Beliefs?

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Noop

Can God and Free-Will Exist?

Because if God is omnipotent then something like free will is useless because God already knows what will happen.

Yet if free-will does exist then God is not God because God should be able to see the future and if God can't see them future he/she is not God.

Either we are helpless because out lives are predetermined or we are free and the person called God is not God.

As for Jesus, Cesare Borgia is reportedly the man people have been praying too.

Cesare Borgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I still don't really have a horse in the race on this topic yet but I did need to point out what I see as a flaw in logic here.

You say because God is omnipotent and knows what will happen that we don't have free will. The problem here is the difference between knows what will happen and controls what will happen.

Personally I would say that if there is a God he may very well know what will happen but nothing about religion makes sense to me if you feel he controls everything that happens.

I saw eternal spirit being mentioned. Does this leave open the possibility that our spirit is eternal but merely drifts from one life to another?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bignej

You question doesn't make any sense. Its the exact opposite of the point you are trying to make. The answer on why we care about this place is because it all that we have or that anyone knows of. We all have human instincts and feelings and emotions. Religion is not required to have love. My mother died last year and I cried because I feel that I will never see here again. Why did my christian family cry when they are "sure" they will see her again in Heaven? Its funny that you talk about living some utopia that will be better than the rest of the world because isnt that exactly what heaven is?

I can't answer your questions, but I would think the religious would probably say that heaven will be better than any utopia humanity could imagine. But that's a guess.

I'm still struggling with the answer that this world being all we have justifies the atheist's care about this topic. If this material world is indeed all we have, then this discussion board will fade to dust and the memory of our posts will be long gone like everything else on this planet that is doomed to death. Even if you're right, we're both dust. So why spend the time convincing me? Even if you're right, we'll both end up in the same place. All of this discussion ultimately doesn't matter. Like DaddyTorgo said, it is all meaningless.

[EagleFan]

dola: I would also like to thank everyone for keeping this from turning into a flame war. I was worried when I started the thread that it would have to get locked. There has been some really good discussion/debate within this thread and it is actually quite enlightening.

[molson]

"Born again Christians" are an interesting case.

In the Christian religions, these are pretty lucky bastards. If they had died in a car accident pre-conversion, they'd burn in hell. If car accident comes later, eternal happiness.

Why does God create a world where little issues like your eternal fate can be left to an issue of timing?

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bignej

You want them educated so they will know what Christianity, Islam etc. believe. You should not teach them a default stance.

Fair enough, but I think any position you teach them will be their default stance. Even teaching open-mindedness is still a default stance against close-mindedness.

Originally Posted by bignej

I don't think I ever said you are instantly close minded by growing up in a religious household.

True, you didn't make that claim. Maybe I got that from Dawkins. But I think that is the general assumption held by those like Dawkins. Free will seems to exist for the non-religious while determinism seems to exist for the religious.

Originally Posted by bignej

You can teach a child the importance of religions role in society without teaching them that a personal God is important to them. I hope I made that clear. I don't want to shield them from the worlds realities but also don't want to influence their personal belief in a creator. I think that is possible

I think this is where I'll respectfully disagree. I don't think it's possible to avoid teaching a child something about the spiritual world or an alleged creator. For me, not saying anything about it is saying something about it.

Originally Posted by bignej

BTW, I know a hell of alot more believers-turned-nonbelievers than I know nonbelievers-turned believers. The most you find is the "I once was lost" variety which usually still believed.

No pun intended in the first sentence right? I think your point here invalidates Dawkins' more determinist position even if it's based on nonrational, nonscientific anecdotal evidence.

[molson]

Moral/Religious question: Would you give up your "earned" spot in eternal bliss, to instead simply cease to exist, if all the billions in hell were so spared to simple nothingness?

And if so, does this make you more compassionate than god?

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

I still don't really have a horse in the race on this topic yet but I did need to point out what I see as a flaw in logic here.

You say because God is omnipotent and knows what will happen that we don't have free will. The problem here is the difference between knows what will happen and controls what will happen.

Personally I would say that if there is a God he may very well know what will happen but nothing about religion makes sense to me if you feel he controls everything that happens.

Are you saying that God is omnipotent or omniscient? I see omniscience as a sub-set of omnipotence. If he's omnipotent, then how does he not control what will happen? If he knows what will happen, is it him making it happen or is it him making it not happen through inaction?

I guess it's the same as saying, can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it. If he can't then he's not omnipotent. If he can, then he's not omnipotent.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'll agree with you there. Atheism may not mean inhumane. But why does the atheist care about what is humane/inhumane? The humane will be dust. The inhumane will be dust.

You're making a common error here that atheism is synonymous with nihilism. Because I might believe there's no life after death does not mean there's no value to this life. In fact the very opposite can be true - that this life is the only life makes it so much more important than if it is merely the precursor to an afterlife.

So the concern is for others in this life.

That's a fair point. But then I wonder how this is any different from any education a person receives.

Education in general tends to be factual not faith. Maths, reading/writing, geography etc. There's not a lot of debate here about the "truth" of what is being told. Sometimes there is debate over the curriculum, perhaps in history there is some debate but generally non-religious education is about not about matters in dispute.

But there is no doubt that there is some indoctrination in general education - that education is a good thing would be one

Additionally, what of the child who repeatedly hears that there is no god and merely believes what they're told? Why is this child in a different position than the child who has been subjected to religious teaching?

No difference at all. Some might argue that whether there is or isn't a god is not a 50/50 argument but specifically teaching a child there is no god when so much of society believes there is equally unaccptable. I think you'll find most people with my bent say that the subject should be left alone until the child is old enough to make their own decisions.

Dawkins wants to argue that religious belief is not valid because most religious people grow up in religious homes.

There are studies which come up with that conclusion. I guess that why you'll find Muslims in Muslim communities, Christians in Christian communities etc. If it had no effect then you would expect religions to be evenly distributed throughout all societies.

Does this mean that if an atheist grows up in an atheistic home that this person's beliefs are not valid?

Not always invalid but it will certainly bias the result.

There's also a buried assumption in this line of reasoning that the religious person never ever examines their beliefs while the atheistic/scientific person is always examining their beliefs.

I think only because people are, in the main brought up by religious parents, and so the atheist has to break with his upbringing. He can't do that without thinking about the subject. A religious person can remain in the faith of his upbringing without making any mental effort to do so. That doesn't mean there are not religious people who put considerable mental effort into their religion but that it's not necessary.

But still, for the atheist what does it matter whether a child is indoctrinated or not?

Because it perpetuates what he thinks is incorrect and when it comes to decisions affecting society as a whole he's in a minority situation and likely to be "outvoted".

But what does it matter if the child's psychological health is important if the child is going to be dust one day? The enlightened will be dust. The psychologically deluded will be dust.

The atheist isn't in the least bit interested in the afterlife and that you think it renders this life meaningless. It affects the child's life - this life. And that's what concerns him.

I know I'm belaboring the point a bit, but I'm just trying to understand what motivates the atheistic position.

This life! Making the most of the gift that is this life.

I'll definitely agree. Personal preference is no reason to believe. But I think I'd also say that personal preference is also no reason not to believe as well.

As I described in my response to the idea that knowing and not knowing are in some way equated. Not believing is simply not just another form of believing. I'm not an atheist. I don't say there is no god. I say we don't know or, to be more exact, that we have no reason to believe that we know. Believing is something very exact, saying we don't know is not stating any very exact at all.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Morality did not come out of religion, Cam. There were societies with legal structures (which obviously reflect a sense of morality) well before the gods became associated with morality. The purpose of very early religions was to explain natural phenomena and beg the gods for aid against the destructive ones and enemies. The gods were often rogues and of very dubious morality. I can't remember off the top of my head which religious figure was first associated with morality - I think it was somewhere around 600 BC, I'll see if I can find it - but there were definitely societies which had moral codes before religion defined them.

It's also not difficult to make an argument that moral codes are an evolutionary consequence - to be very simplistic a society that allows the killing of fellow citizens is not going to survive too long so "thou shalt not kill" definitely gives a society a survival advantage. Most moral statements stem from the idea of "treat others as you wish to be treated" and when cooperation between individuals leads to a survival advantage as it does with a species so physically weak as ours then this idea is clearly useful.

I didn't say I thought he was wrong, Mac. I said it wasn't a well-thought out argument. It is true that there have been societies that didn't tie morals into religion. It's also true that many of those societies tied moral beliefs into the state or another position of authority.

As for the evolving moral code, that seems obvious. Even most of those who believe in the Bible as the literal word of God don't follow every law in Leviticus. There may be common sense reasons why the eating of certain animals was prohibited, or killing of others, or of coveting someone else's family or property.

My concern with ONLY relying on common sense as an arbiter of morality is that it's easy to make an argument that none of those rules need necessarily apply to us. Why shouldn't I covet my neighbors wife, if I can provide a better life for her and our future children than my neighbor could? Why shouldn't we kill newborns with genetic defects, given the added burden to society they cause? Why shouldn't people be allowed to voluntarily enter slavery contracts, especially if the contract stipulates a guarantee of housing, health care, and eight hours a day of free time?

If we have the values without the religious (or to be more philosophical, authoritarian) foundation, how long can those values stand?

I apologize if I'm digressing. As someone who's still trying to figure out what he believes, I have far more questions for this thread than I do answers.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I can't answer your questions, but I would think the religious would probably say that heaven will be better than any utopia humanity could imagine. But that's a guess.

I'm still struggling with the answer that this world being all we have justifies the atheist's care about this topic. If this material world is indeed all we have, then this discussion board will fade to dust and the memory of our posts will be long gone like everything else on this planet that is doomed to death. Even if you're right, we're both dust. So why spend the time convincing me? Even if you're right, we'll both end up in the same place. All of this discussion ultimately doesn't matter. Like DaddyTorgo said, it is all meaningless.

As an atheist, I can give my best answer on why I care about the subject. There a couple of reasons actually. First is inaccurate information. If a child asks why the sky is blue and his mother says "because God made it blue" the child will usually accept it as truth. This bothers me because as I get older I don't want my young doctor to think that "its in Gods hands". I want him to think Its in his hands and God is nowhere in the solution (unless God has spoken to me to this point in which case I would welcome death).
Another is the fact that I WANT there to be a God. I want to go to heaven and live in eternal happiness with all my loved ones. Wanting to there to be a God and there actually being one are two vastly different things. This is simply my way of researching the subject. Everything (so far) has led me to him not being a reality. I do not need some vague sign from some all powerful being with alternate explanations to prove he exists like sunshine, rainbows and cute puppies which seems to be good enough reasons for many. If he truly is all powerful and all knowing, you would think the least he could do is come down hang out, do some cool shit and roll out. Jesus miracles were nothing compared to what I'm talking about. I want to see big things move and diseases disappear. I cannot challenge my own integrity into believing "just in case." An all-knowing God would surely know I was full of shit.

Edit: I wanted to add about researching the subject. There is much larger ratio of atheists that have read the bible cover to cover than Christians. Take that for what its worth.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by molson

Moral/Religious question: Would you give up your "earned" spot in eternal bliss, to instead simply cease to exist, if all the billions in hell were so spared to simple nothingness?

And if so, does this make you more compassionate than god?

Sure. Why not?

Who's making the deal? Is it the Devil or God? I would guess it would have to be one of the big two to make the deal. If it's God, then I would say that I would be just as compassionate as God (see Jesus) for my sacrifice. If it's the Devil, then I'd have to say that I'm more compassionate than God since the guy should've offered me the same deal. I mean, I take quotes from one Toyota dealership to another to get a better deal...

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bignej

As an atheist, I can give my best answer on why I care about the subject. There a couple of reasons actually. First is inaccurate information. If a child asks why the sky is blue and his mother says "because God made it blue" the child will usually accept it as truth. This bothers me because as I get older I don't want my young doctor to think that "its in Gods hands". I want him to think Its in his hands and God is nowhere in the solution (unless God has spoken to me to this point in which case I would welcome death).

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

Originally Posted by bignej

Another is the fact that I WANT there to be a God.

Thanks for introducing me to the first atheist I've heard make this statement. That's a fascinating thing to say. Do you know if there are other atheists out there who would hold to this position? How do they explain this desire in the face of still other atheists who dismiss any notion of God (desired or not) entirely?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Not the kind of quantitatively-based actuarial world I want to live in.

And this tells me that beer should not be sold on Sundays? Please defend this law without resorting to any mythological/religious text/belief system.

Furthermore, your point is an odd one. I do not know your political persuasion, so I do not attribute this to you, but the "religious political party" in the US is clearly the GOP, and they would be the very quick to say that business should be able to fire anyone for any reason (except for being a Christian, of course).

[Noop]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

You say because God is omnipotent and knows what will happen that we don't have free will. The problem here is the difference between knows what will happen and controls what will happen.

Personally I would say that if there is a God he may very well know what will happen but nothing about religion makes sense to me if you feel he controls everything that happens.

If someone knows what your going to do then their is no free will. It is predestined so nothing you do will stop it from happening. That is not free will because in my opinion to have free will is being able to do things without anyone knowing the outcome. If God knows the the minute and hour of your death how can you possibly have free will?

Or if God already knows who is going to be your wife how can that be free will? Either God is the greatest mathematician and can calculate impossible probabilities or God already knows, which leads to wondering if God already knows then what is the whole point?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The numbers and percentages may be higher/lower in varying fields (medicine, science, etc), but for your average joe-schmo who's say a budget-analyst for the government? He's not going to contribute anything lasting. Maybe he finds a way to save some money, but that money is just going to be swallowed up by the federal budget as a whole and go to building a bridge to an island in Alaska with fewer people than work on the block that I'm sitting on right now (not trying to start a partisan political argument, just using an example of pork-barrel spending).

Not to say that's a bad thing, or that means he shouldn't try his best to do his job or anything, it's just a fact.

My step-daughter's a senior in college, and we had a discussion very similar to this when she was home from school this summer.

What I told her is this: our jobs are not necessarily the most important part of our lives. For some lucky bastards, their job is the means by which to better the world. For others, their job may be the way they provide sustenence so that they can make a difference.

Baruch Spinoza, for example, lived a quiet life as a lens grinder. That's how he made his living, but he made his impact as a philosopher. Marx was a freeloader, a journalist, and a working man, but that's not why we remember him.

We don't have to be remembered for how we made a living. We can be remembered for how we lived.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My concern with ONLY relying on common sense as an arbiter of morality is that it's easy to make an argument that none of those rules need necessarily apply to us. Why shouldn't I covet my neighbors wife, if I can provide a better life for her and our future children than my neighbor could? Why shouldn't we kill newborns with genetic defects, given the added burden to society they cause? Why shouldn't people be allowed to voluntarily enter slavery contracts, especially if the contract stipulates a guarantee of housing, health care, and eight hours a day of free time?

If we have the values without the religious (or to be more philosophical, authoritarian) foundation, how long can those values stand?

Yes that's something I've contemplated too and I don't have a definitive answer. Religion gives authority to morality. You can't argue with God but you can debate as long as the night is long with your fellow citizens

Would a society without God collapse? I certainly believe that religion brought stability to earlier societies. But could today's society survive? I suspect that it's like democracy as a form of government. Extremely interesting and messy but it pulls through the external impacts better than other forms. It's like the tree that bends in the wind, not the rigid structure that collapses with useless resistance. Perhaps a society with a godless morality would be the same.

I'm basically an optimist

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I can't answer your questions, but I would think the religious would probably say that heaven will be better than any utopia humanity could imagine. But that's a guess.

I'm still struggling with the answer that this world being all we have justifies the atheist's care about this topic. If this material world is indeed all we have, then this discussion board will fade to dust and the memory of our posts will be long gone like everything else on this planet that is doomed to death. Even if you're right, we're both dust. So why spend the time convincing me? Even if you're right, we'll both end up in the same place. All of this discussion ultimately doesn't matter. Like DaddyTorgo said, it is all meaningless.

as to "why" maybe the answer is because it gives us pleasure I guess?

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My step-daughter's a senior in college, and we had a discussion very similar to this when she was home from school this summer.

What I told her is this: our jobs are not necessarily the most important part of our lives. For some lucky bastards, their job is the means by which to better the world. For others, their job may be the way they provide sustenence so that they can make a difference.

Baruch Spinoza, for example, lived a quiet life as a lens grinder. That's how he made his living, but he made his impact as a philosopher. Marx was a freeloader, a journalist, and a working man, but that's not why we remember him.

We don't have to be remembered for how we made a living. We can be remembered for how we lived.

very true...very true. i agree with you that it's not always "how we made a living" but can also be "how we lived." no argument there. and i don't think we're necessarily that far apart on this point really.

[bignej]

Originally Posted by bignej
As an atheist, I can give my best answer on why I care about the subject. There a couple of reasons actually. First is inaccurate information. If a child asks why the sky is blue and his mother says "because God made it blue" the child will usually accept it as truth. This bothers me because as I get older I don't want my young doctor to think that "its in Gods hands". I want him to think Its in his hands and God is nowhere in the solution (unless God has spoken to me to this point in which case I would welcome death).

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here.

I'm definitely not very good at explaining my points. What I'm saying here is God is an end all argument for many explanations for many people. In my example, a parent can ,and often do, give an easy explanation to every child's questions. God did it. To my parents and parent-in-law, my daughter is beautiful because God created her that way. If she had downs syndrome, it would be Gods choice. There is no room for actual genetics or a scientific explanation. These children receiving these crappy answers grow up to be doctors and teachers etc. I don't want my doctor or medical team to think God is anywhere helping them. We have to do everything.

Medicine is where it is because people decided to think differently(not necessarily nonbelievers). They used experimentation and evidence and actual tangible research to get where they are today. God is a cop out explanation for many things. He does not treat cancer. If I had cancer, the last thing I want the doctor to say is that its in God's hands now.

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

Thanks for introducing me to the first atheist I've heard make this statement. That's a fascinating thing to say. Do you know if there are other atheists out there who would hold to this position? How do they explain this desire in the face of still other atheists who dismiss any notion of God (desired or not) entirely?

I hear this a lot but actually most atheists I know want there to be some sort of an afterlife. Who wants to die and that be that? The difference is an atheist won't waste time in believing it without actual evidence and a believer doesn't need any at all. Just because I think I will be "dust" as you said,doesn't mean I want it to be that way. You cant always get what you want as my dad used to say, "people in hell want ice water"


Also, just as it takes children various lengths of time to learn Santa isn't real, this is also the case with God. It took me a long time to realize my parents were full of shit.This is not a flame. To clarify, my parents are wrong on many things and to take their word on this for more than a anything but a grain of salt, would be misguided.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Sure. Why not?

Who's making the deal? Is it the Devil or God? I would guess it would have to be one of the big two to make the deal. If it's God, then I would say that I would be just as compassionate as God (see Jesus) for my sacrifice. If it's the Devil, then I'd have to say that I'm more compassionate than God since the guy should've offered me the same deal. I mean, I take quotes from one Toyota dealership to another to get a better deal...

I didn't think that far into it.

I just had this image of "the saved" dancing around in eternal bliss in heaven while their neighbors, relatives, and friends, who did no wrong other than not buy into Christianity are eternally suffering. I don't see how heaven could be all that happy with that knowledge. I mean, isn't that a pretty big elephant in the room? Is it considered bad form to bring up "the others" at heaven's dinner parties? Or does everyone just think, "to hell with them (literally), they had their chance". Doesn't sound like the kind of people I want to spend eternity with anyway.

[watravaler]

My personal theology:

1. We are never going to figure out where we came from, or how we came to be, and anyone who proposes otherwise, is probably full of it. Of course, ten million years down the line we may have a better idea, but I'm not holding my breath

2. I was born, my one and only purpose in life is to reproduce, once that goal is acheived, I can die a happy man.

[boberot]

Back to the original intent of the post [although this is an outstanding discussion], I also was raised in a Catholic home, with Catholic education from K through 12. I grew up near Buffalo thinking everybody was pretty much white, German or Irish and -- except for those few poor, odd people -- Catholic. I was a good altar boy and cub scout and all that.

Anyway, it wasn't until I went away to a public college that my mind was ripped open like a scab and I learned things about the Catholic Church that really hurt. I had never really heard secular accounts of things like missionaries, the Crusades, indulgences, etc.

Suddenly, I felt extremely betrayed by everything I thought I knew. I've rejected the church and really found myself doubting everything I believed in -- including whether or not I believe in God.

Right now, I just plain don't believe in God. That is not in protest of anything, or to be defiant, it's plain and simple fact.

So many questions [rhetorical, mind you]:
* How can there be such a stark contrast between Old Testament and New Testament God?
* Why should the geographic location of my birth dictate my philosophy on existence / God / morality / afterlife / etc?
* How can a deeply spiritual person in a different country -- who adheres reverently to their particular belief system -- still be "damned"?
* In the grand balancing scale of the history of humanity, has more HARM or GOOD come from religion? So many horrible things are done out of misconstrued religious doctrine.
* There is no negotiation, and usually no persuasion where fundamental religious belief is concerned. Sometimes, that's no big deal. Other times, when it is the basis for generations of conflict, it's obviously tragic.
* OK, I'll end on a slightly lighter note -- I cant believe there were dudes named Mark, John, and Matt hanging around in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

And this tells me that beer should not be sold on Sundays? Please defend this law without resorting to any mythological/religious text/belief system.

Furthermore, your point is an odd one. I do not know your political persuasion, so I do not attribute this to you, but the "religious political party" in the US is clearly the GOP, and they would be the very quick to say that business should be able to fire anyone for any reason (except for being a Christian, of course).

I can't really defend the law you cite as it does seem pretty silly to me.

But a society entirely based around purely quantitative conclusions is a dangerous society. The beauty of numbers is that they do a great job in dealing with populations. They can do an amazing job of giving us a big picture. But the downfall of numbers is that they do a poor job in dealing with individuals. Numbers are blind to individual circumstances and they can objectify these people. I'm sure we've all experienced times in our lives where we have "felt like a number" or been labeled with a number that didn't fit with what we thought we deserved given our situation or circumstances.

I don't want to be a digit in someone else's calculator. Unfortunately, that is what is going on with this insurance company. Can they do what they want to do? I suppose. But is it ethical? I don't think numbers could give us an ethic that would give us an answer. The ethics answer can't be found in an equation.

All this to say that I want to be a person. An exclusively quantitative society invariably moves us to be treated as objectified digits rather than as subjects with agency who are individual people with feelings, emotions and dignity.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

All this to say that I want to be a person. An exclusively quantitative society invariably moves us to be treated as objectified digits rather than as subjects with agency who are individual people with feelings, emotions and dignity.

I know what you are saying. I suppose my real point is that there should be a solid explanation for laws that have everything to do with tangible real world information and nothing to do with mythological/religious texts. I am not saying we should not treat human beings as other human beings, I am saying we should stop trying to force religious views onto others by force. If the only rationale for a law/rule is a religious one, then it has no purpose outside of that religion.

[Marc Vaughan]

Firstly most people wouldn't consider me a Christian in the traditional sense (ie. I'm cynical regarding the bible being written by God and don't attend church regularly) - but here's my take on your questions ...

Originally Posted by boberot

* How can there be such a stark contrast between Old Testament and New Testament God?

Think of it as you raising a son/daughter - when they're early on in life you deal with them differently to as they're older.

For instance when my son was young I'd tell him not to run into the road and back this up with a spanking if he disobeyed - today I try and explain my reasoning more and expect more back from him because he's matured.

(This brings up interesting issues though as to whether people are being saved as individuals or whether its more of a shaping of the race of humans into what God desires ....)

* Why should the geographic location of my birth dictate my philosophy on existence / God / morality / afterlife / etc?

It shouldn't in theory - however it does which imho is very interesting ... more so because I don't think anyone has actually studied and tried to determine why it is that certain regions are more prevalent in one religion than another.

* How can a deeply spiritual person in a different country -- who adheres reverently to their particular belief system -- still be "damned"?

Its a bit like saying that someone who does lots of research into the stock market and invests in what they believe is a good company should never take a loss - shit happens basically.

(it can also be argued that God is perfect (according to most religions) and as such anyone not saved wasn't intended to be saved ... as such they were designed as surplus to requirements and only present as an example to the true believers if you want to take that stance)

* In the grand balancing scale of the history of humanity, has more HARM or GOOD come from religion? So many horrible things are done out of misconstrued religious doctrine.

Its impossible to measure the Good and/or Bad which have come from religion because its human nature which causes that Good or Bad to happen, all religions are open to abuse and manipulation.

Imho its a bit like blaming a shooting on a gun, weapons and religions are only dangerous in the wrong hands and to be honest any situation can be exploited if people are that way inclined.

(I could easily see a situation where aetheists oppressed people and passed a law against practicising religion, cue modern witch hunts etc.)

* There is no negotiation, and usually no persuasion where fundamental religious belief is concerned. Sometimes, that's no big deal. Other times, when it is the basis for generations of conflict, it's obviously tragic.

Agreed

* OK, I'll end on a slightly lighter note -- I cant believe there were dudes named Mark, John, and Matt hanging around in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

Heh - I do believe this, not least because people traditionally name kids after people they admire (check the popular name lists and generally they'll include names of 'famous' people from several years before hand) ... as such prophets etc. are always going to be in vogue while a religion is popular (you might note however that names like Thor and suchlike are fairly rare these days ).

[Autumn]

It's been an interesting discussion so far, and I agree it's been nice and civil.

Two points stand out to me to respond to, without going back and replying to everything. The first has to do with the concept quoted here (and anywhere I've seen this discussion) that God allows for trouble and horror in the world because it challenges us, and that without trials we would never grow. I can't help but think that this concept is very modern American. It's easy to talk this way through the lens of living in the most prosperous society earth has known. Here we for the most part deal with troubles that can be considered "part of life." Our mother dies of cancer, a friend dies at an early age, someone we love has a terrible sickness or goes blind.

It's a harder argument to make when you consider that there are millions and millions of people out there whose life is never going to even approach tolerable. That a kid is born in a place where he's never going to have enough food in his belly for one day, and therefore be host to parasitic disease after disease. He may very well lose family members to starvation or disease. Perhaps he will live through a civil war and watch family members butchered by neighbors with a machete, his mother and sister raped and lit on fire. You get the idea. To suggest that the reason God allows things like this to happen is to provide us with a challenge is horrendous to me. People don't deserve to not even have a shot at life, simply so God can see if in a hundred years we can get our act together and make things better.

The second topic is about belief. It's been said in here that faith cannot be explained or proven, it's something one feels. And that would be fine if we were talking about what music is good, or what the right way to bowl is. But the subjects we're talking about speak to the ultimate truth and nature of the universe. It is vitally important to me, and everyone, to know which belief is true. Yet it seems there is no way to differentiate between the right belief and the wrong. They clearly contradict, yet each believer is sure of their own particular one.

Add to that the cultural and geographic distribution of types of beliefs, and we've got a curious situation. It is vastly more likely that I will come to believe the beliefs of the culture I live in, and yet only one of those cultures is right? So is it purely luck that I come to have faith in the right religion? I would not want to even believe in a universe which was created by an intelligence, and yet depends on luck for salvation.

For my purposes, I think it's clear that luck and history and geography have preeminent roles in our lives. And so I believe we live in a world of natural systems, that are not inherently moral. Morality is something that we invented, and to me that makes it all the more precious than it would be if it was God. Essentially I agree that we live in a world of original sin (humans are inclined to many immoral behaviors), and that we must choose to be moral creatures. I just think it was nature that resulted in that, and not God, and I'm glad it was so. We live in a world that is horrible in many ways, and I can much better accept that it is happenstance than I can that it was created to be this way.

[st.cronin]

I may be wading into waters too deep, but here's some more thoughts:

Suppose you are standing on the sidewalk, with a tennis ball in your hand. You extend your arm, and release the tennis ball. What will happen? Well, the tennis ball will fall to the sidewalk, of course, at a rate of accelaration of whatever that constant number is (eludes me at the moment).

If you were to really think about this scientifically, though, you might be inclined to say something like "it is overwhelmingly probable that the ball will fall to the sidewalk at rate x, but there is a small chance that the ball will fly up into the atmosphere, as well as take any number of other trajectories." Science tells us that we have a hypothesis, the ball will fall to Earth, with a very high degree of confidence. But, I dare anybody to say that they really accept this description of their expectations.

This is a silly example, but there are surely others. We believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, for example. At some point scientific hpyotheses become more than hypotheses - imagine that a hypothesis is a curve, and as the curve approaches a tangent our certainty in its truth increases - well, at some point, the curve touches the tangent and the hypothesis becomes something believed in.

No matter how skeptical a person is, they will have beliefs that are unverifiable.

Also, there is a sense in which religious beliefs aren't a statement about the world - they are an assertion about our relationship to the world. The story of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection is often understood by skeptics as being the same kind of story as, say, Frank Herbert's Dune . If this is how you read the story of Christ, then I think you will fail to appreciate its real significance. It is a story which highlights everything about being human, our hopes and our fears, our strengths and our weaknesses. There are many confusing arguments about whether the Bible should be read literally. It doesn't matter. The truth of the Christ story is not in whether these things actually happened as described, but in the way it resonates in the heart of the reader.

[revrew]

Prepare for the longest post. Ever.

I'm bummed I've been away and didn't get in on this thread early. Obviously, there has been so much discussed that I couldn't possibly respond to it all. In skim reading, however, I didn't see anyone directly address Dave's questions from the Bible itself – the sole authority of the Protestant Christian faith, so I will attempt to do so. The answers I give will mostly be the orthodox (small O) beliefs of Evangelical Christianity, in other words, the answers that study, challenge, trial and history have demonstrated to Evangelical Christianity be the truest representation of Christian theology. I will also attempt to fairly delineate where my answers stray into my opinion and where controversies do exist.

Originally Posted by EagleFan

IBasically I have these folllowing questions that I just can;t get my mind wrapped around:

1) If there is a higher power why does he (she?) care if we worship him? With all this great power why would this entity care if we worship? Is this entity that much of an egomaniac?

2) If there is a higher power does it just care if we live well, without the need for constant worship?

3) Why is there such a negative reaction to possible life elsewhere fro the general religious community? If this entity has the ability to create life why would it limit the creation to just us?

4) If we are created in this entity's image, and we are not without sin, wouldn't that mean...

5) Why send his Son? What purpose does sending Jesus actually serve? I keep hearing to die for our sins but this makes no sense. If this higher power is the one forgiving our sins why would there be a need to "send his son" to die for us? Is this telling us that he's not the one actually making the rules? If that is the case then just what is out there as that changes everything?

6) Free will or not free will? Saying that one does not have free will makes no sense. If Hitler had no choice but to do what he did how can he be punished for it by the entity who made him do it?

7) Why even have us live on earth? If God created us with the goal of eventually going to heaven why not skip this on earth step and just create "people" who are worthy of being in haven and placing them in heaven. The whole hell thing sounds too much like a little kid with a magnifying glass sitting near an ant hill.
Thanks,
Dave
aka: EagleFan

1. Why does God care if we worship? This sounds to me like the classic assumption that worship consists of singing and praying and telling God he's great. Worship, however, is defined biblically as including care for widows and orphans, conforming one's mind and will to God's, as well as the prayer and thanksgiving and offering, etc.

Worship, therefore, is better defined as drawing in close relationship to God in order that we might be changed from our sinful ways to follow his loving ways. Every element of worship is about relationship – with God, and as God's representatives, to others.

Biblically, God made it clear he didn't give a hoot about songs and dances and sacrifices and offerings. Instead, he said, he wanted people to surrender their hearts to him that he might change them to share his love with others. Worship, ultimately, isn't just God, but about the people God loves. It isn't selfish of God to want to be worshipped; rather, it's the opposite, because it's through the many forms of worship that we become who we were meant to be and we do unto others as is loving, good, and godly.

2. Why not just live well, why worship? The last answer addressed this in part, but to address the nuances: the Bible says we cannot live well apart from God. Sure, we can do "good things" and think we're great stuff, but we cannot do the best thing – walk in accordance with God's will – without having our heart, mind, and will conformed to God's plans, which, again, is a better biblical definition of what worship means.

"Abide in me and you will bear much fruit; apart from me, you can do nothing," Jesus said. The idea: we pat ourselves on the back for doing temporary good deeds, when God had hoped we would walk with him to do eternally-lasting great things. We learn to do the latter by living a life of true worship.

3. Why no aliens? This is speculative theology, without a good biblical answer. Some worry, I suppose, how Jesus' death and covering blood could apply to an intelligent species from another planet. Some, I suppose, worry that since the Bible doesn't tell us anything about aliens (well, Revelation might…) that it would mean the Bible had ill-equipped us for reality. So much uncertainty could be frightening – do these creatures have a soul? Are they going to heaven? Did Jesus die for them? Lots of questions. No good answers. I suspect that just frightens people. Me, I got no problem with aliens, but I suspect they're not there.

4. If we sin and are made in God's image, does that mean he sins? Nope. Bible says we were made to be in God's image, but through our actions, we broke ourselves. Our Godly nature was corrupted by our sin, while His nature remains pure. Also, we were designed to be a reflection of him, to be like him, not to be him. Just 'cause we're boneheaded enough to do it doesn't mean he is.

5. Why did Jesus die? Why doesn't God just forgive? Let's start with the latter question first. For God to forgive without addressing the wrong done would make him unjust. People are raped, murdered, tortured, hurt. Do you want him to just forgive all that? If he did, I couldn't believe in such a God. How cruel to forgive injustice as if it never happened.

Which leads us to the first question. According to Genesis, when God created the world, he made it with certain rules: gravity, 2+2=4, and so on. One of those foundational laws was that sin would be paid for with death. You sin, you pay for it with death.

God, however, is life, which means he can't hang with death. He burns it up, drives it off, nullifies it like light cancels the darkness. So sinful man is destined by his death to be apart from God forever.

In love, however, God makes a way for the death-stained to be cleaned. If we are covered in life, the death washed away, we can be with God.

Another one of those rules God built in was that blood represents the life of a thing, not its death, as we think of in the West. So by covering something in blood, it is covered in life and can live with God.

So, by the rules of the universe God set up, when I sin, someone dies. Me. Rather than casting me away forever, God died in my place and allowed his blood – his life – to cover up my death stain. Now, covered in the life of God, I can be with God.

6. Free will or no free will? Big controversy area in Christian theological history. The Bible clearly states that God is in control; the Bible clearly states that we have choice to reject, choice to obey, choice to do lots of stuff.

IMO, most theologians in history have tried to stress one of those two – sovereignty or choice – while conveniently trying to ignore or poo-poo the other.

But they are both there. The bigger question is, can they both be true? Can they co-exist? I believe the answer is yes, and it's really not that hard for me to wrap my mind around it. That is, however, another REALLY long discussion.

But the simple answer is, yes, it is possible for God to reign and for people to exercise choice at the same time. If you look, you'll find many in Evangelical Christianity who believe in free will, and many who believe as I do that both can coexist in a logical way without being mutually exclusive.

7. Why earth? Why hell? This is the hardest question on your list. I haven't studied WHY God made the earth. I read a preacher who said the Bible says God created it for joy, and that makes sense to me. Earth is a place of victory out of trial, babies from birth pains, love chosen freely rather than demanded or programmed. I suppose, IMO, that this great story of life, the struggle, the victory, the sacrificial love of God, and triumph over evil could have never happened without earth. I suppose. Ultimately, God created a being (humanity) that could choose to love (or not to love). Just because we the Creation have been foolish enough to choose not to, doesn't mean the intent of the Creator was flawed.

As for hell, that can be a big subject. But hell is, essentially, the natural, default trajectory of our choice to refuse the ways of God and have our own way. Our selfishness, begun in this lifetime, and allowed to grow through all eternity unchecked would, naturally, become a hell. C.S. Lewis tells the story of a group of people who, even after tasting hell, wouldn't give it up, because they were just continuing the stubborn autonomous "freedom" that they treasured in this life and all its consequences over EVER submitting to God. God doesn't have to burn people under a magnifying glass; we do a plenty fine job of it ourselves. Given all eternity to keep on doing it, without God's love and mercy around to restrain us anymore…that becomes hell.

Finally, let me recommend a book worth 10 times the price of admission: The Reason for God by Timothy Keller. Keller is an orthodox Evangelical Christian who planted a church in Manhattan in the shadow of the United Nations. It's one of the most secular, intellectual, and skeptical places in the country. But Keller learned to speak Christian theology in a way the very intelligent but skeptical mind could reason with it. He is a rare intelligent Christian who can have an intelligent conversation with the atheist or agnostic and leave the latter to come away feeling they were enriched by the discussion. The Reason for God is Keller's experienced collection of answers that help skeptics make sense of Christianity based on most people's biggest questions: How can you say there's only ONE true religion? Why does God allow suffering? How can loving God send people to hell? What about science vs. religion? Etc. All the biggies. It is an AWESOME book.

I interviewed Keller in his office right after 9/11. I told myself if that guy ever writes a book on the big faith questions, I WANT it. The book just came out this year, and it's fantastic.

[Marc Vaughan]

The Reason for God by Timothy Keller

Ordered this - sounds like it'll be interesting reading.

[Tekneek]

I'm not sure I will spend any money on this book. Perhaps if I can find it from the library.

Can we cut to the chase and find out if he ever invokes mythology to support his case for the existence of God? If any of it has to ever be taken on 'faith', then it's probably not the book I'd like to read. I'm not really interested in the idea that God must exist because there was a prophet who was crucified, or because any number of things in the "Holy Bible" may have correlations to other mythological stories or holy books.

We don't know science just because it is written in some other books, or because it has been handed down by generations before. We know it because we can go out and prove it. Earth is not the center of the universe simply because Copernicus said so, it is because we can go out and prove that it is not.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I'm not sure I will spend any money on this book. Perhaps if I can find it from the library.

Can we cut to the chase and find out if he ever invokes mythology to support his case for the existence of God? If any of it has to ever be taken on 'faith', then it's probably not the book I'd like to read. I'm not really interested in the idea that God must exist because there was a prophet who was crucified, or because any number of things in the "Holy Bible" may have correlations to other mythological stories or holy books.

We don't know science just because it is written in some other books, or because it has been handed down by generations before. We know it because we can go out and prove it. Earth is not the center of the universe simply because Copernicus said so, it is because we can go out and prove that it is not.

But we have faith in many different things, not just God (or god if you'd prefer). I can't ever really know what's in my wife's heart, but I have faith that she loves me. I have no idea what the future holds for my children, but I have faith that they will lead happy and productive lives. Granted, it's faith of a different sort, but it's still believing in something that you cannot prove exists.

[Tekneek]

That's faith? Sounds more like hope to me.

[boberot]

Marc, thanks for your responses. I have plenty of respect for what I know of you from having been heavily distracted by text sims / the text sim community the past few years.

There are a few points you made that I'm struggling with.

Essentially, to my query about people in remote locales who are never exposed to Christianity: I said that I struggle with the notion that, for example, the Buddhist monk who lives a life of prayer, meditation, self-discipline and contemplation is just simply damned by default.

Your answer was surprisingly glib and essentially "shit happens" and that they are pretty much "surplus?" and meant to be an example to others. If I understand you correctly. With all due respect, I find this to be a pretty disappointing answer. I'm pretty sure I could never [again] embrace a religion that says that that person is eternally screwed because he never accepted Jesus.

As to OT vs. NT God: If God is this perfect, compassionate, all-loving entity why on earth would he rain down plagues, disease, fire, famine, etc. on non-believers? Descriptions of God as "vengeful" and "wrathful" just don't seem to compute. I have trouble picturing that Buddhist monk, for example, "thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur . . . tormented day and night forever and ever."

I hope it's clear that I'm not trying to attack or inflame, just to understand.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by boberot

Your answer was surprisingly glib and essentially "shit happens" and that they are pretty much "surplus?" and meant to be an example to others. If I understand you correctly. With all due respect, I find this to be a pretty disappointing answer. I'm pretty sure I could never [again] embrace a religion that says that that person is eternally screwed because he never accepted Jesus.

I wasn't meaning to be 'glib' and do please bear in mind that I'm not attempting to convert anyone to Christianity (I'm not a 'Christian' per-se myself) - just placing what I see as legitimate logical explainations to explain the situation is should we take the proviso that the bible is true.

The reason I'd given an off the 'cuff' answer was that I was trying to avoid being too contraversial in my reply (which I've failed dismally).

To expand my 'glib' comment with an explanation - laying things out logically ...

Proviso's:
* The bible is correct in all ways - thus:
- God is omnipotent so knew who'd be saved and who wouldn't at the moment he created them (the bible indicates this)
- God is all good and wants everyone to be saved (the bible says this)

Conclusion:
* Everyone who god created and wanted to be saved would be.
* No one truly has free will because God knew exactly what we'd do before he even created us.

Conclusion
The only answer imho which allows God a 'get out' for people not being saved (ie. dying without finding Christianity) is that there are a group of people on earth who were never planned to be saved and while appearing to be the same as everyone else aren't part of the chosen few with souls, hence God is allowed to get away with them not going to heaven.

Comment
I don't like the route this takes people down though as it leads to hardcore fundamentalism and intollerance of people of other views.

Do please bear in mind this is NOT what I believe - I'm not a practicising Christian and simply trying to fit the proviso's from the bible together in such a way which would logically make sense.

This shows why religions who believe only they will be saved are naturally intolerant of others - such religions promote the believe that they are 'special' and in some way superior to non-believers, its also why I don't subscribe to that viewpoint.

I personally don't think any of the religions on earth are correct - I am a Christian in the sense that I believe in their core tenets; however I don't believe the bible was written by God and think its very unlikely that the miracles/Son of God stuff is accurate (but do believe that Jesus existed and was a very inspirational teacher).

I do believe in a God - however my interpretation of him is very personal to me and I doubt anyone else on the planet shares my viewpoint (similarly if you discuss God with relgious people you'll find their nuances on who/what he is will be unique to the individual despite their belief they worship the same God).

Hope this helps,

Marc
PS - I'd welcome comments from practising Christians to explain this logical connundrum, when I've mentioned it to clergy in the past they've tended to run for the hills or mutter about me not having enough 'faith' ... not particularly inspirational to me I'm afraid.

[boberot]

I appreciate your perspective, Marc.
I definitely wasn't trying to take a shot at you, I was trying to understand the Christian theology behind those points I was making.

I'd love to hear what a practicing Christian has to say on the matter.