You make it sound as though a perfect being should act like a mindless robot. I find it plausible to believe that even though God would have known that Adam would be lonely, he did not immediately make Eve, because he might have wanted to see what Adam did.

All in all, this is a classic "Chicken or the egg" argument. No side can win, because no side can adequately prove their point. This is why one should always be very careful when discussing Religion and Politics.

I am going to end my participation in this thread and return to worrying about games and sports.

-Cork

If god is perfect and all knowing...it's kinda hard to excuse the mistakes, but, there is no requirement to act like a robot and actually it never crossed my mind as god being some sort of assembly line like robot.

I totally respect your perspective on this and yes, it is very difficult to have constructive discussions regarding religion and politics. How about something lighter like abortion? Just kidding.

Well, see you in the other discussions then! :)

One of the problems with living in Australia is that I'm about 12 hours in antiphase with you guys and I log on here in a morning and there are about six pages of posts to work my way through. So many things have been said which I would like to reply to but I have to restrict myself to a few.

Like many others I found your post ajaxab an interesting misreading of the situation:


First, things haven't turned out well yet for about 5 billion of the world's 6 billion population. Only for us in the "developed" world could "the way things have turned out" be described as "well". Life is still pretty crappy for the rest.

It was also pretty crappy for our societies 300 years or more ago. A person born had about a 40% chance of dieing before he reached the age of one. Even if you made it that far you were lucky to survive 30. Each morning you would wake up knowing there was a significant chance you wouldn't be alive at the end of the week. If disease hit you there was often nothing whatsoever you could do about it and would suffer enormously or succomb to death.

What happened wasn't that things "turned out" well but that we stopped dropping to our knees to pray for god to fix it and decided to look how things worked and then used that understanding to overcome the bad stuff. We turned to science instead of God and life began to get a lot better.

Because of this today we stand a good chance of living until we're 80. If disease strikes (providing we either afford health insurance or live in a country that provides universal health care ;) ) we can survive disease. We do not spend 110% of our lives searching for food - we die of obesity not malnutrition :rolleyes:

We have it good because we've learned to understand the way the world works and manipulated the good and (to a large extent) controlled the bad. We can still suffer from earthquakes,tsunamis etc but we're even learning to deal with them. We'll probably live to 120 by the end of this century and may even overcome death in a few centuries.

Things haven't "turned out" well - we've created that situation for ourselves despite our many flaws by turning away from "god" and relying on our own abilities.

A point about the "flawed universe" - the despised religion of Gnosticism had a better explanation of this. They believed that the world was flawed because it was created by a demi-god not the supreme God. When Christianity came along - they existed from some 400 years before Christ - they concluded, with some justification in my view, that the god of the old testament was not the same as that of the new. They concluded that YAHWEH was the demi-god that created the flawed universe and that the god of Jesus was the supreme, perfect god.

This particular version of Christianity was, of course, virtually wiped out when Rome made Catholicism the state religion and gave it military power and the doctrine of Original Sin answered the flawed universe problem by dumping all the bad stuff on man while reserving all the good stuff for god.

Ok how about this for an explanation.

God wanted Adam to be happy but knew if he gave him Eve straight away he wouldn't appreciate her and there would be disharmony.

By allowing him time on his own when Eve arrived he appreciated her more and thus the delay in her creation was an anticipated act by God.

(not saying this is the 'right' answer - but its a possible arguement which meets the criteria for God placed in the bible)

Without knowing Gods ultimate aim and gameplan its impossible to critique his actions and acknowledge them as fallible/infallible or Good or Evil ...

The biggest issue I've always had is the seemingly incompatible ideas of "God's plan" and freewill. What is the purpose of having a plan if we are free to follow it or not, and how can the plan of a perfect God be foiled? Conversely, if there is a plan and we are supposed to surrender to his will, what happens to our freewill?

IMHO if God is omnipotent then there is no such thing as freewill (because he created us knowing exactly what we'd do all the time). Some Christians believe in this scenario, some don't.

Indeed outside of relgion, according to science there is actually no such thing as free will.

Follow me on this path if you will ...

* Science believes that everything obeys the laws of science.
* Thus all animals obey the laws of science.
* Thus our brains obey the laws of science.
* All our surroundings (and inputs to our environement) are controlled by the laws of science.
* Our brains act upon the input impulses giving a predictable response given the inputs and state of the brain at the time (think of the brain of a very very very complicated computer if it helps).

Thus while we can't predict peoples behaviour accurately theoretically we are all pre-programmed and if science ever gets sufficiently advanced we could determine peoples actions before they do them.

(but the important thing imho is that from our limited perspective we BELIEVE that we have free will, thus even most aetheists actually live their lives by the false belief that they act of their own free will)

Ok - anyone still following me or has it got a bit too late in the evening for me to try and explain something complicated? :D

The idea that this world has some degree of perfection or imperfection interests me. What is the arbiter of quality to an atheist? What determines if something is good or perfect or bad or imperfect?

Surely perfect and imperfect are qualities which differ according to the eye of the observer, much like beauty.

For example my perfect bacon sandwich would consist of juicy english bacon lightly grilled and smothered in Worcester Sauce .... however American diners over here insist on a strip of bacon being fried to a solid dry crisp, a bit like eating cardboard but with less flavour ... which is the perfect way to serve bacon, depends entirely on who you ask ;)

If this is the case, then how can the imperfection of the world be used as an argument about the world? It seems like it would be a statement about the observer. "To my eyes the world is imperfect."

That is essentially what the people in this thread are stating - "To their eyes the world is not operating in the manner which they would expect it to should it be 'perfect'" ... what each person would view as perfect would undoubtably be somewhat different however most people would unite in saying that the world as it is today is not their idea of a 'perfect world'.

Its generally much easier to 'tear down' than it is to 'build up' thus defining something as imperfect is relatively easy - however asking someone to defne what their perfect world would be like is very difficult because most of us don't have that much creativity in us and have no real idea what we'd ultimately like given the chance. As such having omeone indicate the world is 'imperfect' is acceptable imho - society/religion indicates many things which are desirable in people and the world contains much that isn't particularly desirable either by society or individuals - hence imperfect would be an acceptable definition of the state of the planet to the vast majority of people.

Incidentally imho all statements by humans are statements about 'observers' imho - for instance if I say the sky is blue; I'm really stating that the sky is what I consider to be the colour blue but thats my perception and that of a colour blind person might differ.

Humans like to 'club together' and pretend that our interpretation of things is the same because its reassuring to know that people agree with us and share our views which helps reinforce our confidence that we are right, however ultimately are views are our own and strength in numbers doesn't guarentee that you're right.

(which of course doesn't mean its not working exactly as God intended ;) )

How about children not dying of terminal illness for a start?

Any God that chooses not to intervene on the behalf of 2 year old children dying from leukemia, for instance, is persona non grata with me. If they cannot prevent it, they aren't powerful enough for me to fear. If they aren't willing to, then they are too despicable for me to bother with.

Or it could just be that they do not exist...

You're elevating subjectivity beyond its true influence, Mark. Does it have a significant influence over our judgment? Of course it does. Is it the only influence on our judgment? Of course not. Subjectivity requires and object and it's in the object that objectivity resides.

Your argument is precisely that which caused Plato to decide that there was absolutely no value whatsoever in what today we call "empirical evidence" and is the cornerstone of the massive improvement in our lives. His mistake was yours - the belief that subjectivity was everything (and as a result delayed the scientific revolution and subjected humans to a further 2000 years of misery)

There is no question that any one person's experience is subjective but by combining the experiences of many individuals the subjectivity and distortions caused by this even out leaving a reasonable approximation to the objective. Add to that the willingness to correct remaining distortions when further experience calls for it and you approach objectivity asymptotically (I knew I get to use that world sometime ;) )

We can name some imperfections in the world that all humans would agree on. A life-form that slaughters humans in their millions and causes untold suffering that was totally unknown for thousands of years - I speak of the virus - I think all humans would agree was an "imperfection" in creation. You can argue that it stimulates us to solve the problems associated with it but those problems wouldn't exist without it so that would a somewhat circular argument.

I think almost all humans would consider the virus not just an imperfection but also the work of a pretty nasty "creator" (if intelligent creation is the case) and that judgment would go beyond subjectivity.

Don't get me wrong for 'normal situations' I'd never argue that subjective views are important when doing scientific research for instance.

However when dealing with intangible items like 'perfection' its very much a subjective measure and one which can't be set in stone by a doctrine or proof imho.

I did try and indicate that its easier to critique/criticise things and find common ground in that side of things than it is to truly agree on a definition of a subjective experience.

You are right however in that I should have clarified a difference between ambigious feelings (such as what is perfect) and more concrete situations such as testing the existance of gravity for instance.

(oh and the example of colour blindness wasn't the brightest choice in the world either - in my defense its late here ;) )

I think the answer to that, st.cronin, is one I'm sure you've heard before and one you may even have used yourself in other circumstances - I can't define it, I can't pin it down exactly, but I can recognise it when I see it.

A tsunami wiping out 200,000 people isn't perfection, right? A disease savaging fully a third of the population (as the black death in Europe) isn't perfection. And so on.

I have no problem at all accepting that the world as we see it is a "flawed" world if it was indeed created by an intelligent entity. The alternative is that it wasn't "designed" at all but the result of random processes with little or no concern for its appeal to mankind. The world isn't intentionally beneficial or antagonistic towards we humans. It isn't flawed, it just is.

To put it in terms which Me and Mac can relate to easily ;)

Game design is a tricky beast - in practice most people know what they 'like' when they see it and can point out flaws in your games design because of what they don't enjoy because its an emotive issue on something that is available to see/try.

Ask them to design a game however and most will flounder (after initial enthusiasm) because its a blank slate and not something they really have any understanding of doing.

Criticising something is easy you simply indicate what is in it which doesn't appeal to you, creating something from a blank canvas is very difficult - especially if you've never done it before.

As such 'critiquing' Gods creation (ie. everything) is easy to do - we look around and point out what we think is wrong with it - small changes which we think would improve things (ie. removal of illnesses), have we any real idea of the effect of our proposed changes, no (for instance removing illnesses would probably lead to vast over-population quickly) and could we make anything approaching it ourselves however ..... nope not a chance .....

I thought one of the points of Genesis is how the world was perfect, until man screwed it up by adding sin to the mix.

I've said this in the other thread - from our human perspective, it's hard to fathom why a 3 year old dies from Leukemia. It just doesn't make sense - but it doesn't mean that there isn't a reason - we may just not be able to fathom it. Along with that is the fact that our souls are eternal, and therefore the 3 miserable years on earth really don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. Sure, as a human being living on this earth, it's hard to think outside the bounds like that (and please, if this happened to a loved one of yours, I offer my extreme condolences and understanding that I am not making light of the situation). The issue is - there is a lot of suffering in this world, but Jesus took on all this suffering so that we can be re-born in Him in the afterlife.

No, there's no flashing sign saying "Eternal Life Here" posted on the equator or anything - nothing that's going to bang you over the head with it.

In asking God for a sign that can be proven by one of your five senses... You're more than likely not going to get one (though I won't say it's impossible). However, as I mentioned in the other thread, from God's perspective (warning, run-on sentence), "I created the universe, the planets, the animals, humans, and then the humans screwed it up, and so this world is filled with disease and greed and war and famine, so I sent my son, Jesus, to die for your screw ups and give you a chance at eternal redemption and all I ask is for you to accept his outreached hand - however, you want a SIGN, too?!"

I reckon the arbiter of quality to an atheist is pretty much in line with what it'd be for any right-minded religious person. There may be some differences at the fringes, but for the most part they'd be very similar.

I have a big problem with the whole "Man screwed things up by adding sin." Any religion that bases its worldview on the fact that knowledge and sex are sins is pretty fucked up in my opinion.

This is generally perceived as a control method of the masses and allows certain people to get into/stay in power

Oh absolutely that's what I believe (as well as most other non-believers I would guess). But I don't think the religious people who follow the bible would agree. And if they do, it kind of throws the whole idea of Jesus dying for our sins out the window, doesn't it?

I think some may have missed my point yesterday. I wasn't questioning whether or not we have a flawed world. I do agree with many of you on that point. But the question following from that point was an honest one. How does the atheist explain why things are so flawed and messed up? To use Mac's numbers, if 5 out of 6 billion people are not living well, why does this messed up situation continue? His point about coming up with better ways to deal with the bad may be valid, but why is the bad there itself? Why is there disease, murder, famine, etc.?

I appreciate the discussion.

The motivation of believing to maintain power doesn't have anything to do with the validity/non-validity of belief. If the atheist maintains their atheism so that they can justify and maintain power, this doesn't make their atheist beliefs any less true/false. Motivations for belief seem different to me than reasons for belief.

I would assume that atheism would point toward evolution working toward the survival of the species and not toward the enjoyment of that survival. Species evolve to be able to compete and exist in a harsh environment, and that is about it. At the same time, other species evolve with the same purpose. This kind of competition will never lead to everyone being "happy".

These things just are. They're not intrinsically good or bad, they just are. It is we humans that put labels of good and bad on them based on whether they're beneficial to us or not. Disease makes me sick and suffer - that's bad. A sunny day makes me feel good - that's good. And so on.

The world isn't really "flawed". It is only so if you assume there's a designer who was aware of, and concerned about, the impact of these things on us when he drew up the blueprint. If he wasn't concerned about us and merely wanted to produce a world with a great deal of energy and lots of things happening and evolving and was as concerned about a virus or an earthquake as he was about a human then he produced a pretty good world.

We're a very arrogant species - we like to think that everything is built around our interests but, in truth, we're just a stop on the way to somewhere else :)


Me too. Most of the things I've talked about here are not things I've thought about before but things that have come out of the discussion. We all tend not to analyse our world view too intently unless required to :)

Not sure I follow.

I was saying that I believe the notion of the "Original Sin" of seeking knowledge and sex are man's creation as a way to hold power over all of us (since NO ONE can be without sin, so everyone must believe and repent to the church). Are you saying you agree with that notion?

And if so, if it is the church leaders' way of holding power over us, how does that hold with the belief that Jesus was sent to earth to die for everyone's sins - including the Original Sin that is part of all of us?

(And by the way, I think it's a silly conceit to say that since Adam and Eve sinned that means that every other human in the world has sinned as well - including infants just out of the womb, but that's kind of a different subject....)

Knowledge and sex? Huh?

Right. And to further this statement. The disease that Mac talks about is bad for the human that has it, true. But it's good for the bacteria or the virus that is living in that person's body.

I'm no biblical scholar, but isn't that what Original Sin is?

While evolution can explain certain motivations of people, I really don't think it's a valuable "catch all" theory that explains why there is bad itself or why there is disease, murder, famine, etc. I don't think it's terribly helpful, or all that accurate, to try and provide an evolutionary explanation for every action someone takes.

The easiest example is some quote from Ethan Hawke where he was trying to justify his infidelity based on evolution and how men aren't "made" to be monogamous because evolution dictates they try to procreate as often as possible or something along those lines. No, you douche bag, you just cheated on your wife because you're a douche. There are some very basic urges that almost all humans have based on evolution, but the real difference between us and the animals is that we can think rationally and should not be driven purely by our basic urges. Does it happen? Most definitely. Do they play a part in our subconcious decision-making? More often than not, yes. But I think it'd be quite diengenious to sit back and say "People do horrible shit to other people beacause it's survival of the fittest, baby. This is just evolution at work."

So, why the theory of evolution may provide a foundation for some bad things people do, it's not the answer.

So, what is the answer? It's really far too complicated. There is no easy answer for most things. The reasons for kids starving in African are very different than the reasons people are living in poverty in downtown Detroit.

There are different biological, social, and environmental reasons for all of these things. Trying to figure them out and then come up with a solution is the real trick.

What's the religious explanation for it? God's will? That can't be it, no?

One thing i like to point out about my beliefs is that, unlike folks like Richard Dawkins, I don't have disdain for people of faith. At least those that don't push their religion down my throat. And I don't bring up religion unless it's brought up to me first (since nobody likes being dashed about the head how their beliefs are flawed).

Also, my beliefs allow for any religion/theory/belief to be "correct." I'm not cornering the market on ideas of how-things-came-to-be. Guys like Dawkins annoy me in their contempt for others that don't conform to his beliefs and isn't that hypocrisy?

This is what got Ayn Rand into trouble. It didn't matter that she was an atheist, she was still a hypocrite that used methods to maintain what power she had over her flock.

I don't think I'm necessarily addressing these kinds of doctrinal issues, but something a bit different. But rather that if someone believes in some religious doctrine (like Original Sin) just so they can continue to exercise power over someone else, that power motivation doesn't make the doctrine any more true or false. That takes us back to Quik's point earlier in the thread. If a religious person believes in a doctrine because they like the feelings it gives them or if an atheist believes there is no god because they like the feeling of driving their own destiny, these motivations, i.e. the feelings, don't make the religious doctrine or the atheistic position true or false.

I guess I'm trying to separate reasons for belief, in a logical sense, from reasons for belief in a motivational sense. Logical reasons can make something true or false. Motivational reasons do not make something true or false.

Not sure I'm making sense here, but maybe that clarifies a bit.

Precisely. There's probably a zero sum in there somewhere.

I appreciate your attitude Bonegavel. It's unfortunate that a lot of the most visible and vocal public atheists do seem to demonstrate disdain for people of faith.

Out of curiosity, what does it mean to have religion pushed down your throat?

Well, sure. I can believe that the sky is blue because blue is my favorite color and the God of the Sky made it blue to please me. That is poppycock, of course, but that doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue.

I get that.

My point was that it is my belief that the story of Adam and Even (and Original Sin) was written by man as a method of control over all people and is entirely fictional.

That was the part that I left unsaid that would seem hard to reconcile with the story of Jesus dying for the sins of all mankind.

The importance of Original Sin for Christianity I understand came from St Augustine. He realised that suffering occurred to anyone and was not in any way restricted to those who behaved badly. He needed an answer for that and found it in the story of Adam and Eve and the tree of knowledge of sin.

He figured that man was so riddled with sin that no matter how pious we were, no matter how we tried to avoid sin, we were incapable of avoiding it. We were therefore guilty and deserved punishment and suffering was that punishment.

That's why, in Catholic dogma, how you behave in this life does not determine whether or not you will go to heaven. You are so full of sin that you can't possibly deserve to go there and it's only through God's Grace (which no one understands or knows) that you get there.

I think Mac already answered your questions, assuming I am reading them correctly. It just is.

Why is there famine? An atheist is comfortable discussing the concrete factors that led to a food shortage -- a drought occurred or fighting displaced the farmers during the growing season. The atheist doesn't feel that s/he has to ascribe some greater cosmic motive for the occurrence.

Abrahamic religions, in which most of us were raised and which seems to be serving as the underlying standard for religious perspective in this thread --probably unfairly -- seek to place human events into the context of God's will.

I think this is the part that gets people in trouble. Faith and logic are (by definition?) mutually exclusive. Faith is the belief in the absence of proof. Logic relies on the ability to prove something and extend.

In a more general sense, an individual might have logical support to their beliefs. They may believe in God and have the support of "feeling his presence" or maybe something even more tangible. The trouble is extending that logic to a population as a whole. Unless you have been "touched", you have to believe based on the belief of others.

This isn't to say that belief is wrong or logic is superior. It just means that trying to connect faith and logic will ultimately be (I believe) fruitless.

I've always thought of this as having the right to: freedom from religion as well and freedom of religion. The easiest example would be the evangelist's of certain sects of Christianity that attempt to get their version of beliefs into everything public. I'll count the Knights of Columbus too since they helped changed the pledge and change the motto on our currency in the 1950's.

Or the devil's.

I agree. That's Dawkins' largest flaw. He makes so many good points, great, rational arguments, but his disdain for people of faith is annoying and off-putting. I am not sure if he was just beaten down after years of arugment or is just generally an ass (probably a comination of the two), but having disdain for someone or calling someone an "idiot" out of the box is a great way of ensuring they will never agree with you or even really listen to you in the first place.

Right, but the fact that the Original Sin was eating of the tree of Knowledge was no mistake. That is significant. Also significant is that the first repercussion of that is the fact that Adam and Eve became embarrassed by their nakedness.

And many churches today still teach that Original Sin was Adam and Eve's sexual awakening. Which is why all of us are tainted by Original Sin as we're all born out of sex.

Except Jesus, of course, which is a prime reason FOR the story of the virgin birth. To make Jesus completely above sin.

This may take the thread in completely the wrong direction, but would you advocate for a general conspiracy from the church to put the bible stories together in such a way as to help create their own power? Was the church big enough and organized enough in that time to pull something like this off? It would seem like such a massive undertaking with little chance of success.

I wouldn't got that far.

But there is so much in the Bible that's open to interpretation and so many conflicting stories, that the church could (and did) focus on some stories/passages or interpret some stories/passages in an effort to control people or at least drive its own agenda in some instances.

Also, you can't rule out the role and impact of how the Bible was translated. Changing a few words here and there can give passages or sentences entirely different meanings.

In my cynical agnosticism (I do not consider myself an atheist) I have always argued that faith is the mechanism devised by the priesthood to maintain control over its community. It is the priesthood saying "You will believe what I say, regardless of contradictory evidence, regardless of the strength of contrary argument, you will continue to believe what I tell you." And thus maintains political and social control over his community.

That goes from the Native American's medicine man to the pope - control of the community.

There is, of course, always an "Or else ....." to go with this :)

Absolutey, he can act and do as he wishes, he is a free being, however I am also a free being and frankly, I do ont find someone with lackluster interest in doing sometihng right worthy of my praise let alone devotion.

hence my position that he is NOT perfect and therefore NOT god. =) God is supposed to be the do all and end all of the universe. Playing with his and breaking his toys does not make him thus. Again, no grounds for praise.

I really do get what you're saying, but what *I* am saying is that for me, this type of decision making is unacceptable in a deity. He may wel BE a supreme being, as in he is so far beyond us that its laughable, but in order to be MY God, where I send MY praise and needs and prayers, he has to be far MORE than that. God must be above petty human tendancy.

This is where it falls apart for me. No praise-worthy super power would have created the utter MESS this world is. If he did he is unworthy of such devotion. ust because someone has great power does not make them God-like. One must be above and beyond all mortal expectation to reach that level. A mere man can't be better than God, at anything.

I don't have a real understanding of how the bible was written, compiled, or translated, but do I think that the stories were manipulated as a method of control or an attempt to influence others? Absolutely.

First off, remember that no one is trying to "win" here, we're all ust discussing our own personal views and beliefs.

Secondly You seem to be falling into the same routine that I find those who believe always do, they look for examples in teh scripture and say, "why couldn't it be like this?" And pretty much always its not a really well thought our analogy. There are any number of examples of paradox in the scripture when it comes to trying to validate the Omniscience issue. honestly I think Omniscience is a purely human creation. people WANT and some even truly NEED to believe in a perfect being who set it al in motion and cares about them.

There is nothing wrong with that.

But when I sit down and look at how I feel and how I believe, I have to look at what each religion offers me. None of the religions out there right now (as far as I've discovered) have offered up sufficient reasoning or folklore to bring me over to their belief.

As I've said earlier, for ME, its not remotely possible to accept that this "God" being is worthy of entrusting my very LIFE to when all around me I see evidence of his fallibility. A god must be infallible or he is NOT a God, he is just another being.

I hope you keep reading along at least, you've offered up some decent questions relating to my stance and I appreciate you helping me clarify things.

What need does God have of our acceptance? What need does God have of our devotion? What NEED does God have of our interest at all? If he is truly God, he doesn't NEED anything and we're just being self indulgent dandies for presuming he does. Human fallibility at its finest.

Isn't this true of any political mechanism though (I mean political in the sense of power most broadly from parent-child up through formal institutional expressions of power)? I think of the situation in China where the religious are being persecuted (and not just the Christian religious either). In China, these people are told that they must believe what the party says regardless of the strength of contradictory evidence or contrary argument. The people must continue to believe what the party tells them to believe "or else" they get sent to labor camps.

It would seem that this would even apply in democracy. The "or else" may not be as severe in democracy and people have more freedom to think through potentially contradictory arguments, but those who don't support democracy are ostracized as fascists, pinko commies, fundamentalist isolationist zealots, etc. Left-leaning professors who critique some of the problems with democracy know this all too well.

I don't see this as a problem with what might be termed faith-based power, but more fundamental to power itself. Any exercise of power will always have an "or else" attached to it or it would not seem to be power.

So if the motivation to believe in religious doctrine comes from either a desire to hold power or a fear from power, then I don't see the motivation as that much different than other forms of power more generally.

This is a bit off the topic, but what you describe is very close to what exactly happened. There's a lot of biblical history out there to go through, but essentially what we see as the Bible is a document put together over hundreds of years, and the content was chosen and revised in order to support the power and positions of the church. The original versions were much different than what is passed down as THE bible now.

For myself, I don't. I don't try to explain the world, its creation or its demise. I let time and development of knowledge do that. I have no need and more over no interest in having some all encompassing 'thing' explain away the universe for me.

If it really did explain it all, what point would there be to even living? Why bother to wake up every day if you know/believe you know all the answers?

And I think theism is the one that has to explain things. Atheism doesn't define any nature of the universe, and so has no real need to explain that. But if you posit that a higher power created the universe, there needs to be some reason and purpose behind everything. Atheism denies that's the case, and so perhaps there is absolutely no reason or purpose for things at all. Atheism doesn't make a case either way, and so is not tied to any particular explanation of things.

I also want to point out that atheism by definition denies theism, or the belief in a God or Gods. It does not necessarily rule out other forms of spirtualism or religion, though people tend to assume it does.

I'm not sure how we got into the power discussion. But I think the comparisons to democracy for instance are interesting, but miss the mark a bit. The reason is that atheists believe that the very basis for this power/control mechanism is a fabrication. It can be infuriating to us to have policy decisions, wars, etc. be based on a fiction.

Because religion has proven so very effective at controlling its followers throughout the course of history makes it worrisome to those who don't believe. Especially when "faith" tends to trump logical discourse in many cases (at least in the opinion of most non-believers).

I am still here in "lurker mode" and will definately continue reading the posts in the thread. Since I am not much of a biblical scholar, I will not have much to offer up from a biblical perspective, so I will just enjoy reading the various opinions and keep my personal views to myself.

-Cork

Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God, and they have decided that we are not important enough to know why God does this to a small child, then again why is this deserving of worship or praise? It's not good enough for me. So, if that is the best that anyone can come up with, I will not play along and if there is a God that I have to answer to at the end of my days, I will, presumably, be punished because I don't approve of the killing of children. I don't mind having ethics and morals that are of a higher standard than this "God", and if this "God" wishes to send me into eternal torment/torture because of it, I will take what is coming to me knowing that I held a higher standard and respect for life than it did.

This is how I feel also. It is very unfortunate that Karl Marx's ideas were so misunderstood and abused by the Soviet Union that the impression people get of him and his very powerful belief in religion being the opium of the people is always discarded.

I have no problems with adults doing whatever they like. It is only when small children are involved and the government gets involved in cases like Terry Schiavo that I get bent out of shape.

He wants to have a relationship with His creation.

Again, everything dies - their body, that is. That's what natural selection is all about. Heck, that's Darwin at it's finest. What do you prescribe as the alternative, and from who's perspective is that better?

If you're looking at your life on earth as the be-all end-all, I can see your frustration. However, the whole point about Jesus coming down earth was to save your eternal SOUL.

I don't mind accepting life as it is and as it happens. Do I have a problem praising some supposed deity for creating a world that brings suffering to millions (if not more than that) on a daily basis? Yeah. You can praise this supposed "loving creator" if you approve of this, but first I am skeptical that such an entity even exists, and secondly I am not going to pretend I approve in the slightest.


The whole Jesus and soul thing is up for debate, since only the Christians believe this particular piece of mythology, right?

You should say that you believe this, because I have not seen any clear evidence of this.

It has been shown that these translation 'errors' truly lead to impact. In the original Hebrew, Mary was never a virgin mother. The word should translate to young women, but some liberties taken by authors, translated it to virgin women, because virgins had a unique mystique at the time.

Even at the expense of damning billions to eternal suffering.

It seems like a very, very sloppy means to an end for an all-powerful being. Unless he's pure evil.

I just heard a story on PRI's The World show from earlier this week. It was about a music band from Congo and they touched on what happened there after Belgium decided to make it a colony and the missionaries rolled in. The missionaries apparently told the natives that their music and dancing was "Satanic" and confiscated all the instruments. They were told that all the instruments were destroyed, but over time they have found that many of them really went to museums throughout Europe.

Things like this certainly increase my confidence that there is no "God", or if there is one I am highly skeptical that it is the kind of "God" I want to have anything to do with.

*cough* Hitler. *cough*

no god. discussion over.

Edited due to clarification and DT's total NON-failure.

I didn't say Hitler was christian or anything H_B. My point was that suffering of that level (particularly against the Jews no less) IMHO is pretty damning evidence of the lack of a supreme being. Particularly considering that that's only one example of the countless genocides throughout history.




Or at the very least - if you want the agnostic POV, as others have alluded to - the supreme being is a jerk and i personally have a better moral compass than him, in which case i see no need to venerate him and celebrate him.


c'mon - you know someone had to godwin-ize the argument. i'm only surprised that it took 4 pages.

So he requires obediance, devotion and prayer to have a relationship? he can't just use a phone like anyone else? ;)

its just too self indulgent, again something that a supreme being shouldn't be.

My bad, DT. I took the quote out of context. I get you now.

Really? according to whom?

Ok, according to my beliefs, he sent Jesus down to earth to die for our sins so that the eternal breakage between Him and man could be fixed again.

no worries H_B. I didn't really clarify what I meant in my desire to godwin-ize the discussion. I took a little umbrage at your implication that I'd failed though -- I've studied more than enough WWII (and Nazi Germany) history in my life. :)

How could there be disharmony unless that's what god wanted? So either way, had Eve been there from the start or not, he made a mistake and painted himself into a corner. I'm basing all of this on the bible actually being factual, not on how you interpret it.

According to ME, and since *I* am the only person to whom I have to validate MY beliefs thats all that matters.

Self indulgent? yes, acceptable from a human being? pretty much, acceptable in a God? never.

Does anybody have any good references for translation errors of changing of the original text? There seems to be lots of sites on the web talking about "the real original text should be translated like this", but I have no idea which ones have a clue and which are pushing their own agenda.

I believe there is, just can't remember it off hand.

I'll try and find the site for you.

Codex Sinaiticus is what I'm looking for...

oh man - all this talk about intents and original texts of the bible brings me back to this class i had freshman year at BC where we essentially looked at the bible as a historical document with an ex-priest, and he went through and said "okay now this piece of this section that talks about X was actually a response to this historical event that was occuring at the time, or had just occured." Or a way to communicate the lessons learned by a historical event (a conflict for example).

it was pretty fascinating stuff - really solidified to me that the bible isn't necessarily the infallible word of god or anything, but is really just a collection of stories that were included and remained included in later versions for specific reasons, and that everything in there has its own "spin" applied by a historical human being for a very specific purpose.

don't think i have that notebook anymore though - that was 10 years ago. maybe i'll check tonight in my closet...

This sounds like a potentially convincing argument from an emotional point of view, but one I can't buy. I can say that I haven't experienced what these Congolese have experienced, but I have been deeply harmed by religious people who did not live up to their ideals. They claimed certain things, but screwed my family over and screwed me over as well in doing the opposite of what they claimed.

But over time, I came to realize that their behavior had little connection to whether or not their beliefs were true. I had to realize that whether or not the belief system was true or valid didn't have anything to do with how these people had behaved. It's a lot like laws in this instance. Just because some people steal, kill and defraud does not invalidate the goodness of a law, so too the fact that these allegedly religious people treated me so poorly did not automatically invalidate the truth of what they claimed to believe. Did it harm the credibility of their beliefs? Absolutely. But did it invalidate them as false? Even though every ounce of my being wanted to look at my experience and call these beliefs false, I logically can't write them off.

So I cannot outright reject the missionaries' belief system because of the lies told to the Congolese. Can I reject it on other grounds? Perhaps, but looking at how people act isn't one of them. The same could be said of an atheist's position as well. I can't outright reject an atheist's claims because that atheist beats his wife or orders genocide. It would harm the atheist's credibility, but does not inherently mean his beliefs are false.

BrianD, try this site: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ I didn't pick up any hidden agenda or anything like that, but, I wasn't looking for it either. It seems pretty straight forward.

They say it is over 1600 years old.

Completely different situation. An atheist never proclaims that some higher supernatural being created and maintains a presence with human beings. So, they in effect, should be judged merely as humans doing what humans do and aren't trying to sell you some other bill of goods in the process. However, if you're trying to tell me that you are the messengers for some supernatural being that created everything, you've got a much higher standard to bear.

I expect more from a supernatural being that created the universe than I do the average human, and I'm not going to apologize for that. Many seem to say that you should expect LESS from this "God" than you would from your own parents, siblings, or even your neighbor. I'm having a hard time buying that concept.

Everyone is welcome to their own viewpoint obviously - but you're looking at things from a very human perspective.

Or to put it another way when was the last time you cried because you stepped on an ant? ...

If you believe in an omnipotent God then putting aside all other arguments an individual human is a very small and insignificant part of existance; yet according to the bible God has planned out each and everyone one of our lives.

That plan might have involved dying at an early age and heading onto heaven faster than others might do for whatever reason but to judge a God as having 'low standards' because of it is like saying you have lower standards than that squashed ant because you didn't consider him.

God is looking at a much bigger picture than humanity ever can and as such we aren't in a position where we can judge him really.

Its a bit like the arguements for and against stem cell research at the moment, on one hand the research is abhorrant in a lot of ways - on the other it could potentially save countless millions of lives. Will it ultimately be a 'Good' or 'Evil' thing to undertake*, its not something I personally think I'm informed enough to accurately judge to be honest.

*Also if it is undertaken and through it methods discovered which will save millions of lives is it then evil to use those methods knowing how they were discovered - or Good because of the end product?

I've had similar experiences in my life* - however bear in mind that these are 'humans' not God who are doing the wrongs (not that I'm a member of the church groups involved).

*When I was at university there was a huge abandoned building in Brighton which was owned by the Catholic church, it was in awful disrepair and had been disused for a long time.
A group of homeless people moved into it and repaired, wired in Electricity and suchlike - then actually turned it into a proper homeless shelter offering refuge a warm bed and food to people in need.
What did the Catholic church do? - did they thank the people involved for helping their community, nah when they realised it'd been done up they evicted the people and sold the property.

Then why does God apparently worry so much about minutiae of our daily lives? Why did He create such strict rules that guide what people can eat, when people should pray, who people should love, who you can covet, who can't covet, and all the rest of the stuff that's found in the Bible?

Also, why did God back in Biblical times take such a keen interest in people's lives, but all of a sudden the picture has become so much bigger and broader that he couldn't possibly care about the life of one person or lives of billions no more than we can care about the life of a single ant?

I can see that if there is such a thing as a God, then clearly we're not equipped to understand such a being or question it or judge it. But we still have to grapple with this issue. Because a decision has to be made by each of us: is there a higher power. If so, what does it want me to do? Given that we are faced with contrasting answers (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, many, many more and many more sects) we have to grapple with the answer.

If the answer is we are incapable of comprehending God's plans and wishes, then we might as well not bother, right? If God might be some being that thinks about us as ants, then maybe we don't want a relationship. If God cares deeply about us and needs us to believe in Christ, then what if we're born in China? It seems a perplexing riddle.

Please bear in mind that I'm not a christian and while I believe in many aspects of that faith - my take on God isn't particularly bothered about such things.

Thats one of my big problems with Christianity to be honest, why it changed from being a personal and visible religion where prayers were answered openly by God and instead changed into one where nothing could be proven and everything relied upon faith.

For an example Jesus appeared to his followers after his death, so we know thats acceptable to God.

The bible indicates 'ask and you will be given' and various other ways of saying God answers all prayers - but if you pray to meet Jesus in the flesh as his followers did in the old days, well it hasn't worked for me yet ;)

(similarly if God is all powerful then why do no Christians pray for amputee's to grow back their limbs? - they're happy to pray for healing of other issues yet I've never seen any chuch I've been at pray for "little johnny' to grow his leg back ..)

Yes, this is the big question to me. I can see an argument for a higher power, though I have not felt or seen the presence of one. But to go from a higher power who we can't understand, to believing in a particular religion's description and history of a high power, along with its wishes and rules, seems like a jump that can't make sense.

If God simply wants me to believe that it exists, okay. If God expects me to follow a complicated system of rules in order to save my eternal soul, or have it reincarnate properly, or whatever it is God wants, I'll need some more details than we've got.

I do the best I can to not kill any living creature that is not creating a hazardous situation for me or my family. So, generally speaking, if I see the ant I will try to avoid causing it harm. Then again, I am merely human, and not some supernatural being that created an entire universe and demand love and acceptance in order to bring humans into an "afterlife." So, while I demand more of any "Gods" that might be out there, I don't make the same demands of human beings.


Except I am human, not God. Get it? Just because I have high standards for Gods does not mean I put humans on the same level. I demand more of the creator of the universe because I expect that they can handle it. If they can't, then I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?


If this God is judging me, I can most certainly judge God. If God doesn't like that, God can get over it or improve performance.


Correct. I doubt you are informed or educated enough to really know. You've made some brilliant games, but we're talking about heavy duty science here. I guarantee you that there are plenty of religious people, who likely know less about it than you do, that feel like they are entitled to speak about whether it should be done or not. On one side it takes a lot of education and understanding to work with science, and on the other side you merely just have to believe that some unknown higher power doesn't approve and has left it up to you to stop it (instead of interacting on their own behalf, which apparently they are just too tired/busy/bored to do anymore).

Indeed. No matter which way it goes, I don't see why I should care. Apparently God likes to do its own thing, kill who it wants when it wants to, explain nothing to anybody, yet make plenty of demands in return. No thanks. Wow, you killed your son. Why not just kill all of us? Open up a can of Old Testament Whoop Ass and bring your wrath down.

I don't know if I'm not communicating very well or if you're missing the point. It really isn't a completely different situation IMO. If one rejects the missionaries' beliefs because they lied to the Congolese, then so too should one reject Pol Pot's atheistic beliefs because he supervised the killing of thousands of Cambodians. What follows from a belief does not inherently speak to the truth/falsity of that belief.

That being said, you imply a very interesting thing here. You suggest that the religious person has a higher standard to bear than the atheist. The atheist does what humans do and the religious have this higher standard to bear. In using the word "higher", you have implied that the religious standard is superior to the doing what humans do ethic. Meeting a higher standard is theoretically better than the lower standard of doing what humans do. So no matter what we think about this religious standard, there is an acknowledgment that it is higher. How do we know the religious standard is higher? What is the basis for this claim?

God, supreme deity, creator of life. If this is supposed to be true, what part of that DOES NOT imply a higher form of life form than us? Some people appear to expect me to accept less from this "creator" than I would from my neighbor. I shouldn't expect humans, who are singing the praises of this supposed higher being, to behave any better than those who say there is no such thing? Why?

I don't have a problem saying I set a different standard for deities and their followers than most people seem to. I seem to set a different standard for those I put into elected office as well, so I am used to requiring more than the average person does.

I'm not sure I'm following. Can you elaborate a bit?

Edit: Your added part of the post makes things clearer.

I think the basis for the religious standard being higher is simply that most religious people claim that the religion they subscribe to improves their lives and makes them behave as better people - thus people expect this of them.

I've heard many christians indicated "I used to do XXX, but God saved me" ... yet studies I've seen of Christian leaders (who you'd expect to be the best of the best) show they're just as likely to divorce as non-christians* ... why is this if they are closer to God than non-religious people?

*I've also heard of one book (Chuck Colson, “Being The Body”) which indicates Protestant clergy have a higher divorce rate than the national average - but I have no idea of whether this figure is accurate or not.

I'll try to find some of the scholars references for translation, bias may vary :)

If I remember correctly, Hitler was Catholic.

What is the baseline standard? In this framework, the deities, religious people and elected officials are held to a higher standard than the baseline standard. Are there any who are held to a lower standard than the baseline standard? Just trying to think how this gets applied in daily life.

doesn't matter what he was - my point was more about the suffering that he inflicted (and he's simply the most notable of many), how any supreme being could allow that is what really gets me -- particularly in that case to the Jews, who were after all the "chosen people"

Yes, he was raised Catholic and I think at one time had asperations of becoming a priest. He also mentioned god several times in Mein Kampf. What does it mean? I don't know. He was still a vile person regardless.

That infallibility is limited, though. The only infalliable things that the pope does are very specifically noted and defined - around theological matters. The term is 'ex cathedra', to essentially state that the pope is speaking a truth from his seat. It happens exceedingly rarely. There's nothing in the office of the papacy that says the pope is immune to mistakes, either intentional or otherwise. Nor is there anything that says he knows all - or any - of God's plan.


And perhaps that "miss for some reason" is because they hit bullet-proof glass. :)


Depends on the Christian. I'd argue that the stories of matyrs who fought back and lost weren't memorable enough to be told and retold.

I'd argue that being 're-told' doesn't come into it, according to Christianity the bible is written/inspired by God which tends to indicate that the behaviour held up as 'Christian' within it is the behaviour God wants/rewards in people? ... otherwise the bible would contain a lot more gladiator Christians than it does ;)

(ignoring the biblical principle that God wrote the bible I'd argue that it isn't their story telling appeal which had them included (as stories of hero's fighting are generally more appealing than hero's not fighting) - but rather the fact that they encourage people to conform and not rebel against authority regardless of what is done to them)

A question for somebody who is the know: Has the catholic church ever said that the bible is to be interpreted a certain way or to be taken literally?

Jesus was human, and therefore had weaknesses. I believe He knew what was coming. He didn't want to go through it - who would? But He did. Doubt is a human emotion, as is fear.

From Mark 14:36 - "Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will." To me, this shows Jesus' essential humanity, and the sacrifice... what is taught is that Jesus could have escaped/removed himself from this situation if He wanted to. Matthew 26:52-55 (the arrest of Jesus in the garden): "Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?'"

By the by, I'm doing an awful lot of Bible quoting. Not typically the way I go about things, but in a discussion that is making points based off Bible stories, the root of the story is important.