BBF religious matrix

[hrothgar]

I have a hard time understanding that when I point out that I personally know 5 rabbis in one synagogue in Boston who are agnostic or atheist you counter by saying that they are not believers in Judaism.

 

I suspect that I am acquainted with the synagogue of which you speak...

 

I don't doubt that there are five agnostic rabbi's in it.

I also don't doubt that this synagogue is something of an outlier, even for Boston...

[Fluffy]

What do you mean by the "main option"?

The one that triumps over the others when I need to apply one and they are in contradiction.

[Codo]

Sorry I couldn't be bothered to dig up dozens of independent sources and just took the first few I found. I have seen a lot of evidence in this general direction over the years but feel free to provide sources showing something else. In any case the ARD is not a club which wants people to leave the church.

 

 

Firstly, why do I criticize this state of affairs in general? Because I do not believe the state has any business providing free PR and opportunities for proselytization to the church.

 

Secondly, why did I bring this up at all? Because you claimed that the church has a positive effect on society. I'm saying that this is a lie - the church is a net loss for our society. The state could just as well spend all this money directly on welfare rather than funneling it through the church, and anything that remains is by far outweighed by the outrageous subsidies coming from the taxpayers. So my question remains - what is the claimed positive effect of the church?

 

Lets agree to disagree - not just about the about the "facts" you stated. I still don't see your first source as more relaiable as the twitter account of the pope.

You claim that the churches have no positive effect, because you think that the money will be spend better in another way. Now this is hardly debatable. Is there any part of the german household where you may NOT discuss that at least a big amount of the money should be used different? I bet that there is non effective use and even waste of resources in any church. But again, what does this prove? That they are not perfect? Yes I agree.

 

You claim that you dislike PR and money for the churches. I do understand this. You are in a minority which does not benefit from the money which is spend for the main churches here. But who cares about your lonely voice in the dark? As long as you are in a minority, you are not able to change it, this is called democracy.

 

And btw do you have any evidence that great atheistic organizations work any better, more efficent then religious ones? I cannot find it.

[mgoetze]

You probably never hear about the "theory" that 2+2=4. But that is not because we know that 2+2=4. It is just because it is too narrow to deserve the somewhat pompous label "theory". It would be more appropriate to talk about the "theory" that (A+B)(A-B)= A^2-B^2.

Huh? These are not theories, they are tautologies.

[mgoetze]

But again, what does this prove?

You made the claim that

religion has a positive factor on the society.

and cited

their efforts in supporting the weak, the old and the young

 

I am supporting the counterclaim that these "efforts" are not a positive effect of religion, rather they are actually projects run on state money, and furthermore, the church costs the state (and thus society) money above and beyond this purpose.

 

You claim that you dislike PR and money for the churches. I do understand this. You are in a minority which does not benefit from the money which is spend for the main churches here. But who cares about your lonely voice in the dark? As long as you are in a minority, you are not able to change it, this is called democracy.

Yes, I am in a minority of 37.2% (as of 2010, trend strongly upwards). A lot of things are called democracy. In the USA, they will even let you vote for either party! Some people also include such subconcepts as "protection of the rights of minorities" in the concept of "democracy". Some people, even some theists, consider the separation of church and state a great accomplishment of the 19th and 20th century. Who knows, maybe we will get it in Germany as well, in the 21st or 22nd century...

 

But anyway, apparently you are not interested in backing up your statement that

religion has a positive factor on the society.

That's fine, you don't have to back it up, but I will continue to disbelieve it then.

[Codo]

Michael,

 

even your source states, that the churches here do something positive. They spend money, time and manpower for welfare. You critze that they should spend more of the money they get for this part of their work. Well I tried to show you that they do, but you seems to be unimpressed and not willing to ask some people who work there yourself. You seem to believe that priets do nothing then indoctrionation all day long. I bet that you did not attend religion at school, else you would know that this classes are not about christian religion but about tolerance and ethics. At least this it was was taught to my kids, maybe this is different in other school or other states. Shall I look for the curriculum?

 

Okay, fine to me, you can disbelieve whatever you want. But here you may even could have found facts if you had wanted to.

 

We do agree that the churches costs more money then they spend on welfare. But they spend much more then the 8 % your source statet and they have other duties too. You surely know that.

 

And no, you are NOT in a minority of 37,2 %. These are the numbers of non confessionals. By far the smallest part of these are real atheists. Maybe it is a minority of 5%? The latest number I got from Wikipedia had been 2 % world wide, but I bet that the number in Germany is significant higher- espacially in the new states. Maybe in the eastern part we have around 10 %? But I did not find any actual numbers- did you?

 

And I am quite fine with the way they handle democracy here. Far from perfect- like the churches- but much better then in any other place. Okay, that they stopped burning atheists two years ago, was a step in the wrong direction, but you cannot have it all...

[mikeh]

What are you talking about? Is this part of ancient history or was this a way to talk about the current desaster around Israel?

 

And why aren't you able to name the countries which are civilized enough to abaondon religion?

 

 

It hasn't happened yet. But we can hope. As I have said many times, and as with just about everything I write this isn't original to me, religious belief made sense in the 99.99% of human experience when we had no effective understanding of the physical world. Give us time.

 

You may take some history lesson or simply look at Wikipedia. There had been a lot of reasons for the crusades and for the big wars in the Middle Ages. If you had been right, you should have been able to show that there had been no fights between catholic states, but you cannot. Man make war. But anyway, these times are long gone.

 

Do you actually read what others have said, and try to understand the arguments, or do you simply look for isolated passages to which you can object, provided you ignore the context? Try re-reading what I have said. Obviously human conflict is multi-factorial and obviously many wars have been fought for purposes other than religion. Does that mean that religion is not sometimes a major factor, or that it is not frequently enlisted by the warring states/nations/tribes to motivate their forces? Didn't most armies historically seek the blessing of religious figures before battle, or consecrate themselves to their god(s)?

And where is your logical chain to religion here? Death penalty is by no means a part of religion. As written before, China is the land with the biggest number of death penalties. You won't accuse them of being overly religious, will you?

And again, somewhere on this planet there are always people who kill for silly resons, even in Pakistan. Do you mind to tell me the religious reasons the killer in the US have, who just run into schools and kill some pupils? Surely you believe them that God send them?

 

 

 

Now you are betraying yourself. Who ever claimed that all killing was religiously motivated? Not only are you a proponent of the no true scotsman fallacy but now you resort to the cheapest, most despicable strawman argument as well. Do you REALLY think that I said that the school killer(s) around the world are motivated by religion???? REALLY???? If not, wtf are you trying to do by suggesting that I am?

 

As for the death penalty not being part of religion, you must be profoundly ignorant of aspects of religion that many atheists know without the need to even resort to google. I can't quote the verses without research but the OT contains very clear commandments to the effect that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, and that if a man sleeps with a woman and her mother, they all should be burned to death and so on.

 

Yes, I know: very few would follow Leviticus today, but that's one of my points. Many religious people are hypocrites because they pick and choose which parts of their holy texts to follow. Yes, there are all kinds of mental gymnastics that people like you go through to justify this to yourselves, but I suspect you have no idea how silly it all seems to an objective observer. It even gets people like you to deny that your religion contains any commands to kill!

 

Islam has its own commandments, and I have only a tiny knowledge of specifics from the Koran, so the only one I know of with some certainty is the requirement to kill apostates. Of course, we all know about fatwahs these days thanks to Rushdie....the fatwah against him was specifically issued by a very prominent and highly regarded religious figure. I'm sure you'll revert to the no true scotsman argument to say that such pronouncements don't reflect religious teachings either.

 

All your examples are quite old and some demonstably false. But anyway, we had been here before. People kill. If you ask them, they usually claim that they have a reason which is not for the personal advantage. They always tell you something about God, Honor, fame, race, state.

I'm sorry that religious mayhem is down recently, so I have only a limited number of current examples. But I have to laugh. You admit that some killers assert they are acting in furtherance of their religious belief, but you deny that religion plays a role in their actions. Clearly you know far more than they do about their motivations! No, the truth is that you have a fixed belief that religion is anti-killing and therefore anyone who claims to have killed for religious reasoning isn't really religious. You're a profound fool if you truly can't see where that logic is flawed.

If this killing would stop after reaching atheism, I would support your fight for it. But unluckily it does not. Some of the biggest mass murderer in history had no real connection to religion. Stalin Pol Pot or Mao f.e. just fought for their own power, not for a God.

 

They need to tell their troops about the benefits of communism, or about the cruelty of the enemy or they have to promise wealth. They used the same words to motivate their soldiers then any leader in history used. They claimed any given reason to justify their fight. Well any one but one. They did not murder in the name of God. But their victims are as countless as the victims of people who claim to fight for a religion. So no, the superiority in atheism is not real. It is an Utopia.

 

 

Another recourse to straw man? Where did you learn to reason? If 10% of killings are caused by, say, beer ads on television, and 90% by other factors, does that mean that we should allow unrestricted beer ads? If religion is a tool used by leaders to get people to commit awful acts, and you seem to accept that it is, then surely the loss of religion as a force in society is a good thing, at least as far as reducing killings is concerned. Nobody....do I need to repeat this for you?...nobody suggests that religion is the only or even the single biggest factor in human conflict, especially on the personal scale.

 

 

<snipped>

 

So basically I just claim that atheism does not lead to a superior, more peaceful and better world. If you compare the realities you can see no upside, nor can you see one if you compare the theories.

In theory both religion and atheism should lead to love and understanding. In practice, both ways of living failed so far to reach the final goal.

 

Religions failed much more often then atheism so far. But religion was (and is) the dominating way of living in the world- so just out of the pure number, it must have failed more often. Before the raise of communism, I can not remember any states with a significant amount of atheists in history. Can you? So all the cruelties in the dark ages could not have done from atheists. They simply did not exist at that times....

 

You make a very common category error here. Atheism is not a movement, in the sense that it has a doctrine or a political or moral philosophy. Atheists don't form a cohesive whole. Surveys seem to suggest that most atheists are somewhat liberal in their social thinking, but that isn't, as far as I know, a result of any 'teachings' or 'party platforms'.

 

Atheism isn't really a positive position: we don't generally go around asserting that such and such should happen in the name of atheism.

 

We don't believe in a god. Few of us state positively that there is no god. Virtually all of us say that the evidence suggests that there is no god, but that we cannot prove a negative. If others want to believe in a god, good for them. Just don't let that impact public life...keep it private. No religious indoctrination in schools. Not tax exempt status or state subsidy, and so on.

 

As for how we live our lives, and how society should be structured: these are matters for debate based on views of morality and so on. As mentioned, most atheists happen, it seems, to be somewhat liberal, but not all. And this seems to be a correlation rather than a cause and effect relationship.

 

It is perfectly possible to be an atheist and a believer in libertarianism, or communism...these being two diametrically opposed political and economic philosophies. That is because a lack of belief in a supernatural being has no discernable role to play in how we think a society ought to function, other than rejecting a theocracy. Personally, there was a very short period of time when I think I was a socialist, but never a communist. Now I think I am a left of centre proponent of regulated free enterprise, with a significant role for government with respect to fundamental 'rights' that I would like to see granted to the people of any particular state. But I don't think that philosophy is a result of my atheism, since I don't see the relationship.

[Fluffy]

My little contact with day-to-day priests resulted on realicing they don't even have a television, few have cars, none of them has silly things like ipads or such, just some books. I really trust that money spent by this guys is better spent than money spent by politicians, at least spannish ones. Or maybe I just contacted the most humble.

[mikeh]

My little contact with day-to-day priests resulted on realicing they don't even have a television, few have cars, none of them has silly things like ipads or such, just some books. I really trust that money spent by this guys is better spent than money spent by politicians, at least spannish ones. Or maybe I just contacted the most humble.

I am sure many and perhaps most priests/ministers live like that. I knew one, now deceased RC priest who owned an Italian villa and a nice house here in Canada and who died with a significant amount of investments. Now, he may have inherited this: I have no reason to think he got rich as a priest.

 

I know of an evangelical preacher who listed his home, near where I live, for about 6 million dollars...I should say that while this was 'near' where I live, it was in an entirely different class of homes :P He made his money from a religious television show milking his audience for contributions, all to do the Lord's work (which apparently required he live in luxury).

 

The fact that many religious people try to live by the tenets of their faith, while others don't, says little, if anything, about the intrinsic validity of the assumptions underlying that faith.

[mgoetze]

Roland, I have seen quite enough facts on the budget of the German churches and also on how much money the state spends on subsidising them. I just can't be bothered to research the best sources for this forum, especially as most members don't read German anyway. But why you would think that talking to a random priest is the best way to get information about the budget of the national church eludes me.

 

Also, I did attend religion classes in Lower Saxony for 2 years. They were definitely all about the Christian religion.

 

And no, you are NOT in a minority of 37,2 %. These are the numbers of non confessionals. By far the smallest part of these are real atheists.

Yes, so, how are the non-church-members who are not atheists benefitting from the money the state is giving to the church?

 

Oh, BTW, I'm glad you are content with our so-called democracy. Personally I think it's not very democratic when parliament passes a law which is rejected by 70% of the population and which leading law experts consider unconstitutional just because two religious groups threatened to throw a temper tantrum if the laws were not changed for them.

[billw55]

Yes, so, how are the non-church-members who are not atheists benefitting from the money the state is giving to the church?

Perhaps because it combats poverty, which is bad for society in general.

 

Does it do so as well as government operated, non church affiliated programs? A hard question to answer, but I have no great faith in the efficiency of government.

[Cyberyeti]

Perhaps because it combats poverty, which is bad for society in general.

 

Does it do so as well as government operated, non church affiliated programs? A hard question to answer, but I have no great faith in the efficiency of government.

No, but government giving the money to not for profit anti poverty organizations usually works fairly well. Some of these started out as religious organizations but have become basically humanitarian.

[Scarabin]

The nasty answer to this: maybe most of them are even more intelligent than you. SCNR. B-)

 

On a more serious note, I did indeed consider myself an agnostic for quite a while, but in the end it just seems too silly: I don't know whether "God" exists, I don't know whether the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, I don't know whether little green men live on Mars, whether the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are good friends - I don't know anything really - but I do have very strong opinions about all this stuff. Why shouldn't I trust my own judgement?

 

In the strictest sense, of course, I do not endorse the statement "God does not exist". For me this is a nonstatement, the word "God" is undefined, and I don't say that just to win an argument on semantic grounds, I truly do not comprehend what people might possibly mean by it. Oh sure, some might think that it means there is some huge anthropomorphic being hiding out behind the sun laughing his ass off at how stupid we are but others deny this view fervently and yet still claim that "God exists". Well at least for the dude behind the sun I am willing to state definitely that he does not exist, and I still don't know what the other people are talking about.

 

 

 

To answer your first point: maybe most posters are even more intelligent than I am. (Especially as I am not hip enough to know what SCNR means?) I would be happy to accept this, provided their posts show some evidence of thought.

 

If I have to be labeled I would prefer to call myself a free-thinker. As for the rest of your second paragraph, I think that if you see no difference between debating the existence of God and the trivia you mention, then I would seriously counsel you not to trust your own judgment.

 

On a more positive note I have tried to give a more general answer to the meaning of balanced in an omnibus post.

[Scarabin]

Given the evidence that there is a correlation between education and intelligence, and between education and atheism, I am puzzled that you are puzzled that a majority of the posters here are atheist.

 

As for people revealing themselves, well, this is the internet, and posts are often written and posted without the reflection that one would ordinarily employ in more traditional exchanges, so I would be reluctant to read too much of a psychiatric diagnosis into what anyone writes here :D

 

As for stacking the votes, wouldn't that require multiple log-ins, each with a different name, which seems like cheating and what's the point of that?

 

 

Maybe you should allow the evidence to cause you to rethink your prejudices, rather than search for reasons to preserve them by imagining unlikely explanations that explain away the evidence?

 

First paragraph:

(1) I am not surprised that a majority of the posters are atheist, I am surprised by the intemperance of their views. I expect the answers to form more of a bell-shaped curve.

(2) I would be interested to examine your "evidence that there is a correlation between education and intelligence, and between education and atheism". Can you please point me toward this?

 

Third paragraph:

Every time I open this thread I am invited to poll my vote. I have not tried to vote a second time so do not know if multiple votes are possible. My comment reflected nothing more sinister than this.

[Scarabin]

Some posters have replied to my complaint, by telling me their usually extreme personal views and then claiming that their views are by definition balanced. I can only say that in my experience life does not work like that. Reality is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself.

 

squealydan went to the trouble of concocting a rationalisation for my views, just to challenge me with it. Thanks squealydan, my only criticism is that I do not think you are actually a scientist, or familiar with scientific method.

 

OK. So what am I actually on about?

 

First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics.

 

Consider the fanatics credo:

(1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar.

 

(2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views.

 

(3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels.

 

Now turn to the reasonable approach:

(4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God.

 

(5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence.

 

(6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs.

 

I know which approach I consider intelligent.

[mgoetze]

I think that if you see no difference between debating the existence of God and the trivia you mention, then I would seriously counsel you not to trust your own judgment.

Fine. I have no particular reason to take your counsel very seriously though. ;)

 

(BTW I would counsel you to learn about something called "Google". It's very useful, not only for finding out the meaning of abbreviations.)

[mgoetze]

First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics.

 

Consider the fanatics credo:

(1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar.

 

(2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views.

 

(3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels.

 

Now turn to the reasonable approach:

(4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God.

 

(5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence.

 

(6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs.

 

I know which approach I consider intelligent.

This is hilarious. You remind me of 32519 (more his bridge-related threads than his contributions here, though).

 

I suppose by characterizing "strongly disbelieve" as an "extreme position" you are saying it implies at least (1), likely (2) and possibly (3), and is mutually exclusive with all of (4), (5) and (6)? That's so wrong it's just funny. For what it's worth, I voted for "strongly disbelieve" and the only statements on your list which I agree with are (5) and (6).

 

Anyway, keep it up, you may eventually reach the same status as 32519 (that is, "on my ignore list").

[32519]

As I recall, the Epistle to the Galatians is part of the New Testament. The churchs that Paul established in Galatia where founded by converting pagans, not Jews.

In a similar vein, Corinthians is addressed to the Church in Corinth which was (largely) drawn from the Greek population, though there were some Jewish Christians present. Thessalonians was addressed to a church in Macedonia.

 

No one can agree who wrote Revelations, however, it is pretty doubtful that the author ever set foot in Palestine.

 

I readily grant that the transition from Judaism to Christianity was a long and labored process. The apostles and Paul of Tarsus were certainly Jewish. However, I don't think that it is reasonable to classify Greek and Celtic converts to the Church as "Jewish". They're drawn from a completely different cultural context. The whole reason that Paul had to keep sending letters was that the congregations were straying too far from home...

Sorry Richard, but you are only partially correct.

 

Apart from Philippi (where there was no synagogue), everywhere Paul went he first entered the synagogue and preached to the Jews. Just as in Acts 1 through 6, initially the Jews accepted the message of salvation. Just as in Acts 7 through 9, it was the religious establishment who incited the Jews against the message of salvation. The temple in Jerusalem was controlled by the Sadducees. When it was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 they ceased to exist. The synagogues were controlled by the Pharisees. There were two groups of Pharisees; the School of Hillel (the liberals) and the School of Shammai (the fanatics or the militants). From around AD 30 the Sanhedrin was controlled by the Shammai Pharisees. It is not known at what point Paul crossed over from Hillel to Shammai by he became the number 1 militant against the message of salvation (Acts 7 through 9). It is absolutely impossible for one person single-handedly to sow the havoc that Paul did. The number of believers would easily have beaten him up and chased him away. Paul’s help came from the Sadducees and the Shammai Pharisees.

 

When Paul became a believer the militants lost their number 1 havoc instigator. When they began witnessing the success he was having amongst both Jews and non-Jews with his message, some of these militants did everything in their power to stop him. In 2 Corinthians 11:16-33 Paul gives us an idea of how much he was persecuted by these people. Amongst the militants was the false apostle and Paul’s thorn in the flesh. Paul actually identifies him in at least 3 places.

 

The Sadducees had the most to lose by the numbers accepting the message of salvation. The temple coffers were drying up when the people realised that it no longer served any purpose. Do a Google search for yourself to get an idea of the levels of corruption taking place in the temple. Has modern institutionalised religion learnt from these guys? :P

The Shammai Pharisees on the other hand were still awaiting their Messiah to deliver the Jews from Roman oppression. Amongst other things, they absolutely forbade Jews to make contact with non-Jews fearing defilement. When these non-Jews started accepting Jesus as the Messiah these fanatical Pharisees were hell-bent on stopping Paul. It was the militant Pharisees who led the Jews (more accurately, forced the Jews) into the war against the Romans from AD 66 to AD 70, the war which lead to the destruction of the temple, Jerusalem and the Jews as a nation. It was only in 1948 that they were re-established as a nation.

 

So now to your post:

The letters you mention are addressed to both the Jews (who initially accepted the message) and the non-Jews. The lengthy arguments and examples Paul inevitably uses all come from the Old Testament writings. These arguments and examples would be completely meaningless to a non-Jew of the time who was not familiar with what was being referred to.

 

The whole reason that Paul had to continue sending letters to all these new believers was to –

1. Warn them against these militant fanatics who insisted that they uphold circumcision and all the laws of Moses

2. To point out from their own Old Testament writings that these militants had it all wrong

 

(This post has been edited).

[mikeh]

Some posters have replied to my complaint, by telling me their usually extreme personal views and then claiming that their views are by definition balanced. I can only say that in my experience life does not work like that. Reality is what others think of you, not what you think of yourself.

 

squealydan went to the trouble of concocting a rationalisation for my views, just to challenge me with it. Thanks squealydan, my only criticism is that I do not think you are actually a scientist, or familiar with scientific method.

 

OK. So what am I actually on about?

 

First "balanced" has a different meaning when applied to a group of views and to individual views. For a group I would expect a bell curve clustered about a norm which would lie near the middle of the spectrum. For individuals I would not expect those giving extreme answers to regard them as balanced unless they are fanatics.

 

Consider the fanatics credo:

(1) This could run: I am certain of the existence/non-existence of God and anyone who disagrees with me is a purblind idiot or a liar.

 

(2) A possible addition would be: There is nothing which could make me change my views.

 

(3) Another addition would be: I am anxious to lay-down my life for my beliefs/ anxious to kill some of those infidels.

 

Now turn to the reasonable approach:

(4) No one knows if God exists/does not exist. And this will never be proven. However there is a large body of belief on both sides and this is probably as close as we will ever get to measuring the probability of the existence of God.

 

(5) My view is not set in stone and could be changed by genuine new evidence.

 

(6) I find this subject interesting but I am not obsessed by it. And I see no need to commit violence in support of my beliefs.

 

I know which approach I consider intelligent.

And I know that I consider neither of them to be intelligent.

 

Did anyone on this forum post that no god exists? Note that I am not getting into what 'God' you refer to, since man has invented a myriad 'gods'. But using just the broadest possible concept, has anyone said: no, god doesn't exist and I am certain of that?

 

You lower your credibility by suggesting that some 'fanatics' here made that claim. And you engage in a strawman argument to boot.

 

As for your 'intelligent' position, it is frankly silly.

 

As others have written, an issue does not become a 50-50 proposition merely because some or indeed most people favour one particular position and a similar number favour the contrary. Thus a very large percentage of the US population seems, according to some surveys, to be of the opinion that the world is about 6,000 years old.

 

To an intelligent, educated person, the evidence is overwhelmingly to the effect that the world is somewhat older, by a large numbers of orders of magnitude.

 

But, your argument seems to suggest: there are a LOT of people who think it is young and therefore anyone who INSISTS that it is old, is a fanatic. A balanced view would be that perhaps god created the earth to look like it was old. After all, how can we possibly prove that god didn't do that? Since we can't disprove that 'theory', a balanced view would be to keep an open mind.

 

Bullsh*t.

 

And as for the evidence in support of god, I have asked several of the pro-religion posters to set out the evidence and NONE has done so. We get a true fanatic quoting his religious texts as proof that those same religious texts are true. Do you think that that is 'evidence'? Are you that irrational? If not, please point me to the evidence that suggests that a god probably exists. Btw, to do that the evidence has to be more than 'consistent' with the existence of a god, so referring us to the gaps in scientific knowledge doesn't constitute probative evidence of anything other than our incomplete state of knowledge.

 

It is ironic that you mischaracterize the positions taken by some of us, accuse (I assume) many or all of those same people of being narcissistic, and then insist that your (demonstrably irrational) view is the 'intelligent' view. It must be nice holding such a high opinion of yourself :P

[nige1]

Did anyone on this forum post that no god exists? Note that I am not getting into what 'God' you refer to, since man has invented a myriad 'gods'. But using just the broadest possible concept, has anyone said: no, god doesn't exist and I am certain of that? You lower your credibility by suggesting that some 'fanatics' here made that claim. And you engage in a strawman argument to boot.

Atheist: noun: someone who denies the existence of god

As for your 'intelligent' position' date=' it is frankly silly [sNIP'] Bullsh*t.[sNIP] And as for the evidence in support of god, I have asked several of the pro-religion posters to set out the evidence and NONE has done so. We get a true fanatic quoting his religious texts as proof that those same religious texts are true. Do you think that that is 'evidence'? Are you that irrational?

Evidence: noun: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief

IMO

• Occam's razor is no more than a useful heuristic.
• Many have advanced interesting evidence for their views.
• But nobody has yet produced convincing evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.
• And few of us are holding our breath :)

[Trinidad]

I honestly did not know that gravity or evolution are still just theories, but if you say so...

I think that you are confusing the word 'theory' with the word 'theory'.

 

For non-scientists the word 'theory' means: 'an idea' e.g. for the explanation of phenomena.

 

For scientists the word 'theory' means: 'A methodological explanation of observations that is widely accepted in the scientific community as true', e.g. so true that engineers can use them to predict whether a bridge will be strong enough or that pharmaceutical researchers can calculate whether a certain molecule will be able to attack a virus.

 

When a scientist makes an observation and comes up with ideas to explain what he saw, he will not call these ideas theories. At the point where he thinks that his explanation is plausible enough to publish it, he will not call it a theory. It will be a 'possible explanation'. Once many of his colleagues start to accept the possible explanation it could get the name 'theory'. Quite often (though not necessarily) this happens after the scientist who came up with the explanation to begin with has already passed away.

 

In short, in every day use the word 'theory' refers to an 'idea' with little foundation. In science it refers to something that ranges from 'widely accepted' to 'rock solid'. So for a scientist the phrase "it's just a theory" (see your quote) is very odd. After all, 'theory' is about the highest rank for scientific concepts, making the phrase equivalent to "he is just a general" in a military sense, "he is just a pope" in clerical ranks, or "he is merely a CEO" in business.

 

Rik

[32519]

IMO

• Occam's razor is no more than a useful heuristic.
  
• Many have advanced interesting evidence for their views.
  
• But nobody has yet produced convincing evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.
  
• And few of us are holding our breath :)

MikeH (and now Nige1 as well) wants to know why I believe. I will give just 2 reasons –

1. I don’t have the exact number but thus far around 80% of all Bible prophecies have been fulfilled. The remaining 20% all have to do with the future and the second coming of Jesus. Compare that fulfilment % with Nostradamus, the Mayan calendar or any other so-called prophet.

2. Just as Paul had his Damascus road experience when he was confronted head on by God, the same thing happened to me in the early 1990s. Since then God has revealed to me on at least another 3 occasions that he exists and is real. If he did that for me he can do the same for you. It’s not my job to convince you of anything.

 

Here’s something else for you to consider:

It is very difficult to quantify the damage that institutionalised religion has done regarding the message that first Jesus preached and then Paul. Inadequate translations of the Bible have already been mentioned. Added to that you inevitably get to hear all sorts of misguided sermons preached from the pulpit every Sunday. The people attending don’t know any better and either fall asleep during the sermon or leave more confused than when they entered.

 

So here is my suggestion:

Do what the Bereans did in Acts 17:11. They examined the scriptures for themselves to see if what Paul said was true. Don’t blindly accept what your local preacher (or anyone else) is telling you. Go and examine it for yourself.

 

Regarding the remaining 20% of prophecies still to be fulfilled: This thread is crammed with posts seeking evidence that God exists. Guess what? God will become visible in you and me and everyone else at the second coming. Yes, you read that correctly. And that my dear friend is the whole purpose of the God of the Jews with creation; an invisible God becoming visible. This amazing story starts in Genesis chapter 1 and ends in Revelation 22. Every single generation from Paul until now has earnestly hoped and desired that their generation would be the one to see it happen. Who knows? Maybe it is ours?

 

This mind boggling event has not been concocted by a religious fanatic. It has been concocted by God himself. It was too much for the Jews to stomach too whom it was given, and they have now rejected their own God and Messiah. This promise is what is still waiting to be fulfilled.

[Codo]

It hasn't happened yet. But we can hope. As I have said many times, and as with just about everything I write this isn't original to me, religious belief made sense in the 99.99% of human experience when we had no effective understanding of the physical world. Give us time.

 

 

So basically you say that up to now mankind is nowhere able to live without religion, but in a near future we will be able to give up on it? I won't argue with this hope of yours, I am just sceptical because even the best technichans needs consolation. But maybe you are right, future will show.

 

 

Do you actually read what others have said, and try to understand the arguments, or do you simply look for isolated passages to which you can object, provided you ignore the context? Try re-reading what I have said. Obviously human conflict is multi-factorial and obviously many wars have been fought for purposes other than religion. Does that mean that religion is not sometimes a major factor, or that it is not frequently enlisted by the warring states/nations/tribes to motivate their forces? Didn't most armies historically seek the blessing of religious figures before battle, or consecrate themselves to their god(s)?

 

 

Maybe again a beam in the own eye syndrom? I read what you write, thank you. Funnily we agree despite your tone: Conflicts are multi-factorial- and religion had been one of these factors. If my postings sounds different, I apologize.

 

You quoted some incidents in Pakistan to show how much hate had been there which had been religious motivation. The school killer was an example that you do not need religion for this... I really understood you in a way that most of the bad things in this world are religious motivated. Now I understood that religion is just one factor. We agree on that part.

 

 

As for the death penalty not being part of religion, you must be profoundly ignorant of aspects of religion that many atheists know without the need to even resort to google. I can't quote the verses without research but the OT contains very clear commandments to the effect that practicing homosexuals should be put to death, and that if a man sleeps with a woman and her mother, they all should be burned to death and so on.

 

Yes, I know: very few would follow Leviticus today, but that's one of my points. Many religious people are hypocrites because they pick and choose which parts of their holy texts to follow. Yes, there are all kinds of mental gymnastics that people like you go through to justify this to yourselves, but I suspect you have no idea how silly it all seems to an objective observer. It even gets people like you to deny that your religion contains any commands to kill!

 

 

What I meant is that killing is human, not religiously. So theists and atheists kill, not just atheists- or not just theists. So it has been part of many religions and had been part of the old testamony- and of the history of the church. I never claimed that religions had been free of cruelty durting history.

If you think that we need to take the Bible word for word, you make a mistake a lot of theists seem to make too. I wrote elsewhere that this luckily is not a common view in Germany and that it is not logical to take the Bible literally.

And yes I do not see why this should be silly. I would think it is silly not to use the brain but simply to follow some textes which had been written some centuries ago. Why should I? I can read socrates and decide which of his ideas are still valuable nowadays and which we should not take into our own life nowadays. Why shouldn't this be true for other ancient ideas? The Bible is something to think about, not a list of commands. If it had been the later, it could had been much easier and in a much shorter text- you can basically make the ten commandments a little longer and you are done. So what is the sene in taking the Bible literally?

 

Islam has its own commandments, and I have only a tiny knowledge of specifics from the Koran, so the only one I know of with some certainty is the requirement to kill apostates. Of course, we all know about fatwahs these days thanks to Rushdie....the fatwah against him was specifically issued by a very prominent and highly regarded religious figure. I'm sure you'll revert to the no true scotsman argument to say that such pronouncements don't reflect religious teachings either.

 

I'm sorry that religious mayhem is down recently, so I have only a limited number of current examples. But I have to laugh. You admit that some killers assert they are acting in furtherance of their religious belief, but you deny that religion plays a role in their actions. Clearly you know far more than they do about their motivations! No, the truth is that you have a fixed belief that religion is anti-killing and therefore anyone who claims to have killed for religious reasoning isn't really religious. You're a profound fool if you truly can't see where that logic is flawed.

 

 

Hmm, funny that it is impossible for me to write in a way that you understand what I would like to say. So think about this what you want to think. I think you misunderstood.

 

 

Another recourse to straw man? Where did you learn to reason? If 10% of killings are caused by, say, beer ads on television, and 90% by other factors, does that mean that we should allow unrestricted beer ads? If religion is a tool used by leaders to get people to commit awful acts, and you seem to accept that it is, then surely the loss of religion as a force in society is a good thing, at least as far as reducing killings is concerned. Nobody....do I need to repeat this for you?...nobody suggests that religion is the only or even the single biggest factor in human conflict, especially on the personal scale.

 

 

So, if we take away one tool for leaders, they will start less cruelties? Just 10%? Do you really believe this? I think this is naive. I mean, if you just look at the last wars of the US f.e., which of them had religious reasons? Noone? I actually cannot recall any religious motivated war in the last decades, but I did not check this. Maybe the middle east conflict counts as such?

We agreed already that every party in a war claims God on their side. This helps leading people, seems to make dying easier- I do not know. But if you take away this tool, their are too many othes to use so that I do not share your hope that the end of religion will lower the rate of curelity.

[Fluffy]

Atheists asking for evidence of god makes me laugh, when they say that this is evidence and this is not its kid of silly.

 

Please don't take the following paragraphs too seriously, they are intended to be humorous:

 

Religion String theory is the ultimate truth, the priests scientist have come to realice that when you throw particles one against another, they collide and destroy into pieces that do a lot of multi-dimensional stuff. Now I can barlelly imagine god particles nor see him them anywhere, and can't even begin to understand how what god pieces of particles do can be detected on this level of the world, but the priests scientist say it, and they are men of good truth. What they say is written on the bible books, and everyone (at some time in the human history) believes it. It would be impossible for so many priest scientists to make a secret plot to invent the religion theory for people to believe in it.

 

 

People talking/beleving in it, and books. Most people have the same level of evidence that Mars exist than that Noah created an Arch and put all pairs of animals on i to save from the rain. Evidence is subjective.

[Trinidad]

The Dictionary said:

 

Atheist: noun: someone who denies the existence of god

I suggest you get a better dictionary.

 

FWIW, mine says exactly the same :). However, under atheism it says:

atheism noun 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God. 2. Godlessness.

I consider myself an atheist. I have no desire to deny the existence of God. For me it is more than sufficient that I, personnally, disbelief the existance of God.

 

Since for this part of the discussion it is crucial whether an atheist denies or merely disbelieves the existance of God, I would forget about what your (and my) silly dictionary says about the word "atheist", since -if you look a little further- it says that both are possible.

 

Personally, I cannot imagine an atheist who denies the existence of God. It goes against the core values of the atheist way of thinking: away with religious dogma. This means that we don't believe in God, because there is no reason to do so. Neither do we deny the existence of God, because there is no reason to do so. A denial of God would be creating a dogma that we don't need. And I don't feel the need to deny the existence of the FSM, little green men or Ahauthovius either.

 

Rik