BBF religious matrix

[nige1]

It does work just one way, because atheists do not belong to, or identify as, a group of any kind. Members of churches or followers of creeds share something that is important to their lives; Catholics, in particular, are all required to be obedient to the same hierarchy.

 

Atheists, on the other hand, do not necessarily share anything. You could as easily group together people who don't believe that Shakespeare wrote his own plays, or that chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream, or that fairies exist and hide things when we are looking for them.

By and large, Vampyr is right but atheists and agnostics are getting organised, for instance,

• Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science and
• The (self-professed) Brights and
• Skeptics

[32519]

Justin got it right, neither side will back down.

 

I’ve already disclosed to you what the purpose is of the God of the Jews with creation, and that is for an invisible God to become visible in you and me and everyone else. The Jews who brought us this incredible story have themselves rejected it. Nearly ALL of the non-Jews who have accepted or believe God’s plan of salvation haven’t understood or recognised this from the writings which the Jews have brought us. Why? I’ve already given you two reasons in this thread, 1) an inadequate translation of the Bible to a large extent has buried the story, and 2) fallen man more interested in his own interests, positions, welfare, recognition etc instead of following God’s agenda, has caused all the infighting in institutionalised religion which has led to, I don’t know how many different denominations, churches, whatever being established who ALL CLAIM OWNERSHIP OF THE ONLY TRUE GOD. You can extend the previous sentence to include Judaism and Islam. Christianity and Islam are both offshoots of Judaism. None of the three have understood God’s ultimate purpose with creation, yet the New Testament discloses this hidden mystery of God in quite a few places. For Paul to undergo the harassment and hardship at the hands of his own people, the Jews, for zero financial gain, to complete the story of creation must have been the toughest assignment that he or anyone could ever face.

 

When the Jews rejected this mystery, God destroyed the temple in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. It has never been rebuilt and it never will be rebuilt. Ironically the Muslims have now built a temple of their own on the site. Worldwide institutionalised religion is on the steady decline. Fewer and fewer people are entering the religious building erected by most denominations that you care to name. In my own country, periodically there are discussions on the radio, or an article appears in the newspaper where the leaders of these institutions discuss their concerns etc regarding declining numbers attending and what needs to be done to turn things around. The stuff that sometimes comes out is truly laughable. Declining numbers means declining tithes flowing into their coffers. I doubt whether any are truly concerned about the real truth. It’s all about the money.

 

You want tangible visible proof that God exists. Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God has already demonstrated to us once what is going to happen to every single person who ever walked planet earth.

 

John 14:8-9 “Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father '?

 

1 Corinthians 15:49-53 “Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.”

 

Romans 8:29 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined [Greek means “to limit in advance”] to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.”

 

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 “And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”

 

Colossians 1:15 “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.”

 

I can go on but choose not to. If you get down into the nuts and bolts of this incredible story that the Jews brought us, the bottom line is this; at the resurrection God will become visible in ALL of us. Our choice is simple, let it happen the easy way or let it happen the hard way. This first life is not the all important one.

[Codo]

I know (or at least I believe I know) the difference between believing and knowing. And I'm willing to accept that this may make mikeh's main unanswered question rather unimportant from your perspective.

 

But the issue I have most difficulty getting my mind round is what I perceive to be the cultural arrogance of believers. For example, even if one ignores all the schisms within religions, why do believers in one religion think that they have a better handle on the truth than believers in a different religion? Or to put it a different way, what do Christians think they would believe in if they happened to have been brought up in the Middle East, or in India, say? Would they be equally confident in their belief in Islam, or Hinduism, or whatever as they are in their current belief in Christianity? If not, why not? If so, doesn't this make their specific culturally-determined belief rather unlikely to be right? (Mikeh has made a similar point in relation to all the thousands of different religions people have followed in the past, but even in a very simplified form I have never seen a convincing answer to the underlying question.)

 

I have the same problem. And I would call it arrogance too. I am ware aware that this is wide spread- and of course it is explainable- not with religion but with psychology. If you worship a religion it is much easier if you have strong beliefs. If you want to convince others, it is much easier if you claim that you KNOW. Don't be a maybe. :)

But luckily, the evangelic lutherian churches in northern Europe (where I live) are quite open minded- at least if I compare them to what can be read about the Bible belt and a lot of other places.

[mgoetze]

just two out of maybe 30.000 doctors follow this rule. You are just wrong. It was a tragedy but it was a single case.

Just two... or three...

http://www.ksta.de/ehrenfeld/katholische-krankenhaeuser-neue-vorwuerfe-gegen-kliniken,15187506,21500026.html

... or maybe four ...

http://www.regensburg-digital.de/regensburger-uniklinik-keine-pille-danach-fur-vergewaltigungsopfer/18012013/

 

But you are right, the catholic church does much worse things as well. That's hardly an argument for continuing to give them money in order to run hospitals, however.

[Vampyr]

You want tangible visible proof that God exists. Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God has already demonstrated to us once what is going to happen to every single person who ever walked planet earth.

 

Do you still not understand that Bible quotations do not constitute proof for those who regard the Bible as a work of literature? This fact has been explained earlier in this thread; in addition, it should be accessible by means of simple common sense.

[ArtK78]

Do you still not understand that Bible quotations do not constitute proof for those who regard the Bible as a work of literature? This fact has been explained earlier in this thread; in addition, it should be accessible by means of simple common sense.

One cannot argue logic with a believer.

[Fluffy]

It does work just one way, because atheists do not belong to, or identify as, a group of any kind.

 

Let me doubt it, I've been subject of rataliation from members of your group to what was perceived as an attack to your group or an individual of it for mor than a month. Even if you don't claim to form groups you act in many ways like one.

[Fluffy]

One cannot argue logic with a believer.

 

False, you cannot argue logic with a closed mind (one who doesn't listen), or an irrational mind, you don't need to believe to achieve that status. The fact you have an eample here doesn't prove anything.

[Vampyr]

Let me doubt it, I've been subject of rataliation from members of your group to what was perceived as an attack to your group or an individual of it for mor than a month. Even if you don't claim to form groups you act in many ways like one.

 

Say what you like. I do not belong to a group. Your attack on atheists was an attack on all individuals who are atheist. Call them a group if you want to; any combination of people or things can be defined as a group, even if the basic for their being grouped is invalid or nonsensical.

[mikeh]

Gonzalo and me did answer your questions, try to find it.

My question was what evidence you could point to that positively supports the existence of god: evidence beyond the usual: 'the universe exists, we don't understand it, so it must be god' sort of nonsense.

 

I searched your posts and I quote:

 

'I have no evidence that [god] ever showed up, no evidence that he is there-I just believe'

 

So your answer to my question is 'none'.

 

I know of no other realm of human understanding in which this would be seen as even remotely rational or defensible.

 

As for the difference between knowledge and belief, I once acted as counsel for a man accused in print of being a corrupt politician. The defamers had convinced themselves that he had taken campaign contributions in exchange for a vote on a development. They convinced themselves that the developer had hidden his contributions.

 

In fact, the politician had made a public disclosure of the identity of all of his donors, had listed the developer, had listed the amount contributed, and had not been in office when the impugned vote was cast. IOW, he hadn't even had a vote on the development, let alone had he hid the contribution. All of the correct information was publicly available and easily obtained. Indeed, we not only told the defamers the facts, but told them where to confirm these facts and how. We offered them a chance to avoid the lawsuit with a published apology and nothing more.

 

At trial, I asked one of the defamers whether she understood the difference between believing something and knowing something. Her answer: "I do now".

 

But it was too late. They were ordered to pay several hundred thousand dollars and ended up in bankruptcy and losing their home.

 

Now, the consequences of clinging to a belief in a god means only that you spend a lot of your life living in a (probably) delusional state, and unless you are a victim of a pedophile priest protected by his church, or are a pensioner persuaded to support an evangelistic millionaire preacher, the real life consequences are likely trivial and indeed the sense of community and the assurance that you will be 'saved' may well be seen by you as rewards. So my story isn't likely to be relevant to your situation, but I certainly do know the difference between belief and knowledge :P

 

Btw, with respect to atheists organizing: the mere idea of identifying as a 'bright' makes me cringe. Dawkins is a very smart guy and his books are generally very well written, but that idea of his was truly awful, and I am happy to say that I have not seen any evidence that it gained traction.

 

As for his foundation, well he has made a great deal of money from his books and lectures, so I am happy that he has seen fit to put some of his money where his mouth is: to try to promote rational thinking. He is outgunned, financially, by several orders of magnitude by organized religion, but more power to him. That hardly, however, constitutes any kind of grouping of atheists.

[Fluffy]

Say what you like. I do not belong to a group. Your attack on atheists was an attack on all individuals who are atheist. Call them a group if you want to; any combination of people or things can be defined as a group, even if the basic for their being grouped is invalid or nonsensical.

I didn't attack anyone, but thanks for reminding me why I should stay silent on this topic.

[mikeh]

Let me doubt it, I've been subject of rataliation from members of your group to what was perceived as an attack to your group or an individual of it for mor than a month. Even if you don't claim to form groups you act in many ways like one.

Gonzalo

 

You started it all by suggesting a causal link between an increase in atheistic thinking and your perception that we have seen an increase in random mass murders.

 

This not surprisingly generated some strong responses from those of us who are atheists and who didn't appreciate your unthinking, uninformed suggestion.

 

Rather than doing the normal thing, which would have been to apologize, you claimed it was a joke.

 

You then go on to compound your attacks by stating that when you imagined life without a god, you wanted to kill yourself, which is bad enough, but that you also wanted to kill others. Now, that was arguably merely a confession that you are potentially a mass murderer restrained only by fear of god, but it sure sounds like you think that your experience may be shared by others: in other words, that at least some atheists are at risk of turning into killers due to their non-belief.

 

Then you go on to openly doubt that atheists can have a good moral sense because why should they, in the absence of the teachings of religion.

 

In short, you make a series of insulting posts. You indirectly accuse those of us who don't share your world view of being amoral beings capable of horrific acts and without a moral compass.

 

Now, I fully understand that you wrote out of ignorance and meant no real insult. I accept that you have wrestled with your beliefs, and that your questions are honestly, even if mistakenly, based on your thinking.

 

But you cannot expect to publicly attack a whole range of people, on a level that goes to their very nature, and expect that you will not hear from many of them.

 

I have not personally discussed you and your posts with anyone. My entire response has been online in this forum. There has been no co-ordination between any of us as far as I know.

 

What you have experienced is not retaliation. What you have experienced is vociferous rebuttal and critique of your ignorant opinions. Not 'stupid' opinions. Not 'malicious' opinions. Just ignorant, as in lacking in knowledge. We are all of us ignorant in far broader areas than those in which we are learned or well informed. Your ignorance currently includes atheism. Don't take the replies as attacks: take them as an education in how some people think differently than you do. Once you understand why we think the way we do, you may choose to disagree but at least your posts will then be informed and not ignorant.

[Fluffy]

My question was what evidence you could point to that positively supports the existence of god: evidence beyond the usual: 'the universe exists, we don't understand it, so it must be god' sort of nonsense.

 

I searched your posts and I quote:

 

'I have no evidence that [god] ever showed up, no evidence that he is there-I just believe'

 

So your answer to my question is 'none'.

 

I know of no other realm of human understanding in which this would be seen as even remotely rational or defensible.

 

,snip 16 lines>

 

and lectures, so I am happy that he has seen fit to put some of his money where his mouth is: to try to promote rational thinking. He is outgunned, financially, by several orders of magnitude by organized religion, but more power to him. That hardly, however, constitutes any kind of grouping of atheists.

 

You keep reading what you want, missinterpret it the way you want, drawing your own conclusions and wich can be even worse, write a 20 lines reply to a 1 liner for showoff to the fellows of your comunity.

 

There is a lot more evidence of god existence on this thread than you have got, and Codo and me are not very well versed, for example look here: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/57409-bbf-religious-matrix/page__st__460__p__698338#entry698338 Now, I don't think this is a very strong evidence, but given that it got 4 upvotes, on your scale it is probably pretty strong :P

[diana_eva]

I don't see which of the poll options equals "I belong to a Church or organization", or "I take the Bible as proof". When I voted, I simply stated how I feel, but I don't follow local rituals unless forced by social circumstances and I certainly don't believe God will punish me for doing laundry on Sunday. I think one can sincerely feel there is a god without being associated to any organized form of adoration.

[Fluffy]

This not surprisingly generated some strong responses from those of us who are atheists and who didn't appreciate your unthinking, uninformed suggestion.

 

This is probably a hot point, here, you show your arrogancy one more time showing that what constitutes evidence for you is right, and what constitues evidence for people who disagree with you is ignorance. I don't know where you got all this arrogancy from because not so long ago it was not there. You can write down another 30 lines of why you are sure of it for your fellows, but don't lie to yourself thinking that they are directed at me, because I won't read them.

 

BTW regarding the first point where I expressed my opinion and the atheists who claim to be tolerant got infuriated, I still think atheism can lead to mass murder, but Rik convinced me that well thought atheism won't. Its just the same for all, if you are stupid, and you believe, you can find a sacred book to folow that will lead to you making real stupid and horrendous things. If you are a stupid unhappy atheists who hasn't though about it well enough you can do a suicidal mass murder out of boredom or something else also.

[mgoetze]

wich can be even worse, write a 20 lines reply to a 1 liner for showoff to the fellows of your comunity.

You know, you're right. You don't really deserve such thoughtful replies as Mike has been giving you. Shame on him.

 

And what is it with the obsession with upvoting? Has the Church of Lurpoa infiltrated this thread?

[Fluffy]

its not my obsession, it is mike's obsession (didn't I make it clear?), I suspect he posts for social reasons like recognition or the feeling of winning the argument, seems to me he is always trying to move the debate to the areas where he is strong so that he can show off*. I have nothing against social reasons except that they are not very useful when what you seek is knowledge.

 

*for example I suspect he is taunting Codo to tell him that Jesus is a proof of god's existance, that way he can talk about his very deep research (and very good IMO, but that is not important) of the non existance of Jesus himself.

 

Michael you should realioce that YOU are the intended audience for mike's thoughful posts, not me.

[Phil]

I would not have bet this thread would have lasted 29 pages (and counting).

[JLOGIC]

I would not have bet this thread would have lasted 29 pages (and counting).

 

IME all threads on religion, politics, or system regulations by the ACBL have a reasonable shot of lasting for a long time with a lot of posts lol.

[Phil]

IME all threads on religion, politics, or system regulations by the ACBL have a reasonable shot of lasting for a long time with a lot of posts lol.

 

Yeah, that and homemade signs at closing ceremonies.

[helene_t]

try posting a defensive play problem next time, Phil

[quiddity]

We say: we don't know! We say we have open minds...we'd like to know, but we don't and maybe we never will. The religious say: we know! We know with absolute certainty...

 

At the risk of a very bad bridge analogy: consider 4 hands are dealt face down. Your priest (who played no role in the dealing) tells you that you hold precisely AK32 Q65432 void J72.

 

You believe him. Why?

 

The atheist tells you: I don't know what your cards are: I suggest we do some research and find out. The atheist waits until the evidence is there, which can in this case be gathered by looking at the cards.

 

Here is a slightly different analogy: you hold AK32 Q65432 void J72. RHO opens 1♦ and you're not sure what to do so you ask the priest who has some experience of such matters through years of study and discussions with others who faced similar problems. "You should overcall 1H" he says.

"But why not double? Why not preempt? Why not pass and avoid telling the opponents our shape? How can you prove that 1H is right? I suggest we do some research and find out. I'll wait until the evidence is there."

"Suit yourself," says the priest. "But you'll be waiting a long time. This matter is unprovable, and is likely to remain so, and in the meantime you have your life to live. All I can do is tell you that based on my feelings, my experience, and my study of the past several millennia of human history, that I strongly believe it is right to bid 1H."

[Winstonm]

[/size]

 

This is probably a hot point, here, you show your arrogancy one more time showing that what constitutes evidence for you is right, and what constitues evidence for people who disagree with you is ignorance. I don't know where you got all this arrogancy from because not so long ago it was not there. You can write down another 30 lines of why you are sure of it for your fellows, but don't lie to yourself thinking that they are directed at me, because I won't read them.

 

BTW regarding the first point where I expressed my opinion and the atheists who claim to be tolerant got infuriated, I still think atheism can lead to mass murder, but Rik convinced me that well thought atheism won't. Its just the same for all, if you are stupid, and you believe, you can find a sacred book to folow that will lead to you making real stupid and horrendous things. If you are a stupid unhappy atheists who hasn't though about it well enough you can do a suicidal mass murder out of boredom or something else also.

 

Fluffy,

 

Do you understand that feelings are not evidence? The basis for this schism between belief/non-belief is rooted in objective evidence versus subjective interpretation. It is not that the atheist is arrogant, only that the atheist acknowledges this distinction between objective evidence and subjective interpretation. The basis for this distinction is reasoning, and reasoning is what pulled mankind from the dark ages into the Age of Enlightenment.

 

Feelings are ephemeral and untrustworthy captains. Better to steer your ship toward the brick, mortar, and light of the lighthouse than to turn this way and that way in the dark because a self-proclaimed "knower" tells you that he alone knows that the lighthouse is to the starboard and your feelings tell you that he is right.

 

Best.

[Winstonm]

Here is a slightly different analogy: you hold AK32 Q65432 void J72. RHO opens 1♦ and you're not sure what to do so you ask the priest who has some experience of such matters through years of study and discussions with others who faced similar problems. "You should overcall 1H" he says.

"But why not double? Why not preempt? Why not pass and avoid telling the opponents our shape? How can you prove that 1H is right? I suggest we do some research and find out. I'll wait until the evidence is there."

"Suit yourself," says the priest. "But you'll be waiting a long time. This matter is unprovable, and is likely to remain so, and in the meantime you have your life to live. All I can do is tell you that based on my feelings, my experience, and my study of the past several millennia of human history, that I strongly believe it is right to bid 1H."

 

Any lamebrain can see that the void makes this worth an intermediate 2H bid. :P

[Vampyr]

BTW regarding the first point where I expressed my opinion and the atheists who claim to be tolerant got infuriated, I still think atheism can lead to mass murder,(emphasis mine) but Rik convinced me that well thought atheism won't. Its just the same for all, if you are stupid, and you believe, you can find a sacred book to folow that will lead to you making real stupid and horrendous things. If you are a stupid unhappy atheists who hasn't though about it well enough you can do a suicidal mass murder out of boredom or something else also.

 

So it's not all atheists who are tend to be morally depraved, but only those whose atheism is not "well thought" and who are stupid and unhappy? So those of us who think of ourselves as intelligent and thoughtful can rest assured that it is not we who are being attacked?

 

You have admitted that it is fear of God that stops you from being a mass murderer, but other people are not like that. In fact I don't think that belief or otherwise in God has anything to do with the thinking of those who choose, out of boredom (probably the main reason?) to go out and commit mass murder.

 

I don't think I have ever said anything like this either in person or online, but I'm sorry, I think that you are possibly the most odious, offensive creature it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.