly. So be it."
The weakness of your position is underscored by the ridiculousness of comments like this. Come on JK...you can do better than this. You can make a point or attempt to make a point rather than lobbing an insult. Or can you?
I suppose you can use another one of your dodges...the dismissal of your opponent as being unworthy of your interest....boring to you...or silly.
you write:
The loaves and fishes example assumes that the hypothetical scientist wasn't in on the secret. Erroneous conclusions follow naturally.
Exactly right. This would also be right if the hypothetical scientist WAS in on the secret but chose to ignore or disregard "THE SECRET". It's no secret that God can and does transcend His laws and His creation. He hasn't stuttered or stammered in telling us what He has done. . .
-Mark
Well, explain how well aware you are that the little people one sees in their mind are in fact generated by oneself, and merely hyper-simplistic images of humans, and we'll talk. Until you demonstrate you can at least recognize reality, I really have no desire to continue discussing your dream world.
Just how do you know other people's faith is bullshit? What sort of crystal ball do you employ to compare their faith to your own?
Let me guess, you imagine them being stupid and gullible, and lightning does not strike you dead?
But hey, we don't need to hope for a scientist in the Bronze Age. Just have your God perform a miracle right here and now, with today's modern advances, and we'll study it then. Oh that's right, he doesn't do them for show anymore...
All throughout history, science has shed light on ignorant suppositions: demons don't cause disease, rainbows are not a deity's necklace, lighting isn't "god taking pictures" or even a god throwing lightning bolts, we look like our parents because of genes and not "souls". It goes on and on; the more we learn about how the world really works, the less places "gods" have to hide.
"I can justify my beliefs."
That's called faith, you infant man.
Um.....I read the first sentence and that was all I needed to read to see the real bullshit.
I was well educated in many realms of science, including evolution theory, and it is absolutely no effort at all for me to "TRY" to get it. I do get it, but what you don't get, apparently, is that all that glitters is not gold. Just cause something seems reasonable, don't mean its a fact. What one needs to do is get confirmation, not in the form of just over and over again seeing how reasonable an idea seems to the same mind that found it reasonable to begin with, that ain't scientific, its self delusional thinking.
Believe it or not, your mind is not foolproof, anymore than any of your little "scientist" supermen characters, you seem to have enlisted to help you verify that you are real smart. They are all just people to, and NONE of them has a foolproof mind. Not one, let alone thousands of them. If they even hint otherwise, you can laugh them off as silly phonies, honest. Here's what a non-phony scientist you might have heard of had to say about it;
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
Old uncle Albert there. You figure he was kidding, stupid, or gullible?
No I'm not here to have friendly debate (I see that flew out the window from the get-go... tsk tsk). Do me a fave and don't come start this on my cute lightening post k? Seriously not the kind of arguments I want to be having. I could think of way better things to do with my time... how bout you? :P
I did want to mention though, since I'm here anyways. If I had any kind of evidence to show you that God existed Tristan... you still wouldn't believe it. With all due respect since the beginning of time there have been those who didn't believe in God or who worshiped idols made of wood or stone. It's no different today except there's more things to find to bow down to or idolize.
No matter what I have seen or felt or known to be true.... if you haven't seen it, felt it or known it to be true you would never believe it. That's part of having faith... being SURE of what you know to be true. So if I have had family who have had severe illnesses and they were prayed over and instantly healed, I know you wouldn't believe it but I, as well as the many around who witnessed it know it's true because we saw it with out own eyes. Could you compare it to a person who is born blind... you describe to them what things look like, but having never seen them for themselves either won't believe the fanciful tale of what you see, or will imagine something entirely different in their mind.
Get what I mean? I'm afraid you don't but "faith" is not something that you can force another to believe or see or feel. My faith or truth in God is not ignorant or fake.... regrettably it's just evidence that you yourself have not seen and I have.
You cannot force someone with belief in God NOT to believe in Him Tristan. Do you want someone to come and force you TO believe in Him? Do you want someone to call you stupid or ignorant for not thinking the way you do? I do believe you have done that to others.... is it truly okay to you if someone does it to you? Whether you admit it or not you want to be agreed with, you want others to nod and say "you're right Tristan... I'm such an idiot. What was I thinking? There is no God I just magically appeared here from a monkey (or whatever we're supposed to be coming from nowadays)." I don't think that's going to happen!
By the way, if we came from apes or monkeys how come there are still apes and monkeys? Or how come monkeys haven't birthed a human? Or a human a monkey? I find that odd. Don't you think our bodies are a bit too intricate and complex far beyond what even our own scientific minds can comprehend to have been formed out of what... a big bang explosion with some gases and cells and whatever? And where did those gases come from... that's one I've always wondered?
Doesn't that seem way more crazy than believing in God? It may not to you but it does to me! I could go on a whole other rant on the carbon dating thing but I'm holding back. I told you I hate debates because you are never going to see what I see.
You keep trotting out evolution.
Could you define it for us?
If it is merely the fact that organisms within a species change and adapt to their environment, etc. over time, I have no problem with that - in fact it is observable happening all around us all the time.
If however, you are referring to the religious worldview that claims that everything came from nothing all on its own and that a molecule, over time, became a man, and that one species of the living order turned into a different (higher?) species - well then that's a horse of a different color. That takes more faith to swallow than I frankly possess. . .
-Mark
You also do not appear to know what scientists mean by the "big bang."
PS: The gasses came from energy, mostly hydrogen and the rest helium. Those formed stars after a time and as the lartest of those stars "died" in super-novas the heavier elements were formed from the lighter elements. In other words, many of the atoms that compose your body were formed in stars. We are all made of star material.
I find this quite a wonderful thing to know. And it's something that religion would never have told me.
One species doesn't turn into another species. That isn't natural selection and it isn't a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't work on species it works on individuals. That is, just because some members of a species have one kind of advantage and thus are able to increase their number doesn't mean that other members of the same species with different characteristics don't have other advantages and thus are able to increase their numbers as well. Evolution isn't a pole. It's a bush with many branches that is pruned by events from time to time.
Unless you learn the process and do some experiments you will never understand natural selection nor Darwins theory. From your description of "the religious worldview..." you have no idea what the explanation is that you are rejecting.
Michael,
Well, explain how well aware you are that the little people one sees in their mind are in fact generated by oneself, and merely hyper-simplistic images of humans, and we'll talk. Until you demonstrate you can at least recognize reality, I really have no desire to continue discussing your dream world."
John Knight, Sep 19, 2008, 12:03am EDT
I just had to repost this comment of yours...just in case someone missed it.
"Little people one sees in their minds"?
You keep making your tautologous statements....talking but not saying anything useful.
But now let me pose this question to you. If I offered "proof" to you that god did not exist...would you abandon your faith that he does exist? If you answer "no", then you have validated the premise that your belief in your god is based upon nothing but "faith"...blind faith...as nothing can shake your belief. It is at this point that belief in the existence of a supreme being exceeds the limits of rationality....not that the belief is held in the first place, but that the belief is static or unbending.
This distinction is the difference in religion and science. Science and scientific inquiry are built upon the concept of allowing conclusions about observations to be proved to be invalid. Religion allows no freedom to redefine as new ideas are offered or as old ones are dispelled. This fideism demands that beliefs must be held without evidence or proof and cannot be contradicted. Fideism also allows that logic and reason can be abandoned.
So...who has the open mind....the "believer" or the atheist?
That takes more faith to swallow than I frankly possess. . . –Mark
? PLEASE DO TELL. WE’RE ALL LISTENING, MARK!
Some good video links would be to first check out Potholer54's 'Made Easy' series. It talks about the big bang up through abiogenesis and evolution.
If you need more info on abiogenesis, check out CDK007's series. After that, you can look into evolution (as it says nothing about the origins of life - a concept many of you seem not to grasp). He also has a series Against Creationism.
Thunderf00t is another good user who can prove Creationists are lying. Kent Hovind fans beware!
I'd also recommend DonExodus2's channel. He's god a BS in Evolutionary Biology and Doctoral from UNC-Chapel Hill. He's also a Christian, so you won't feel like I'm only giving you atheist links. He's one of the most qualified people I've found on Evolutionary Biology making YouTube videos. He can tell you How Evolution Works even if he does think it's "God's plan".
Remember kids, only watch these videos if your faith is strong! You don't want to listen to the other side if you enjoy remaining blissfully ignorant of what science actually says about the universe!
Not saying anything . . . hmmm.
Well, let me ask a question then; Have you noticed that there is a difference between what you can see with your eyes, and what you imagine or remember?
for sharing your deft skills,
and promoting reason over
morondom.
This ‘10’ is richly deserved.
Keep the faith fellas, there's always death to look forward to, when if you quessed right . . . you still won't know. Brag on, O brave worms, you've got the losing ticket, no matter what is true ; )
You said: "Also, we did not evolve from monkeys but monkeys and human beings had a common ancestor. You would not ask such illogical questions if you understood the theory of evolution and the fossile record."
Well forgive me if I think that sounds just as crazy and illogical to me. If we had a common ancestor how in the world did that ancestor birth a monkey and a human? Or how did it end up going into two or more different species? I have read about the theories of evolution and the fossil record. There's still so many holes in all those theories to be able to prove anything... and wouldn't that be considered "blind faith?"
And you said: "PS: The gasses came from energy, mostly hydrogen and the rest helium. Those formed stars after a time and as the lartest of those stars "died" in super-novas the heavier elements were formed from the lighter elements. In other words, many of the atoms that compose your body were formed in stars. We are all made of star material."
Again.... where is the actual proof of this Larry? There is none because it's all theory and speculation. I mean seriously as far as I'm concerned that sounds far more fanciful and farfetched than Creationism. I don't know how you can be so sure God doesn't exist but be so sure something as wonderful as us going from energy/hydrogen/helium/stars/supernovas etc etc to you and me sitting here today. So these things created everything from trees to oceans, horses to penguins.... and on and on? That is truly extraordinary and hard for me to swallow. And what came first... I mean very first before all that? To me the theories of evolution leave far more questions than answers.
Sorry if I don't believe all this stuff but seriously I've had far more evidence that God is real in my life than to be able to believe all that!
Michael:
you said: "But now let me pose this question to you. If I offered "proof" to you that god did not exist...would you abandon your faith that he does exist? If you answer "no", then you have validated the premise that your belief in your god is based upon nothing but "faith"...blind faith...as nothing can shake your belief."
I don't consider my faith blind.... in fact quite the contrary. I choose to be educated and informed in any choice I make in my life, especially serious ones such as this. And yes... if you had concrete proof that God did not exist I would have no choice but to rethink my belief. But you don't have that proof and I know that and so do you. I have seen that evidence with my own eyes in my life and the life of others that God is real.... far more real and reasonable and rational to me than the theories that man has come up with to explain our existence. I don't see how a rational human being couldn't consider those theories absolutely crazy unless of course they could be proven, which they haven't and I don't believe ever will be.
Regardless of anything that's posted here or anywhere else it doesn't matter what kind of arguement is made, what kind of reasonable statement is made.... if it's not something you want to hear you're not going to hear it. And YES I AM SAYING IT GOES BOTH WAYS. I do read each comment and I consider what each person is saying. But I've been in so many different posts and conversations on this subject eventually it gets tiring because no one is listening to anyone else. Each person is completely unwilling to listen to anyone else. Each person thinks they are right and the other wrong and they are informed and intelligent and the other ignorant and crazy. Then they turn and call the other person closed minded. It's just pointless and a total waste of time! I used to come into these types of posts and try and discuss things with others.... well actually I have never gone to an Atheists post.... it was always a Christian posts where athiests or agnostics would come in. The only reason why I'm here is because Tristan sought me out in one of my posts that should have never even peaked his interest if he had not wanted to seek out Christians to fight with. I don't understand also why if someone thinks that when they die they are going to just be gone...dead.... unaware..... why on earth would you be spending so much time arguing with people? I would think it would be a poor choice of time usage to spend what little life you'd have doing that.
Often, when we speak of faith, we are talking about the existence of God. I have read your article, and comments several times with a great deal of interest and I find I am left with many questions I hope you can help me with, and some conclusions. I question ... how did you finally realize there is no God? Do you believe the world is round? If so, why? Where did you learn right from wrong, taken back to the beginning, original source...through the generations?
For me, when issues are prejudged, many times good evidence fails to be convincing. Some time back, I read a study that said often Atheists WANT to be convinced there is a God, and actively seek out Christians to argue the point.
Again, it seems in order to prove there is no God, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality, and be omniscient. If that were so, one would, by definition, be God. So the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God Himself!
Perhaps Atheism is inherently self-contradictory, because apart from God, there is no basis for truth or ethics, or knowing right from wrong. If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing moral standards, then aren't we left with individually humanly devised scruples.
I wonder if the Nazi's were evil because the Allies said they were, or because of God's commandment, "You shall not murder," and because God gave us a conscience.
Philosophically speaking, unless a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn't an illusion? As for reason, we can't prove the validity of reason without using reason! We must 'assume' what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. In other words, we would have to assume there IS a God to start, then work from there to disprove it.
?YOU CRACK ME UP!
It's true I'm sure...you have seen that evidence but it is because you have seen what you want to see...as you said. I have not seen evidence that god exists...is this because I don't want to see or because it is not there?
It is not my intent to argue the existence of a supreme being. My interest is in the debate of the method of religion. Hundreds of millions of people...spanning hundreds of thousands of years have believed in the existence of gods...many different gods. Each thought they had it right...each condemned the gods of his neighbor as being false gods. Each had seen proof that his god is the real god.
But the real trouble begins when some want to force their version of god on others...even if "force" is not used..even if the force is shrouded in a covert assault...the evangelical seems to be only satisfied if he continuously attempts to recruit others.
If Christianity were quiet Molly...if Christianity didn't "need" to establish itself as the only true religion...if Christianity didn't insist that their mission is righteous because they are soldiers of the lord...IF CHRISTIANS ACTUALLY PRACTICED THE DOCTRINE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RATHER THAN SAYING THEY HAVE TOLERANCE FOR OTHER RELIGIONS WHEN IN FACT THEY DO NOT.... Atheists such as myself would not feel compelled to speak up.
Have you noticed a significant increase in the number of "anti religion", "anti god" books and publications lately? Do you wonder why? Do you wonder why those who don't "believe" give a rat's ass that you do believe? It's because of the aggressiveness of the Christian effort. It's because we have a sitting president who has taken his religion to the White House and is enforcing the Christian manifesto in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. It is because the churches of a candidate for public office have announced their intent to take over our government. It is because an army of children is being trained to infiltrate all public offices and establish a state of theocratic domoination. It is becuase some of these Christian efforts have announced that they will never stop...they will never cease their takeover effort because it is "god's mission"...they are certain they are doing the right thing for this world.
Why do I care if I only have this time until I die..because I think that's 'all there is'? Because I am not dead yet and I feel threatened by the Christian effort and I fear the single minded effort to rule in the name of a god...anybody's god.
Assume which god exists Aimee?
Do you wonder why? Do you wonder why those who don't "believe" give a rat's ass that you do believe? It's because of the aggressiveness of the Christian effort. It's because we have a sitting president who has taken his religion to the White House and is enforcing the Christian manifesto in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. It is because the churches of a candidate for public office have announced their intent to take over our government. It is because an army of children is being trained to infiltrate all public offices and establish a state of theocratic domination. It is because some of these Christian efforts have announced that they will never stop...they will never cease their takeover effort because it is "god's mission"...they are certain they are doing the right thing for this world. ~ Michael H.
Thank you and good morning, Michael. Nobody States Our Challenge Better …
Do you mean the infamous ‘G’?Whiz Argument
or the riveting Whizzing?‘G’ Ploy?
It’s all circular (but thrilling) reasoning …
in the metaphoric ‘dark.’
Thank you for writing (Mike) and pointing out (Ken) that amazing paragraph. I hope you don't mind if I copy it for my own reference.
I love my Christian friends and in-laws, and most of them respect the separation of church and state. But many others don't.
When our genes copy, they don't make absolute perfect copies...something messes up somewhere. These mutations can make the organism different in some way. Maybe it's slightly bigger or faster than the others. If these mutations come in handy for survival (depending on the environment in which it lives), then the organism is more likely to not die, and find a mate. Its genes will be passed on to its offspring, who will pass theirs onto their offspring. You need small changes, lots and lots of generations, and lots and lots and LOTS of time to get some creature that's completely new and different. Molly, our ancestors didn't one day "give birth" to a fully-formed monkey or a fully-formed human. That's not evolution, and that's insane. We all agree that if someone claimed it worked that way we woudn't buy it -- thing is, it's only those like yourself who don't understand evolution who are saying that's what it does. That's why you get laughed at.
You also don't seem to understand the cosmological stuff that Larry was talking about. Try reading about science. I'm not trying to be mean, I encourage anyone to re-learn things they think they already know. All to often, people think they already learned all there is about something, and that their ideas about it are "the way it is". They turn out to be way off the mark, as you are here, Molly. Go learn how stars form, live, and die. Seek out chemical reactions, and what it takes to make hydrogen. Try to TRULY understand what we, as the whole of human race, know about everything -- and how we know it.
"I find I am left with many questions I hope you can help me with..."
I'm always ready to help someone with questions.
"...how did you finally realize there is no God?"
If you read my other articles, watch my videos, or read my blog, you'd know my position on most things. You'd know that I don't claim to KNOW there is no God. I also don't claim to KNOW there is no unicorns or faeries, or a giant telepathic pink spider living on Mars. I'm not omniscient, so I can't "prove" 100% that they're not real, but there is no good evidence to support any of these things, so I don't accept them as true things until I see otherwise.
"Do you believe the world is round? If so, why?"
Because I can see it. It's evident.
"Where did you learn right from wrong, taken back to the beginning, original source...through the generations?"
What I call "good" or "right" or "wrong" or "bad" or "evil" is the outcome of a simple test: if it's beneficial, it's probably good. If it's harmful, it's probably bad. Each person comes to their own conclusions about things, and they pass that on to their children. Humans are social creatures. We find that if we work together and put our minds to it, we can come up with some pretty great things (just look around, everything is the result of collaborative work) and our individual lives are bettered by it. If we just all we around raping, stealing, and killing each other, we wouldn't have a working society -- and we would probably die out quickly. So a working society is necessarily peaceful and cooperative for the most part. We shun activities and people who go against that idea, calling them "bad" or "wrong".
To think that, as you say, it took an invisible being writing on stone tablets the words: "don't kill each other" for people to suddenly go, "Oh yeah, that's a good idea! See how much better life is now?" is ridiculous. By the way, research the Code of Ur-Nammu or Hammurabi's Code of Laws. These predate the Old Testament (and some are far better information than the "Big 10").
Besides not needing a god to be good, answer me this: is something God says "good" because he says it, or does he say it because it's "good"?
Do you not "insist" that YOUR view is the right one? Should I give you the right to say that and to try to make that particular view the one that prevails in the political arena? Of course; this is a free country. But are YOU saying that those who believe that the Christian worldview is the right one should NOT seek to make their influence prevail?
Please, Michael, I need to hear it from your own - ah - computer.
Kat
All of the while in the back of my mind is my need to interject here a comment I made a couple other places recently (because it seems to apply to so many discussions like this) ...
That comment:
"" To begin to understand anything, requires a base or basis of thought ... who is it that is doing the inquiry ?
What is the intention and what are the tools ??
Are "we" to base it on objectivity and use only the 5 physical (objective) senses coordinated by the brain ... or do we allow, let alone value (and if so how much?) the subjective sense(s) other than the objective 5 ?
Depending upon the answers to those questions we will have at least two different inquiries taking place here with at least two different results and most likely no agreement ...
But then, are we really seeking agreement, learning, or just exercise of the mind ?
Which brings up another question, what is the mind ? Is it self contained and objective, related directly to the brain of the physical (objective) ego self ... or is it more subjectively ephemeral and ubiquitous, an ethereal intelligence throughout the cosmos that we "tune in" to ??
So then, it seems to me that it all comes down to our priorities and those based upon how we first perceive ourselves and how that stacks-up in relationship to other(s) ...
Speaking only personally (the only best truth), I spent the bulk of my life living an ego existence primarily "selfish" ... priority being "me", that which "ruled" my physical objective being as I perceived it at the time, a rather objective OUTlook involving the world and all of the "manifested" things involved. What one would define as DUAListic speculation, as in (+/-) choices with prioritization associated more with the extremes of polarization ... white versus black, good versus bad, yes versus no ... etc etc etc ...
Of course there is little that is really "that" simple ... thus I was often lost and confused because the higher truths seemed not available to me ... that depressed me come midlife to the degree that I was ready to give up ... too many questions, not enough answers, too much confusion, not enough peace (of mind).
But having exhausted seeking satisfactions in the OUTer world and from other(s), I finally turned withIN, towards the hitherto unknown and unvalued realm of subjective mind BEYOND physicality, the POTENTIAL of the spiritual realm ... with no preconceived limits other than it be based upon truth and love, I sought nothing more and the emphasis was on truth ...
The near term results were a profound spiritual awakening KNOWN to be LOVE first, then soon realized to be also TRUTH ... and ALL SUBJECTIVE ... SPIRITUAL ... with some profound objectively physical aspects also ...
Thus did I come to find that the "former" ego self had a previously hidden (to itself) transcendent aspect, the higher Self, that I now call the Soul, the Spiritual connection to GOD ... transcending Duality (+/-) with it's disconnective Void or Gap (/) across which there is often conflict and confusion, that, replaced with the Spirit (=) of GOD as a "bridge" between realms, a Trinity of (+=-) which I now see as the Basic Equation of Truth (BET) which is cosmic and universal ... and a PARADOX !!!
Therefore, I have no more concerns about the questions raised in this article ... other than what works the best for my now spiritual mission to attempt to help others awaken also to the "Truth that will set them Free" ... (+=-)>(+/-) !
PS ... I now see "consciousness" as "subjective", more related to the "mind" and the Self ...
Jerry Kays, Sep 19, 2008, 12:52pm EDT ""
With "that" said, I will add this; The ego begins with the self for a beginning place using the 5 objective senses which it extrapolates OUTward from where it stands on seeking answers and "relative" truths which it will believe as "facts" communicating with any who believe in agreement on those said "facts" (which are truly nothing more than a mutual agreement accepted as such).
Thus "science" is ego based with ego peer reviews of related informations built upon a previous base from ego to world view extending OUTward into the universe (which is commonly agreed to be the totality of consideration) ...
Spirituality (generic, not "branded" by religious dogma) then is (or should be) a search for meaning outside of the objective limits of 5 sensory experience, a seeking for meaning to the subjective, the mystical or the metaphysical aspects associated with possible transcendent truths beyond the worldly considerations of those who value "objectivity" to the exclusion of everything else (Tristan and others here ?) ...
I relate to the latter, and reject the "religious" who speak of and for the spiritual who are yet really too "objective" in their requirements to the degree that they will not trust their own intuition over and above the religious dogma of hierarchical institutions who insist upon "faith" over experience.
Spirituality need NOT posit a singular "Divine Being" as God or GOD (not to mention god(s)) ... just a "principle" of common union, a totality, a whole that integrates all of us and everything ...
A principle the "opposite" of the "world view" that looks OUTwards ... a view that looks INward.
Truth be told, everything is a mix of everything else, there are no lines of demarcation to anything other than what we convince ourselves and each other into using for the sake of differentiation ...
Even the "straight line" of travel around the earth to "prove" that the world is round is NOT a straight line by any standard otherwise because it curves to follow the "other" dimension of a circle proving it NOT straight by "universal" standards ...
Just some more to think about for those seeking transcendent truths ... something so few really care about it seems.
"But are YOU saying that those who believe that the Christian worldview is the right one should NOT seek to make their influence prevail?"
YES ...that is exactly what I am saying if the effort is to take that religion to public office....and exactly what YOU should fight if you truly believe in religious freedom. You believe the Christian influence should prevail because you are Christian. But Kat...what if you weren't Christian...would you want your government controlled by Christian policy?
OR...OR what if you...as a Christian...were under the rule of those who subscribed to a totally different religion...a non christian religion... and made a point of combining their religious doctrine with the government process?
Can you not understand that the Christian doctrine is but one of many religions? How can you claim it for everyone...just because YOU feel you are right. Certainty of one's convictions does not validate those convictions. Hitler thought he was right...but we didn't want his influence to prevail. The Salem Witch Burners thought they were right...but we didn't want the Witch Burners to prevail. The Spanish Catholics thought they were right when they destroyed the city of Madgeburg in the 17th century killing 30.000 Protestants. Christians have persecuted Jews since the 4th century...they think they are right....does this justify their actions?
Listen Kat...Personal religious convictions are not my business...just as my lack of religious convictions is nobody's business. Religion and government CAN NOT meld if we want to guarantee your religious rights, your neighbor's religious rights, and my non religious rights.
John Kennedy was asked to describe his views about religion and government because he was a Catholic....could he perform his job with out the bias of the Catholic church? Here is part of what he said;
"But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril."
How can any person argue this point Kathleen? The only person who can argue the doctrine of the separation of church and state is the person who has the nefarious intent of destroying this country for his own agenda....placing HIS religion in control.
As organisms become more complex in the alleged evolutionary march toward perfection, what is fueling the increase in information?
Natural Selection is certainly not capable of adding info. . .
-Mark
What I call "good" or "right" or "wrong" or "bad" or "evil" is the outcome of a simple test: if it's beneficial, it's probably good. If it's harmful, it's probably bad. Each person comes to their own conclusions about things, and they pass that on to their children. Humans are social creatures. We find that if we work together and put our minds to it, we can come up with some pretty great things (just look around, everything is the result of collaborative work) and our individual lives are bettered by it.
As I said earlier, "I trust that you're wrong about many things." Here's a good example in spades.
Groups of people have always gotten together and put their heads together to decide what would be beneficial.
The Third Reich in Nazi Germany came up with what they termed "The Final Solution" after having decided that it would be beneficial to exterminate summarily all those of the Jewish faith.
The people with homes overlooking the death camps rearranged their furniture so that they could gaze out their windows and watch the wonderfully efficient outworking of their mutual decision. . .
Here in the good old USA, people got together and decided it would be beneficial to seize the properties of Japanese American citizens and to herd these displaced families and individuals into internment camps. . .
Some folks think its beneficial to love their neighbor, other folks think its perfectly okay to eat their neighbor - which is it?
-Mark
Simply put, separation of church and state IS a part of the Christian worldview. That's why countries dominated by Christian populations have universally drifted in the direction of such an arrangement. The Founding Fathers did not conquer and subdue a Christian people, they were of a Christian people, predominantly, which favored that. And of course, still do.
Not the imaginary little Christians in Michael's head, apparently, but . . .
First, the Constitution does not say separation of church and state. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." They were talking about a mandated state religion where everyone must agree with a particular doctrine or suffer persecution of various sorts.
When you vote for a representative, do you try to choose a person who mirrors your convictions? And is that done with the hope that he will make decisions about what "should be" according to those convictions, or do you want him to take a poll to see how the wind is blowing?
Your convictions come from a view of how the world "should be", right? You want laws made according to those convictions, right? "Religious" people are no different. They have convictions about how things "should be" and they work to influence/vote/run for office to make that happen. Just because our convictions issue from a belief that God exists does not make us less qualified to participate than someone whose convictions issue from a belief that "man is the measure of all things". You exercise your worldview in your participation and I exercise mine. This is still a free country.
I really don't think you responded to my questions as I posed them. I haven't read your articles, blog or seen your videos ... not that I don't intend to ... I feel they would be interesting ... it's just they are now on my list of "Things to read." Perhaps it's a communication problem since I have not. Oftentimes, we lose so much in this type of communication: the eye contact, the body language, etc.
If I understood you correctly, you say "you don't claim to know there is no God and you won't accept there is until you see otherwise."...or see God?
You believe the world is round because "it is evident, that you see it." Have you been in outer space, looking at something, assuming it was the world, and it looked round? I'm curious because I'm not convinced the world is round.
I've seen pictures from space ships of something of a circular shape but I don't know what they took that picture of. I've seen a lunar eclipse, the shadow, the edge. That could be reflections of a square, as well, and the cosmics ignoring the four corners. I've seen a ship on the horizon, just going over a little bump on the flat earth. I've seen shadows cast by identical poles...I've also seen rays of sunlight do tricks on the eyes; presenting the earth as either spheriod or square.
I never proved the world is round myself. So I can't accept that it's round.
In fact, I have driven across Kansas and can emphatically say the world is flat.
In 1931, Wilbur Glenn Voliva offered $5,000. to anyone who could prove to him the world was round. Many tried, including scientists, and all have failed to collect the money.
That's combining Science, Religion and Geography.
I find your responses to my "World," and "Good and Bad" queries conflicting. You accept one, but cannot the other, based on the same premise.
"If it's beneficial, it's probably good." The sun is beneficial, unless you get a 3rd degree burn, or have a sunstroke. (Not the good and bad I inquired about.)
"(just look around, everything is the result of collaborative work)" I have read of the callaborative work of Stalin, Hitler and Pot Pol and what they did in the name of Atheism. They were pretty hard for their victims to "shun." Stalin’s position was that he “replaced” God and inserted himself as the national deity with statues and portraits in all public (and many private) lands and buildings. Those that carried out his death warrants did so because they believed in Stalin –because they “worshiped” him.
"...To think that, as you say, it took an invisible being writing on stone tablets the words: "don't kill each other" ..." We're not even close on the intent of this one, so I won't go there.
"...answer me this: is something God says "good" because he says it, or does he say it because it's "good"? ..."
Both.
..."In other words, we would have to assume there IS a God to start, then work from there to disprove it."
Assume which god exists Aimee?
Few concepts in human history have generated as much fascination, intense longing, rapturous devotion, somber contemplation, and endless debate as the topic of God. In the English language, the term God, when capitalized and singular (as a proper noun), is typically used to refer to the sole Divine Being in monotheistic religions, and more broadly to Ultimate Reality in many other faiths. An uncapitalized spelling (both singular and plural) has generally been used to refer to an individual deity found in a polytheistic or henotheistic pantheon (such as in ancient Vedic and Greco-Roman religion).
Please give these fellas some credit for being open-minded; It's not Chrsistans that ought to be prohibited from basing their activities in the public arena on their beliefs, it's ALL religious folks. They are not in favor of discriminating against Christians in particular, that would be bigotry ; )
I think you fully understand my point here. Your reply contains a well written but fully plagiarized (http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/God) paragraph from the New World Encyclopedia, but fails to address the issue which is this...whose god do we start with? Who gets to have the existence of his god proved due to the fact that his god's existence can't be disproved?
By the failed logic in your statement...and because we can't disprove the existence of any supreme being...then all gods must exist. Crap...anything anyone says exists...must exist.
Your statement is not a valid logically.
Right Kat...Right! "They were talking about a mandated state religion where everyone must agree with a particular doctrine or suffer persecution of various sorts."
This is exactly what I have been saying. You may argue that the mandated state religion is a far cry from running our government with a specific religious favoritism, but this is only a matter of degrees.
I have not argued that we must elect only those people who have no religious affiliations..that would be subjecting the candidates to a religious test...prohibited by the Constitution.
Did you read Kennedy's words? Maybe you didn't.
I've more to say but I'm out of time for this evening.
"Who gets to have the existence of his god proved due to the fact that his god's existence can't be disproved? "
Proved to whom? What's with this fetish about having some panel of experts or something approve every little thing for you? Are you not a man, have you no mind of your own? Have you not come to believe the things you believe through whatever methods seemed best to YOU? Or have others instructed you as to what to accept or consider seriously? Whoever has done such a thing . . . I sure as hell don't want running my country, I don't want some Big Brother of authority telling me what is wise and what is foolish, that would be slavery.
It's YOU Michael, to whom things can be proven, just as it is me, and everyone else. There is no man in all the world who's word I take for anything, for I know they are like me, and are prone to err and the temptation to deceive. Inventing some fanciful alternative to YOU yourself, and ME myself, investigating whatever we wish, to determine, whatever we wish to learn more about and come to understand freely, is an abomination to liberty, and human dignity.
And my God despises such phony god games more than virtually anything on earth, for He loves His children, and wishes them to be free, Truly, and wholly free. It is His way, His plan, His intention. He wishes only freely given love, and respect, and relationship. Nothing else even comes close, and He tells us so in a thousand ways, in the Book that is His Word.
Free yourself from these imaginary authorities, for god-sake get free.
This statement:
"(just look around, everything is the result of collaborative work)" I have read of the callaborative work of Stalin, Hitler and Pot Pol and what they did in the name of Atheism. "
Should read:
"(just look around, everything is the result of collaborative work)" I have read of the callaborative work of Stalin, Hitler and Pot Pol and what "Pot Pol" did in the name of Atheism. "
"Aimee....My question still stands...which God? Which sole Divine Being...representing which monotheistic religion? "
The Christian God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, being of the monotheistic belief that there is only one God.
This is a common ploy of yours and of those who are struggling to make a point. The sentence immediately following the one you quoted was this "By the failed logic in your statemen