Atheism

[Cork]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Well, that's the trick. If you are perfect, how can you act 'un-perfect'? It sounds like a cop out by saying that a perfect being is free to act in any manner they want and that way you can't call them out on not being perfect. Once you cease being perfect, intentional or not, you are no longer perfect.

If god made Eve for Adam because Adam was lonely, wouldn't have god had known that prior to making Adam, Adam would be lonely and therefor would have already have made Eve? Sounds like a mistake on gods part.

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

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Cork

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!

[Mac Howard]

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:

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

This perspective is interesting to me. You seem to suggest we live in a pretty messed up world or that we're flawed in some way. Is this a position held by the majority of atheists? If so, how does the atheist explain "the way things have turned out?" I suppose one could reply with a, "Well duh, it's evolution stupid." Is that the best answer/one most atheists would subscribe to?

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

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.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If god made Eve for Adam because Adam was lonely, wouldn't have god had known that prior to making Adam, Adam would be lonely and therefor would have already have made Eve? Sounds like a mistake on gods part.

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 ...

[BrianD]

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?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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?

[st.cronin]

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?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

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

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."

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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 )

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

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...

[Mac Howard]

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.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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.
Your argument is precisely that which caused Plato to decide that there was absolutely not 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)

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 think almost all humans would consider the virus not just an imperfection but also the work of a pretty nasty "creator" and that judgment would go beyond subjectivity.

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 )

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

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.

[Marc Vaughan]

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.

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 .....

[CraigSca]

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?!"

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

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?

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.

[KWhit]

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.

[gi]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by gi

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?

[Ajaxab]

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.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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?

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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.

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".

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.?

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

I appreciate the discussion.

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

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.

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....)

[CraigSca]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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.

Knowledge and sex? Huh?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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 the impact of these things on us when he drew up the blueprint.

We're a very arrogant species - we like to think that everything is built around our interests

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.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

Knowledge and sex? Huh?

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

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.

Originally Posted by BrianD

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".

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?

[Bonegavel]

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?

[gi]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.

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.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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....)

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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.

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

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

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?

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?

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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

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.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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 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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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.

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.

[gi]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

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?

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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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.

Or the devil's.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

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?

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.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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.

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.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by KWhit

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.

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

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cork

Does being perfect mean that you can only act perfectly? Would not a perfect being be free to act and do as they see fit?

-Cork

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.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by BrianD

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 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.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Cork

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

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.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

...

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?!"

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.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

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

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.