What is Your Religion?

[Aeitra]

Diest

[V1per41]

You might want to try reading Romans chapter 1



The glory of God's creation, itself, is evidence enough that there is a God

*facepalm* This is something I have no idea how theists haven't figured out yet. Here is some advice for you for the next time you are talking religion with a non-believer. Never-ever-ever use the bible to back up your point. What would be your reaction if I quoted to you, in all seriousness, Jack & the bean-stock and used it as evidence for god's non-existence since jack climbed up to the clouds and there was no god there, only a giant. The though processes that would go on in your head were this to happen is the exact same one that goes through my head when you quote the bible and try to use it as evidence. This is a story which to most thinking people is obviously written by nomadic tribes with very little understanding of the world around them, and a very large imagination. Present evidence, not these softy "design implies a designer" arguments.

[FashionableFedora]

Should have separated Catholicism and Protestantism imo. Maybe Orthodox too.

[IKnewIt]

I'm happier than I've ever been when religion was part of my life.

not that I'm perfect of don't want to improve things with myself. Nor do I believe "atheism will show me the way"

Having sunday mornings free is awesome. Maybe religion keeps some people from killing other people. But it seems like it causes some people to kill other people, so I guess its a wash.

I like the idea of forgiveness and charity, but I don't see religion having a monopoly on those ideas. The golden rule is selfish at its core.

:iatp:

Add me to the list of people who grew up going to church and changed my views once I put some actual thought into it. I'm willing to bet that I have more knowledge of the Bible and Christianity than the vast majority (95%+) of self-proclaimed Christians as well, based on my experience with them. For anyone that thinks it might be a worthwhile point, I was raised in a Protestant religion, and both of my parents were Sunday School teachers at one time or another.

Also, I haven't had the pleasure of reading anything TheGillotine posted before this thread, and I must say, s/he is now among my favorite posters :tup:

[FashionableFedora]

The reason nearly 100% of the elite scientists are non-religious is because they know how the world and universe works. You are not going to be able to convince a Phd biologist that creationism is true, or a top Cosmologist that the big bang never happened. With that knowledge I don't see how someone could be a believer in a deity.

FYI, the Big Bang theory was first postulated by a Catholic priest. So was the theory of genetics. The church is very much pro-science. The more you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

[V1per41]

The argument was that the burden is on God to prove his own existence. He's done that with the simple act of creation, leaving none of us any excuse to deny his existence.

The fact is, you can show someone all the evidence in the world. At the end of the day, they are going to see what they want to see and be blind to what they want to be blind to. Jesus performed all sorts of miracles before the eyes of witnesses and many of them still refused to believe. Even during the 7 years of tribulation prophesied in Revelation, people will refuse to believe.

You need to learn some reading comprehension. The argument is that the burden is on those making a claim. Theists are making a claim that a deity exists. It is illogical to believe a claim is true unless some evidence is provided. The more incredible the claim the more evidence is required. It's that simple.

I claim that I make an amazing grilled cheese sandwich. In this case you would probably only need one other person to say "it's true, I had one, and it was really good!" To believe it.

If I made the claim that my grilled cheese sandwiches cured cancer? You think you would believe it if I pointed to a book with mother goose nursery rhymes, where somewhere in the middle it said that I made cancer curing sandwiches?

Bring something to the table... anything... we are all listening. Maybe you know of some knew cosmological research stating that Lawrence krauss is wrong, and a universe can't be created from nothing. Or maybe there is a study showing that prayers from a particular religion are statistically more productive then chance.

[V1per41]

FYI, the Big Bang theory was first postulated by a Catholic priest. So was the theory of genetics. The church is very much pro-science. The more you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

This is the second time this fact has been brought up. I still don't understand what the point is. Many different churches believe many different things. It's superfluous to go church by church and discuss their individual beliefs. Unless a direct argument has been made I tend to generalize with the most prevalent religious beliefs in the US.. in this case a belief in creation, and a rejection of much of modern cosmology and biology.

Sure the catholic church officially believes in evolution, but this in no way makes the rest of their crazy beliefs credible without evidence.

[Vorian Atreides]

V1per41 does make an incredible cheese sandwich. It's true!!

I've never had one myself, though.

[V1per41]

V1per41 does make an incredible cheese sandwich. It's true!!
...

:toth:

[FashionableFedora]

That's because Catholicism is a lie. Not the Bible. Catholics are discouraged from reading the scriptures, and it's no surprise why. A fellow in one of our programs grew up Catholic his entire life and started reading the Bible after he lost his job and had all this free time. Suddenly he started asking his priest things about what he was reading and the guy basically told him not to trust his own interpretations, just listen to the priests teachings. Mind control at it's best.

In this case, the priest clearly acted incorrectly (which is too common unfortunately). The Church does not discourage laity from reading scripture. However, the interpretation of scripture does require a very thorough education that most laymen will not undergo, so it can be dangerous for laymen to start asking questions, IF THEY ARE NOT FULLY PREPARED TO INVESTIGATE THE ANSWERS. That may be what motivates some priests to encourage the laity to just follow church teaching, because the church has a 2,000 year history of scholarship devoted to answering theological questions, even if the best approach would be to answer the person's questions patiently.

I would add that this is a somewhat common approach among people who are subject matter experts who get basic questions from people who they don't think want full answers. If an innumerate person asked you a technical question about insurance that would require a lot of explanation, would you take take it upon yourself to teach them the whole SOA exam syllabus, or would you just say "trust me."? Maybe not the best approach, but I wouldn't term it "mind control" either.

[FashionableFedora]

This is the second time this fact has been brought up. I still don't understand what the point is. Many different churches believe many different things. It's superfluous to go church by church and discuss their individual beliefs. Unless a direct argument has been made I tend to generalize with the most prevalent religious beliefs in the US.. in this case a belief in creation, and a rejection of much of modern cosmology and biology.

Sure the catholic church officially believes in evolution, but this in no way makes the rest of their crazy beliefs credible without evidence.

Now you're shifting the basis of your argument. You said it's not possible to believe in the big bang or in evoluation and also believe in a deity. I'm pointing out that you're incredibly wrong, that the people who actually developed those theories were men of deep and abiding faith. So, first I think you should acknowledge that your statement was incorrect.

As far as going church by church, I'm not really interested in the beliefs of schismatic churches. There is only one true Church, established by Christ on earth before his crucifixion. The fact is that that Church is a lover of science, takes glory in expounding divine truth in all its forms (including biology, astronomy, physics, and mathematics), and that Church is responsible for leading the western world out of the dark ages.

There was a time when its monastaries were the only repositories of knowledge in the west. When most of Europe was preoccupied by war, the Church's monks were dedicated to learning. They developed the scientific method, they preserved the intellectual traditions of the classical world, they formed the scholastic tradition and built the first universities. The Church was the first bastion of liberalism. In an age of absolute monarchy, it was the Church that championed of the idea that people have rights and that the poor should be cared for. Places in the world that lack an institution that has filled the role of the Church, such as the Middle East and Africa, are still in the dark ages, and still place little to no value on human life. That we value life so much is because of the Church's influence on our culture, and the Church draws its power from the example and spirit of Christ.

You think you're the proponent of civilization, of carrying forward humanity into a new age of enlightenment. You can think that if you want, but by doing so, you turn your back on the fact that all that you have and all that you are, you owe to God the Father, to Christ his Son, to the Holy Spirit, and to Christ's bride here on Earth. Without all of them, you are lost in a desert of misery.

[V1per41]

Now you're shifting the basis of your argument. You said it's not possible to believe in the big bang or in evoluation and also believe in a deity...

I stopped reading here since it seems you misunderstood what I said. I know it's possible to believe in a deity while also agreeing with modern scientific knowledge. Claiming otherwise would be foolish as there are well known people who do ... Francis Collins for example.

What I will say is that I can't conceive of a way to be logically consistent, while believing in the existence of Yahweh, and accept the conclusions of modern science. Note that this is different from claiming that it's impossible to do so, I just don't see how you can.

[FashionableFedora]

What I will say is that I can't conceive of a way to be logically consistent, while believing in the existence of Yahweh, and accept the conclusions of modern science. Note that this is different from claiming that it's impossible to do so, I just don't see how you can.

I don't see why you can't. If anything, it seems a theory like the Big Bang corroborates the existence of God. That there was a point singularity that started the universe, before which everything was a mystery, seems to agree pretty well with the idea of God. Why don't you think so?

[Doctor Who]

The Church does not discourage laity from reading scripture.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

While a number of partial and complete translations had been made from the seventh century onward, the popularity of Wycliffe's Bible in the 14th century resulted in a ban on the publication of the Bible in English; almost all vernacular Bibles were confiscated and burned. Tyndale's illegal translation was the first of the new English Bibles of the Reformation, and the first to draw directly from Hebrew and Greek texts, and the first to take advantage of the new medium of the print, which allowed for wide distribution. This was taken to be a direct challenge to the hegemony of both the Roman Catholic Church and the English church and state. Tyndale also wrote, in 1530, The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it contravened scriptural law.

In 1535, Tyndale was arrested and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year. He was tried for heresy, choked, impaled and burnt on a stake in 1536.

[Agadefe]

I don't see why you can't. If anything, it seems a theory like the Big Bang corroborates the existence of God. That there was a point singularity that started the universe, before which everything was a mystery, seems to agree pretty well with the idea of God. Why don't you think so?

How does one make the leap from believing in a God of some sort, to believing in the God of the Bible/Torah/etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with the quoted post, but I would say that the Big Bang Theory almost certainly goes against the concept of creation as proposed in Genesis.

[Agadefe]

Random tangent:
When some of you guys on here don't capitalize 'God', is it a purposeful action to like 'show your disrespect' via post? It seems strange, like not capitalizing 'America'. It's a proper noun.

[V1per41]

I don't see why you can't. If anything, it seems a theory like the Big Bang corroborates the existence of God. That there was a point singularity that started the universe, before which everything was a mystery, seems to agree pretty well with the idea of God. Why don't you think so?

I had specifically said Yahweh in my post. The evidence of the big bang directly contradicts a literal 6 day creation as depicted in the bible.

With our current understanding there is no need for a deity. We have a very plausible explanation for How the universe began that requires no magic or supernatural forces. Postulating that one existed is not necessary. Why add in an extra step when one isn't needed?


Random tangent:
When some of you guys on here don't capitalize 'God', is it a purposeful action to like 'show your disrespect' via post? It seems strange, like not capitalizing 'America'. It's a proper noun.

I usually choose my words pretty carefully in these types of discussions, and if I am ever referring to the god of the bible will reference it by name (Yahweh). Otherwise, I use a lowercase 'g' when I could mean one of a wide range of deities, and I feel that the lower case 'g' is more grammatically correct. One should capitalize "Jack" from Jack & the bean-stock, but we don't capitalize the 'p' in 'people'.

Just my take.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Random tangent:
When some of you guys on here don't capitalize 'God', is it a purposeful action to like 'show your disrespect' via post? It seems strange, like not capitalizing 'America'. It's a proper noun.

I don't capitalize I either. Well, now my phone is doing it for me.

[FashionableFedora]

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

Yes, the Church really does encourage its laity to read scripture, but does not teach that reading scripture alone is sufficient to know God. Man can only achieve salvation through the sacraments, which were entrusted to the Apostles, and passed down through Apostolic succession to the bishops of the current day.

Heretics like Tyndale erred not in encouraging laymen to read scripture, but in claiming that knowledge of scripture was sufficient to have a full relationship with God. If he had petitioned the pope (or likely even the Archbishop of Canterbury) to sanction a vernacular translation of the Bible in order to instruct laymen in the Christian faith, there wouldn't have been an issue. His rejection of Christ's bride was the issue, not translation of the Bible.

[TheGillotine]

Also, I haven't had the pleasure of reading anything TheGillotine posted before this thread, and I must say, s/he is now among my favorite posters :tup:

:bighug:

You need to learn some reading comprehension. The argument is that the burden is on those making a claim. Theists are making a claim that a deity exists. It is illogical to believe a claim is true unless some evidence is provided. The more incredible the claim the more evidence is required. It's that simple.

I claim that I make an amazing grilled cheese sandwich. In this case you would probably only need one other person to say "it's true, I had one, and it was really good!" To believe it.

If I made the claim that my grilled cheese sandwiches cured cancer? You think you would believe it if I pointed to a book with mother goose nursery rhymes, where somewhere in the middle it said that I made cancer curing sandwiches?

Bring something to the table... anything... we are all listening. Maybe you know of some knew cosmological research stating that Lawrence krauss is wrong, and a universe can't be created from nothing. Or maybe there is a study showing that prayers from a particular religion are statistically more productive then chance.

r.n. :wink:

Now you're shifting the basis of your argument. You said it's not possible to believe in the big bang or in evoluation and also believe in a deity. I'm pointing out that you're incredibly wrong, that the people who actually developed those theories were men of deep and abiding faith. So, first I think you should acknowledge that your statement was incorrect.

As far as going church by church, I'm not really interested in the beliefs of schismatic churches. There is only one true Church, established by Christ on earth before his crucifixion. The fact is that that Church is a lover of science, takes glory in expounding divine truth in all its forms (including biology, astronomy, physics, and mathematics), and that Church is responsible for leading the western world out of the dark ages.

There was a time when its monastaries were the only repositories of knowledge in the west. When most of Europe was preoccupied by war, the Church's monks were dedicated to learning. They developed the scientific method, they preserved the intellectual traditions of the classical world, they formed the scholastic tradition and built the first universities. The Church was the first bastion of liberalism. In an age of absolute monarchy, it was the Church that championed of the idea that people have rights and that the poor should be cared for. Places in the world that lack an institution that has filled the role of the Church, such as the Middle East and Africa, are still in the dark ages, and still place little to no value on human life. That we value life so much is because of the Church's influence on our culture, and the Church draws its power from the example and spirit of Christ.

You think you're the proponent of civilization, of carrying forward humanity into a new age of enlightenment. You can think that if you want, but by doing so, you turn your back on the fact that all that you have and all that you are, you owe to God the Father, to Christ his Son, to the Holy Spirit, and to Christ's bride here on Earth. Without all of them, you are lost in a desert of misery.

I started out agreeing with you, but as your post went on I disagreed more and more. You're truly demonstrating the extent of your brainwashing if you think the only road to happiness is through Christ and that all non-Christians are "lost in a desert of misery." More, you've overcompensated for the common disregard atheists have for the influence of Christianity on Western culture.

Random tangent:
When some of you guys on here don't capitalize 'God', is it a purposeful action to like 'show your disrespect' via post? It seems strange, like not capitalizing 'America'. It's a proper noun.

I alternate between "God" and "a god/gods" somewhat randomly, but also depending on the context. If the person I'm addressing seems to be using God as a placeholder word, I use god(s) to hint that the word actually has a history of explicit meaning.

[Agadefe]

Thanks for the capitalization insight guys.

I typically use God for everything. Maybe I'll start saying god when I am referring to a conceptual god(s) as opposed to the God of an actual religion.

[FashionableFedora]

How does one make the leap from believing in a God of some sort, to believing in the God of the Bible/Torah/etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with the quoted post, but I would say that the Big Bang Theory almost certainly goes against the concept of creation as proposed in Genesis.

The creation stories in Genesis (actually, the first six chapters, which are divinely inspired, but derived from Sumerian creation myth) are acknowledged to be allegorical. They explain certain truths about the nature of God and the nature of man, but they didn't necessarily happen literally. Everything after the first six chapters is historical.

As far as belief in the Christian God, much of our knowledge of him comes from His revelation to us. It can't be proven by science. Knowlege of his creation can be explored through science, but knowledge of Him has been revealed by the prophets and by Christ, and requires faith.

[Agadefe]

The creation stories in Genesis (actually, the first six chapters, which are divinely inspired, but derived from Sumerian creation myth) are acknowledged to be allegorical. They explain certain truths about the nature of God and the nature of man, but they didn't necessarily happen literally. Everything after the first six chapters is historical.

As far as belief in the Christian God, much of our knowledge of him comes from His revelation to us. It can't be proven by science. Knowlege of his creation can be explored through science, but knowledge of Him has been revealed by the prophets and by Christ, and requires faith.

It was only acknowledged to be allegorical after there was contradictory scientific evidence, no?

Also, I understand it requires faith, etc. My issue is that many theists use a conceptual idea of the existence of a god and then leap to God of the Bible existing as if there is an obvious connection.

It seems to me that making God compatible with various scientific studies is more useful for people who already believe in Christianity enforcing their beliefs via "well here is some logic that God exists, therefore Christianity must be true" as opposed to actually having any effect on convincing non-theists.

[TheGillotine]

The creation stories in Genesis (actually, the first six chapters, which are divinely inspired, but derived from Sumerian creation myth) are acknowledged to be allegorical. They explain certain truths about the nature of God and the nature of man, but they didn't necessarily happen literally. Everything after the first six chapters is historical.

As far as belief in the Christian God, much of our knowledge of him comes from His revelation to us. It can't be proven by science. Knowlege of his creation can be explored through science, but knowledge of Him has been revealed by the prophets and by Christ, and requires faith.

I don't restrict evidences of God to scientific things. However, I think it's unacceptable to say "You just have to believe it to believe it".

Everything after the first six chapters is historical? What about the flood (chapters 7-8)? What about the tower of Babel story (Chapter 11)? What about Sodom and Gomorrah (Chapter 19)? To name but a few, I think these are all obviously allegorical.

And consider 1 Corinthians 15:22. "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Here, Paul writes about Adam in the same way he writes about Christ. If we do not all die in Adam, why then should we conclude that we will all be made alive in Christ?

[TheGillotine]

(actually, the first six chapters, which are divinely inspired, but derived from Sumerian creation myth)

Just noticed this stunning example of cognitive dissonance.

[FashionableFedora]

I started out agreeing with you, but as your post went on I disagreed more and more. You're truly demonstrating the extent of your brainwashing if you think the only road to happiness is through Christ and that all non-Christians are "lost in a desert of misery." More, you've overcompensated for the common disregard atheists have for the influence of Christianity on Western culture.

I debated between saying "would be lost in a desert of misery" and "are lost in a desert of misery." By the former, I would have emphasized what I aluded to, which you seem to agree: that the western world would be a much darker place without Christianity's influence. Universal education, individual liberty, modern medicine, etc., would likely never have come about. As I said, if we look at places in the world that didn't have the church, we get some idea of what our world might be like, and it's not pretty. Most of the atrocities of the 20th century were committed by peoples who did not have a strong tradition of Christianity, or who deliberately rejected their Christian tradition (thinking of the Japanese, the Nazis and the Soviets, but I could expound). We only recognize these as atrocities because of our Christian roots.

In the end though, I went with "are lost in a desert of misery," even if it may have been a bit strong, because I believe that even with all of the benefits of Christian culture, true and lasting happiness can only come through communion with Christ himself. We can certainly enjoy the material world (as we are meant to), but without communion with God, enjoyment is empty and meaningless.

[FashionableFedora]

Just noticed this stunning example of cognitive dissonance.

You don't think it's possible for Sumerians to be divinely inspired? Why not?

[TheGillotine]

You don't think it's possible for Sumerians to be divinely inspired? Why not?

I just think its odd to in one sentence admit that a story is mythology and the next say it's divine truth.

[Agadefe]

I debated between saying "would be lost in a desert of misery" and "are lost in a desert of misery." By the former, I would have emphasized what I aluded to, which you seem to agree: that the western world would be a much darker place without Christianity's influence. Universal education, individual liberty, modern medicine, etc., would likely never have come about. As I said, if we look at places in the world that didn't have the church, we get some idea of what our world might be like, and it's not pretty. Most of the atrocities of the 20th century were committed by peoples who did not have a strong tradition of Christianity, or who deliberately rejected their Christian tradition (thinking of the Japanese, the Nazis and the Soviets, but I could expound). We only recognize these as atrocities because of our Christian roots..

Do you seriously believe this?

Talk to some people from the (predominantly) non-religious former Soviet Union who were around during Stalin's time about their thoughts on the atrocities.

[FashionableFedora]

It was only acknowledged to be allegorical after there was contradictory scientific evidence, no?

I'm not really sure. Even if it was though, I don't necessarily see anything illicit there. Like I said, we learn of God's creation through science. If the Church learns something new, then it may have to revisit its beliefs, just as any person would. It's not as though anybody had first hand knowledge of creation, as we had first hand knowledge of Christ's birth, ministry and resurrection. We go with the information we have.

Also, I understand it requires faith, etc. My issue is that many theists use a conceptual idea of the existence of a god and then leap to God of the Bible existing as if there is an obvious connection.

I have an issue with that as well. It's attempting to rationalize and marginalize the role of faith in religion, in an attempt to appease secular people who reject the idea of faith. I don't try to prove the existence of God using logic, but logic needs to be used to refute purported proofs of atheism.

It seems to me that making God compatible with various scientific studies is more useful for people who already believe in Christianity enforcing their beliefs via "well here is some logic that God exists, therefore Christianity must be true" as opposed to actually having any effect on convincing non-theists.

That may well be, I really don't know. Like I said, I don't use that approach personally.

[TheGillotine]

I debated between saying "would be lost in a desert of misery" and "are lost in a desert of misery." By the former, I would have emphasized what I aluded to, which you seem to agree: that the western world would be a much darker place without Christianity's influence. Universal education, individual liberty, modern medicine, etc., would likely never have come about. As I said, if we look at places in the world that didn't have the church, we get some idea of what our world might be like, and it's not pretty. Most of the atrocities of the 20th century were committed by peoples who did not have a strong tradition of Christianity, or who deliberately rejected their Christian tradition (thinking of the Japanese, the Nazis and the Soviets, but I could expound). We only recognize these as atrocities because of our Christian roots.

In the end though, I went with "are lost in a desert of misery," even if it may have been a bit strong, because I believe that even with all of the benefits of Christian culture, true and lasting happiness can only come through communion with Christ himself. We can certainly enjoy the material world (as we are meant to), but without communion with God, enjoyment is empty and meaningless.

To say that these discoveries were made in a thoroughly Christian environment is not to say they would not otherwise have been made. The Nazis had a very strong Christian tradition, most notably including the Christian tradition of anti-Semitism. Individual liberty stands in stark contrast to Christian doctrine, and the germ theory of disease contradicts the "divinely inspired" teaching of demonic disease. While this does not preclude Christians from reinterpreting their scriptures to match new discoveries, it's a hard stretch to say that Christian doctrine inspired ideas that contradict Christian doctrine.

Add: I don't say that the Western world would be "a darker place" without its Christian history, only different. Similarly, I don't say that the world would be better without a history of mythology and superstition. Such speculation is useless and generally favors one's preconceptions.

[FashionableFedora]

I just think its odd to in one sentence admit that a story is mythology and the next say it's divine truth.

Not necessarily divine truth, but divine inspiration. It contains a kernel of truth about the nature of humanity, the nature of God and of the universe. Whether or not it is factually true and happened historically isn't really the issue.

You might call a beautiful work of art "divinely inspired." Does that make it "true?" Maybe it depicts an actual scene and maybe it doesn't, but either way, that's not why you described it as such. You called it that because it was beautiful, and it helps you to reflect on the beauty that is God's creation.

[FashionableFedora]

To say that these discoveries were made in a thoroughly Christian environment is not to say they would not otherwise have been made. The Nazis had a very strong Christian tradition, most notably including the Christian tradition of anti-Semitism.

The Nazis very strongly rejected the Christian traditions and religion. They embraced the principles of Martin Luther and Prussian militarism and took them to the utmost extremes. Nazi persecution of the church was incredibly brutal.

Individual liberty stands in stark contrast to Christian doctrine, and the germ theory of disease contradicts the "divinely inspired" teaching of demonic disease. While this does not preclude Christians from reinterpreting their scriptures to match new discoveries, it's a hard stretch to say that Christian doctrine inspired ideas that contradict Christian doctrine.

I don't have time to fully debate this point at the moment, so I apologize. What I will say is that the Church has never, to my knowledge, claimed that all diseases are caused by spiritual forces, and that the germ theory of disease does not contradict anything that was ever an infallible teaching of the Church. I believe there are some illnesses that are demonic, but these are a small minority.

Also, crimes of persecution that may have been committed by individual Christians, or even by individual popes, are not in themselves Church teaching. All men sin, even holy men. Personal actions do not invalidate any divine teachings of the Church. Also, not all teachings of the Church are divine teachings.

[ORLYLOL]

I find your lack of druidism on this list disturbing

[FashionableFedora]

Do you seriously believe this?

Talk to some people from the (predominantly) non-religious former Soviet Union who were around during Stalin's time about their thoughts on the atrocities.

Russia (like Germany) does have a tradition of Christianity, though the Soviets repudiated it. It's not surprising that many Russians would be against atrocities of the state. Also, I didn't mean that only people who have been exposed to the teachings of the Church and to the Gospel of Christ can be divinely inspired.

However, the historical evidence is that societies with strong Christian presences have much greater regard for human life than those who had none. I think we take our Christian tradition for granted. We assume that the value we place on life is the natural state of humanity, and we assume that any societies that disregard the value of life are deviant or abnormal. Quite the opposite, imo.

The natural state of societies who are not conscious of God is barbarism, and a regard for the value of human life is the exception in these societies, not the rule. The Japanese medical experiments on Koreans and Russians, Aztec human sacrifice, the Roman love of the most torturous execution methods, Nazi atrocities, honor killings in the Muslim societies, the atrocities of African tribal life, etc. are all examples. The most extreme example I'm aware of is a tribe in Madagasar (or maybe New Zealand, but I think Madagascar) that bred humans in captivity as a food source. Regardless, people without knowledge and consciousness of God tend toward barbarism.

[V1per41]

Man, it took us 28 pages to get to the Hitler argument, I'm impressed it took that long.

When you say that the middle east and Africa don't have church are you referring specifically to christian church as I'm sure you are aware Africa and the Middle East are some of the most religious countries (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg) on Earth, with many of the African countries following some form of Christianity.

[TheGillotine]

Russia (like Germany) does have a tradition of Christianity, though the Soviets repudiated it. It's not surprising that many Russians would be against atrocities of the state. Also, I didn't mean that only people who have been exposed to the teachings of the Church and to the Gospel of Christ can be divinely inspired.

However, the historical evidence is that societies with strong Christian presences have much greater regard for human life than those who had none. I think we take our Christian tradition for granted. We assume that the value we place on life is the natural state of humanity, and we assume that any societies that disregard the value of life are deviant or abnormal. Quite the opposite, imo.

The natural state of societies who are not conscious of God is barbarism, and a regard for the value of human life is the exception in these societies, not the rule. The Japanese medical experiments on Koreans and Russians, Aztec human sacrifice, the Roman love of the most torturous execution methods, Nazi atrocities, honor killings in the Muslim societies, the atrocities of African tribal life, etc. are all examples. The most extreme example I'm aware of is a tribe in Madagasar (or maybe New Zealand, but I think Madagascar) that bred humans in captivity as a food source. Regardless, people without knowledge and consciousness of God tend toward barbarism.

This right here is a pretty ignorant post. Take all non-western cultures and label them as barbaric, citing some examples of disreputable practices in some non-western cultures, then ignore or dismiss all examples of barbarism in the Christian West.

[FashionableFedora]

Man, it took us 28 pages to get to the Hitler argument, I'm impressed it took that long.

Grow up. Nazism can be a valid point of discussion. It wasn't central in any case.

When you say that the middle east and Africa don't have church are you referring specifically to christian church as I'm sure you are aware Africa and the Middle East are some of the most religious countries (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3423/3277768007_e06378be14_b.jpg) on Earth, with many of the African countries following some form of Christianity.

Yes, I know there are Christian churches in Africa. When I said parts of Africa lack a church, I was talking more about an institution like the Catholic Church in Europe up until the reformation. A state within a state basically that was an ever present guide for society, existed accross national boundaries, and could strongly influence sovereigns. I don't know how African churches operate.

With regard to the Middle East, yes, I was talking specifically about Christianity.

[FashionableFedora]

This right here is a pretty ignorant post. Take all non-western cultures and label them as barbaric, citing some examples of disreputable practices in some non-western cultures, then ignore or dismiss all examples of barbarism in the Christian West.

Bottom line is that Christianity is, and has been, the driving force of civilization, and historically has been more successful than any other force in creating an appreciation for the value of human life. That statement is informed, not ignorant. To the extent that barbarism exists in Christian societies, it's a deviation from their Christian traditions.

[Agadefe]

Russia (like Germany) does have a tradition of Christianity, though the Soviets repudiated it. It's not surprising that many Russians would be against atrocities of the state. Also, I didn't mean that only people who have been exposed to the teachings of the Church and to the Gospel of Christ can be divinely inspired.

However, the historical evidence is that societies with strong Christian presences have much greater regard for human life than those who had none. I think we take our Christian tradition for granted. We assume that the value we place on life is the natural state of humanity, and we assume that any societies that disregard the value of life are deviant or abnormal. Quite the opposite, imo.

The natural state of societies who are not conscious of God is barbarism, and a regard for the value of human life is the exception in these societies, not the rule. The Japanese medical experiments on Koreans and Russians, Aztec human sacrifice, the Roman love of the most torturous execution methods, Nazi atrocities, honor killings in the Muslim societies, the atrocities of African tribal life, etc. are all examples. The most extreme example I'm aware of is a tribe in Madagasar (or maybe New Zealand, but I think Madagascar) that bred humans in captivity as a food source. Regardless, people without knowledge and consciousness of God tend toward barbarism.

The Russians I am talking about have absolutely no 'roots' in Christian values. Most of the Russians currently in America are Jewish refugees. The Jewish Russian population is predominantly non-religious, both back in the Soviet Union and in America. Thinking that their consideration of the atrocities of Stalin is based in Christian values is pretty naive and (I would imagine) insulting to many of them.

You are choosing negative aspects of hypothetically non-Christian societies and comparing them against only good aspect of Christian societies? Yeah, obviously it will be worse. I won't go through the effort of pointing out good non-Christian societies and awful Christian ones, but I am sure someone else will.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I didn't know Buddha and Confucius were Christians

[V1per41]

Grow up. Nazism can be a valid point of discussion. It wasn't central in any case.

I will concede that many theists think that Nazism can be a valid point. However, it never has been and never will be.

Hitler was a Christian, the Nazi's were primarily Christian, but let's ignore those and go with the "They didn't do what Jesus teaches and therefore aren't true Christian's" argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

It still doesn't matter, as their actions were driven from ideology and dogma. Atheists have committed atrocities, but no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. there is a VERY BIG difference here.

[TheGillotine]

Bottom line is that Christianity is, and has been, the driving force of civilization, and historically has been more successful than any other force in creating an appreciation for the value of human life. That statement is informed, not ignorant. To the extent that barbarism exists in Christian societies, it's a deviation from their Christian traditions.

Bottom line is that rationality is, and has been, the driving force of civilization, and historically has been more successful than any other force in creating an appreciation for the value of human life. That statement is informed, not ignorant. To the extent that barbarism exists in rational societies, it's a deviation from their rational traditions. Christianity is fundamentally opposed to rationality. Christianity teaches that human life is worthless, that humans are fundamentally evil.

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

[TheGillotine]

I didn't know Buddha and Confucius were Christians

East Asia has always been a den of savagery and barbarism. They have never contributed anything to civilization, and they have no value for human life.

[FashionableFedora]

I will concede that many theists think that Nazism can be a valid point. However, it never has been and never will be.

Hitler was a Christian, the Nazi's were primarily Christian, but let's ignore those and go with the "They didn't do what Jesus teaches and therefore aren't true Christian's" argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

On what basis are you calling Hitler a Christian? Do you think anybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, or are there certain criteria (beliefs held, actions taken, etc.) that you think people need to meet for you to consider them Christian? Is anybody who wants to call themselves an actuary an actuary?

Btw, the definition of Christian is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is a set of fixed criteria to determine whether or not someone truly is a Christian, and it's not self-defining. Basically, belief in the Apostles' Creed is the litmus test. Anyone who believes it is a Christian. I am not saying that Christians do not commit atrocities or sins, because that would be ridiculous. I am saying that to the extent they do, they are deviating from their faith. That's a fact, and it happens to everybody.

I then went on to make another statement that I think societies who have stronger church institutions and stronger Christian influences to be more moral, liberal, life-valuing socieites. This statement can be debated, but I think the historical record corroborates it.

It still doesn't matter, as their actions were driven from ideology and dogma. Atheists have committed atrocities, but no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. there is a VERY BIG difference here.

I'm sure there is at least one atheist, somewhere, who has killed or tried to kill a religious person because of their faith. There are probably hundreds, actually. Maybe some of the murderers call themselves "humanists," because they believe in humanity. And I'm sure you'll say (as would I), "they're not really humanists!). Not so?

[FashionableFedora]

East Asia has always been a den of savagery and barbarism. They have never contributed anything to civilization, and they have no value for human life.

Yup, I said that. :roll:

[TheGillotine]

On what basis are you calling Hitler a Christian? Do you think anybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, or are there certain criteria (beliefs held, actions taken, etc.) that you think people need to meet for you to consider them Christian? Is anybody who wants to call themselves an actuary an actuary?

Btw, the definition of Christian is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is a set of fixed criteria to determine whether or not someone truly is a Christian, and it's not self-defining. Basically, belief in the Apostles' Creed is the litmus test. Anyone who believes it is a Christian. I am not saying that Christians do not commit atrocities or sins, because that would be ridiculous. I am saying that to the extent they do, they are deviating from their faith. That's a fact, and it happens to everybody.

I then went on to make another statement that I think societies who have stronger church institutions and stronger Christian influences to be more moral, liberal, life-valuing socieites. This statement can be debated, but I think the historical record corroborates it.



I'm sure there is at least one atheist, somewhere, who has killed or tried to kill a religious person because of their faith. There are probably hundreds, actually. Maybe some of the murderers call themselves "humanists," because they believe in humanity. And I'm sure you'll say (as would I), "they're not really humanists!). Not so?

The extent to which Western society has progressed is the extent to which it deviates from Christian dogma.

I consider any person who claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to be a Christian. I have no way of verifying that claim.

[FashionableFedora]

Christianity is fundamentally opposed to rationality.

I've given many examples to prove this isn't true. The Church is pro-science, and has been the champion of western science and scholarship for centuries, long before any other element of society was.

Christianity teaches that human life is worthless, that humans are fundamentally evil.

This statement is ignorant, not informed.

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

I explained in my reply to Viper why it's not a NTS.

[Paul Brand]

I will concede that many theists think that Nazism can be a valid point. However, it never has been and never will be.

Hitler was a Christian, the Nazi's were primarily Christian, but let's ignore those and go with the "They didn't do what Jesus teaches and therefore aren't true Christian's" argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

From your article:
When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.


Is this the case? Not even close. Pretty much everyone I've seen apply this fallacy gets it wrong. It's a contagious meme.

To get a quick overview of the discussion of Hitler's religious views, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

It's probably not as clear as you think it is, particuarly considering his private statements, which were very anti-Christian. Unfortunately, while Hitler was very evil, he was also a very brilliant man, and was very persuasive in convincing others he was someone he wasn't. Probably not much unlike Constantine in the 4th century.

It still doesn't matter, as their actions were driven from ideology and dogma. Atheists have committed atrocities, but no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. there is a VERY BIG difference here.Nothing good has ever been done in the name of atheism. So, why would one want to be an atheist? (rhetorical question)

[Paul Brand]

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

Another example of incorrect application of NTS.

[TheGillotine]

I've given many examples to prove this isn't true. The Church is pro-science, and has been the champion of western science and scholarship for centuries, long before any other element of society was.


You mistake my meaning. While the Church may not be completely restrictive of scientific research, the contents of the Bible and original teachings of the Abrahamic faiths have been contradicted by each new discovery made by humanity. Even demonic possession, still believed by some Catholics, is going out the window.


This statement is ignorant, not informed.

It's aimed more at Protestant evangelicals, for which that statement is a hallmark.


I explained in my reply to Viper why it's not a NTS.

I can similarly use your explanation to decry every "good" Christian as deviating from Christian doctrine.

[FashionableFedora]

The extent to which Western society has progressed is the extent to which it deviates from Christian dogma.

Christian teachings ("dogma") not only provide sound moral guidance, they are also consistent with science, and foster the practice of science. During the dark ages, the Church was the only institution with a commitment to learning and charity, with the other powerful institutions committed to war and to their own power. The tradition of scholarship, science, and intellectual curiosity would have been quite stunted without the presence of the Church. I thought it was this with which you agreed.


I consider any person who claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to be a Christian. I have no way of verifying that claim.

What about anybody who claims to be a member of the SOA? Are they an actuary just because they say they are?

[V1per41]

On what basis are you calling Hitler a Christian? Do you think anybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, or are there certain criteria (beliefs held, actions taken, etc.) that you think people need to meet for you to consider them Christian? Is anybody who wants to call themselves an actuary an actuary?

Btw, the definition of Christian is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is a set of fixed criteria to determine whether or not someone truly is a Christian, and it's not self-defining. Basically, belief in the Apostles' Creed is the litmus test. Anyone who believes it is a Christian. I am not saying that Christians do not commit atrocities or sins, because that would be ridiculous. I am saying that to the extent they do, they are deviating from their faith. That's a fact, and it happens to everybody.

If someone claims that they are a Christian, and references it in their writings and speeches , then yes, I will call them a christian.

When I say, "Hitler was a christian" and you say (paraphrasing) "Hitler's actions were not in line with many christian teachings, so he wasn't really a christian" then yes, that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.


I then went on to make another statement that I think societies who have stronger church institutions and stronger Christian influences to be more moral, liberal, life-valuing socieites. This statement can be debated, but I think the historical record corroborates it.

does it?

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/burningpaper/2007/08/24/least-religious-countries-also-the-healthiest-says-survey/

Phil Zuckerman has released a chapter in the forthcoming Cambridge Companion to Atheism that lists the least religious countries in the world, and concludes that “high levels of organic atheism are strongly correlated with high levels of societal health, such as low homicide rates, low poverty rates, low infant mortality rates, and low illiteracy rates, as well as high levels of educational attainment, per capita income, and gender equality”.



I'm sure there is at least one atheist, somewhere, who has killed or tried to kill a religious person because of their faith. There are probably hundreds, actually. Maybe some of the murderers call themselves "humanists," because they believe in humanity. And I'm sure you'll say (as would I), "they're not really humanists!). Not so?

I find it hard to imagine a situation where this would happen, but I'm sure it has a one point or another. The argument at hand was mass atrocities however, and among these the # of deaths attributed to atheism still sits at 0.

[V1per41]

Christian teachings ("dogma") not only provide sound moral guidance, they are also consistent with science, and foster the practice of science. During the dark ages, the Church was the only institution with a commitment to learning and charity, with the other powerful institutions committed to war and to their own power. The tradition of scholarship, science, and intellectual curiosity would have been quite stunted without the presence of the Church. I thought it was this with which you agreed.

What about anybody who claims to be a member of the SOA? Are they an actuary just because they say they are?

Are you somehow under the understanding that religion wasn't the cause of the dark ages? Thanks to religions rule in that period of time scientific advancement is behind by hundreds of years.

[TheGillotine]

Nothing good has ever been done in the name of atheism. So, why would one want to be an atheist? (rhetorical question)

Good rhetorical question. We're dilly-dallying around with whether Christianity has been a boon or bane on Western Society. Let us rather examine the contents of the belief. What Truth is there in Christianity? More importantly, why should someone believe that the teachings of Christianity are true? I can go through the Bible and point out falsehood after falsehood, and the Catechism would be subject to similar criticism but for its stringent unverifiability. If that which can be verified is shown to be false, why should someone believe those proclamations which are unverifiable?

[FashionableFedora]

You mistake my meaning. While the Church may not be completely restrictive of scientific research, the contents of the Bible and original teachings of the Abrahamic faiths have been contradicted by each new discovery made by humanity. Even demonic possession, still believed by some Catholics, is going out the window.

Please be more specific, which "original teachings of the Abrahamic faiths" are you talking about? Regardless, I don't think it's a problem that the church revises its opinions on matter of science in light of new information. It's the natural course of human education. Science continually improves on itself, and corrects prior misunderstandings and gaps in knowledge. Most historians of science have high regard for Aristotle, though his physics were completely incorrect.

The problem arises when scientists attempt to use new discoveries to invalidate the basic premises of the faith. Galileo is a good example. At the time, the church of course taught geocentrism, which he correctly disproved. The problem didn't come with his proof though, it came because he attempted to use the fact that the church had been incorrect about a point that's essentially irrelevant to the core of the faith to disprove the faith. The Curia fought his science, and they were wrong, but so was he, because his science did not invalidate the faith, and he claimed it did. Copernicus, also a heliocentrist, had a good relationship with the church.

[FashionableFedora]

Are you somehow under the understanding that religion wasn't the cause of the dark ages? Thanks to religions rule in that period of time scientific advancement is behind by hundreds of years.

No, I actually wasn't aware that the Visigoths' conversion to Christianity was what caused them to sack Rome. Thanks for telling me though.

[TheGillotine]

Christian teachings ("dogma") not only provide sound moral guidance, they are also consistent with science, and foster the practice of science. During the dark ages, the Church was the only institution with a commitment to learning and charity, with the other powerful institutions committed to war and to their own power. The tradition of scholarship, science, and intellectual curiosity would have been quite stunted without the presence of the Church. I thought it was this with which you agreed.


Christian teachings do not provide sound moral guidance, and are not consistent with science. For "moral guidance" I refer you to the murder of people working on the Sabbath. For "consistency with science" I refer you to the global flood story, and the Tower of Babel story for explicit demonstrations of Christian dogma contradicting geological and linguistic history. The tradition of scholarship, science, and intellectual curiosity would have continued through some medium. The Church's monopoly on these matters was simply the medium of convenience. Consider the history of science, scholarship, and philosophy before the advent of Christianity.


What about anybody who claims to be a member of the SOA? Are they an actuary just because they say they are?

I have ways of verifying if someone is a member of the SOA.

[FashionableFedora]

If someone claims that they are a Christian, and references it in their writings and speeches , then yes, I will call them a christian.

When I say, "Hitler was a christian" and you say (paraphrasing) "Hitler's actions were not in line with many christian teachings, so he wasn't really a christian" then yes, that is a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I may have said that Hitler didn't act like a Christian. I did not mean that "Hitler wasn't a Christian because he didn't act like a Christian." That would be silly, because there are plenty of Christians who you would not be able to tell their Christianity from their actions.

In any case, I've read a good bit on Nazism, and the great bulk of the evidence of which I'm aware is that Hitler did not accept core Christian teachings for most of his life, and any attempt to appeal to Christianity was an attempt to make his true faith more appealing to those he was trying to convert. Btw, are you familiar with the Faith Movement of the Nazi Party? It was not Christian, it was a religion unto itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Faith_Movement

[FashionableFedora]

I have ways of verifying if someone is a member of the SOA.

You also have ways of verifying if someone is a Christian, even if you refuse to acknowledge that.

[Paul Brand]

I can similarly use your explanation to decry every "good" Christian as deviating from Christian doctrine.

It could very well be that your definition differs from Fedora's. It's not a fallacy to define a term differently than yourself. NTS applies when one shifts the goalposts in applying one's own definition.

[FashionableFedora]

I can similarly use your explanation to decry every "good" Christian as deviating from Christian doctrine.

Hold on. I say "person X does not adhere to Christian teachings. Therefore, they're not a good Christian." That's an NTS fallacy?

[TheGillotine]

You also have ways of verifying if someone is a Christian, even if you refuse to acknowledge that.

Go on...

[V1per41]

I may have said that Hitler didn't act like a Christian. I did not mean that "Hitler wasn't a Christian because he didn't act like a Christian." That would be silly, because there are plenty of Christians who you would not be able to tell their Christianity from their actions.

In any case, I've read a good bit on Nazism, and the great bulk of the evidence of which I'm aware is that Hitler did not accept core Christian teachings for most of his life, and any attempt to appeal to Christianity was an attempt to make his true faith more appealing to those he was trying to convert. Btw, are you familiar with the Faith Movement of the Nazi Party? It was not Christian, it was a religion unto itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Faith_Movement

You're not helping your argument here. What religion Hitler or most Nazi's followed isn't important to me. What's important is the people realize that their atrocities were not the result of non-belief.

[FashionableFedora]

Go on...

Sloppy phrasing on my part. In any case, one who believes every piece of the Apostles' Creed is a Christian. Those are the core tenets of the faith. You can't verify, because someone could lie about it, in which case you would need to go on the balance of evidence.

Regardless, the point is that just saying you believe in Xism doesn't make you an Xist. I think that's pretty commonly accepted.

[TheGillotine]

Sloppy phrasing on my part. In any case, one who believes every piece of the Apostles' Creed is a Christian. Those are the core tenets of the faith. You can't verify, because someone could lie about it, in which case you would need to go on the balance of evidence.

Regardless, the point is that just saying you believe in Xism doesn't make you an Xist. I think that's pretty commonly accepted.

Ok, which didn't he believe?

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

[FashionableFedora]

You're not helping your argument here. What religion Hitler or most Nazi's followed isn't important to me. What's important is the people realize that their atrocities were not the result of non-belief.

What's important to me is that you understand the commission of atrocities was partly due to a rejection of Christianity. This is difficult for me to do if you keep insisting (falsely) that the Nazis were Christian. You seem to have acknowledged now that they were not Christian. I agree that they did follow a non-Christian faith, but that's not really important to me.

[Baby, ByeBye]

What's important to me is that you understand the commission of atrocities was partly due to a rejection of Christianity. This is difficult for me to do if you keep insisting (falsely) that the Nazis were Christian. You seem to have acknowledged now that they were not Christian. I agree that they did follow a non-Christian faith, but that's not really important to me.

Your definition of Christian seems rather estranged

[TheGillotine]

What's important to me is that you understand the commission of atrocities was partly due to a rejection of Christianity. This is difficult for me to do if you keep insisting (falsely) that the Nazis were Christian. You seem to have acknowledged now that they were not Christian. I agree that they did follow a non-Christian faith, but that's not really important to me.

Even if the Hitler and the upper Echelons of the Nazi party weren't Christian (a point which I've yet to concede), it is undeniable that the German populace was Christian both in composition and culture.

[TheGillotine]

Moreover, I see this as entirely irrelevant. It is a historical fact that Christians have committed atrocities, and their faith was not a deterrent factor.

[Doctor Who]

Yes, the Church really does encourage its laity to read scripture, but does not teach that reading scripture alone is sufficient to know God. Man can only achieve salvation through the sacraments, which were entrusted to the Apostles, and passed down through Apostolic succession to the bishops of the current day.

Heretics like Tyndale erred not in encouraging laymen to read scripture, but in claiming that knowledge of scripture was sufficient to have a full relationship with God. If he had petitioned the pope (or likely even the Archbishop of Canterbury) to sanction a vernacular translation of the Bible in order to instruct laymen in the Christian faith, there wouldn't have been an issue. His rejection of Christ's bride was the issue, not translation of the Bible.

If the Church wanted the laity to read the scriptures, then why wasn't there already a translation in the common vernacular? The Vulgate (Latin) had been around since the 4th Century CE, so they could have translated it if they wanted to.

[FashionableFedora]

Ok, which didn't he believe?

1. I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
2. I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord.
3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.
5. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
6. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
7. He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
8. I believe in the Holy Spirit,
9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,
10. the forgiveness of sins,
11. the resurrection of the body,
12. and life everlasting.

Probably most of them, though I don't have concrete evidence except for:

3. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.

This one fore sure. He is on record as saying Jesus was the son of a Greek soldier.

4. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

Probably believed in this one though, not too controversial for a person of any religious persuasion.

[V1per41]

Did they commit atrocities in the name of Christianity? Probably yes, but debatable, and for the sake of argument I'll go along with no.

Did they do it in the name of atheism? I know you never claimed that they did, but many do, so I'm including it here for completeness. The answer to this question is very obviously no.

So where does this get us? Plenty of atrocities have still been committed by Christians, whether this one was or not is of little importance to me.

So I guess my next question is what's your point? What are you trying to get at?

[TheGillotine]

http://talesfromtheer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/spanish_inquisition.jpg

[FashionableFedora]

Moreover, I see this as entirely irrelevant. It is a historical fact that Christians have committed atrocities, and their faith was not a deterrent factor.

It is also an historical fact that faith has been a strong motivator toward acts of charity and mercy, such as the Church being the sole voice in the Spanish court speaking against the genocide against native Americans. Not all who claim to be Christians follow Christian teachings. My point was that places with a strong church presence and stronger Christian values tend to commit fewer atrocities than societies without such uplifting influences. I think the historical record corroborates. I gave you many examples, which you scoffed at.

[FashionableFedora]

So I guess my next question is what's your point? What are you trying to get at?

My original point was that societies with a strong Church presence and stronger Christian values tend to commit fewer atrocities than societies without such uplifting influences. I think the historical record corroborates.

[Paul Brand]

You're not helping your argument here. What religion Hitler or most Nazi's followed isn't important to me. What's important is the people realize that their atrocities were not the result of non-belief [in God?].

Vacuous claim. Again, why would one want to be an atheist, considering that atheists have never done anything good as a result of non-belief?

[V1per41]

Because you gave the dark ages as example of a good influence.

[Paul Brand]

Did they commit atrocities in the name of Christianity? Probably yes, but debatable, and for the sake of argument I'll go along with no.

Did they do it in the name of atheism? I know you never claimed that they did, but many do, so I'm including it here for completeness. The answer to this question is very obviously no.

So where does this get us? Plenty of atrocities have still been committed by Christians, whether this one was or not is of little importance to me.

So I guess my next question is what's your point? What are you trying to get at?

What are you trying to get at? Your logic shows that Christians have done good in the name of Christianity, and atheists haven't done anything good in the name of atheism. It's a silly game to play, and entirely vacuous.

[V1per41]

Vacuous claim. Again, why would one want to be an atheist, considering that atheists have never done anything good as a result of non-belief?

The bolded statement is just plain wrong.

I for one, care about what is correct. That is why I'm an atheist. Not because it feels good, or because it makes me a better person, or because I'm just rebelling. I'm an atheist because all claims for the existence of a super-natural deity are at best, just plain wrong, and at worst, extremely detrimental to society.

[FashionableFedora]

If the Church wanted the laity to read the scriptures, then why wasn't there already a translation in the common vernacular? The Vulgate (Latin) had been around since the 4th Century CE, so they could have translated it if they wanted to.

As I've stated, it's very easy for an uneducated layman to fall into heresy and to fall away from God if he attempts to interpret scripture without the guidance of a presbyter. On the other hand, the reading of scripture can enhance one's understanding of the faith and lead to a closer relationship with God. So, short answer, knowledge is power, and if misused it can be dangerous. The Church had to weigh these considerations in their decision of whether to allow laity to read scripture. Did they choose correctly? I don't know. But to jump to the conclusion that they had a perverse motive is premature and unsubstantiated.

[V1per41]

What are you trying to get at? Your logic shows that Christians have done good in the name of Christianity, and atheists haven't done anything good in the name of atheism. It's a silly game to play, and entirely vacuous.

When you use large groups of people like "Christians", "theists", "atheists", Catholics", etc... It's fair to claim that there are members in all of these groups that have done good things, and members who have done horrible things.

I have at no point made the argument that one group is "better" than another.

[TheGillotine]

Vacuous claim. Again, why would one want to be an atheist, considering that atheists have never done anything good as a result of non-belief?

Again, because it is atheism is the more honest belief system.

For the sake of argument I'll grant that Christianity is a positive influence on a society. This is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity. Truth is paramount to me. Is not also to you? A useful lie is a lie nonetheless, and all people concerned with truth should treat it as such.

[FashionableFedora]

Your definition of Christian seems rather estranged

What's your definition of Christianity? I've given you mine.

[FashionableFedora]

This is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity. Truth is paramount to me. Is not also to you?

Yes, I am.

[Doctor Who]

As I've stated, it's very easy for an uneducated layman to fall into heresy and to fall away from God if he attempts to interpret scripture without the guidance of a presbyter. On the other hand, the reading of scripture can enhance one's understanding of the faith and lead to a closer relationship with God. So, short answer, knowledge is power, and if misused it can be dangerous. The Church had to weigh these considerations in their decision of whether to allow laity to read scripture. Did they choose correctly? I don't know. But to jump to the conclusion that they had a perverse motive is premature and unsubstantiated.

Let me ask an example:

The Jerusalem Bible at 1 Timothy Chapter 3 says:

1 Here is a saying that you can rely on: to want to be a presiding elder is to desire a noble task. 2 That is why the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher; 3 not a heavy drinker, nor hot-tempered, but gentle and peaceable, not avaricious, 4 a man who manages his own household well and brings his children up to obey him and be well-behaved: 5 how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own household take care of the Church of God?

Presiding elders (priests, bishops, etc.) can be married and have kids, right?

[Paul Brand]

The bolded statement is just plain wrong.

I for one, care about what is correct. That is why I'm an atheist.

Not because it feels good, or because it makes me a better person, or because I'm just rebelling. I'm an atheist because all claims for the existence of a super-natural deity are at best, just plain wrong, and at worst, extremely detrimental to society.So why is my statement just plain wrong? What good thing has been done in the name of atheism?

It's pretty obvious to most people that if nothing bad is done in the name of atheism, nothing good has been done either. A better explanation for your good deeds, is your inherent sense of empathy for other people. Non-belief cannot, even in theory, translate to good deeds.

[Vorian Atreides]

http://talesfromtheer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/spanish_inquisition.jpg
Best post. By. Far.

[TheGillotine]

Best post. By. Far.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[FashionableFedora]

Let me ask an example:

The Jerusalem Bible at 1 Timothy Chapter 3 says:

1 Here is a saying that you can rely on: to want to be a presiding elder is to desire a noble task. 2 That is why the presiding elder must have an impeccable character. Husband of one wife, he must be temperate, discreet and courteous, hospitable and a good teacher; 3 not a heavy drinker, nor hot-tempered, but gentle and peaceable, not avaricious, 4 a man who manages his own household well and brings his children up to obey him and be well-behaved: 5 how can any man who does not understand how to manage his own household take care of the Church of God?

Presiding elders (priests, bishops, etc.) can be married and have kids, right?

Don't know how you got that from the passage. The Church exists in the world, and must conform its laws to the realities of the world, in order to encourage its faithful to become closer to God and do His work. The assumption that just because it was good and proper for priests to be married at some time means that it should always be so is erroneous. The church's laws are laws of men, and men can change them to fit the needs of those they currently govern. That's church law, mind you. There are laws of God that man can never change. But celibacy is a law of the Church.

Good example of why it can be dangerous for laity to read scripture without proper guidance.

[V1per41]

So why is my statement just plain wrong? What good thing has been done in the name of atheism?

It's pretty obvious to most people that if nothing bad is done in the name of atheism, nothing good has been done either. A better explanation for your good deeds, is your inherent sense of empathy for other people. Non-belief cannot, even in theory, translate to good deeds.

Fair point. I made the incorrect assumption that because a group donates their time/money towards a good cause doesn't mean that the group is responsible.

Atheism is a banner in which people can surround themselves with and do good deeds in the name of, but you are right in that there is no atheist doctrine which compels non believers to do good things.

[JohnLocke]

So why is my statement just plain wrong? What good thing has been done in the name of atheism?

It's pretty obvious to most people that if nothing bad is done in the name of atheism, nothing good has been done either. A better explanation for your good deeds, is your inherent sense of empathy for other people. Non-belief cannot, even in theory, translate to good deeds.

I don't think anything good or bad has been done in the name of atheism (okay maybe you could find some strange isolated events, but not in the larger sense).

[Paul Brand]

Again, because it is atheism is the more honest belief system.Is atheism a belief system? I would argue no.

For the sake of argument I'll grant that Christianity is a positive influence on a society. This is irrelevant to the truthfulness of the claims of Christianity. Truth is paramount to me. Is not also to you? A useful lie is a lie nonetheless, and all people concerned with truth should treat it as such.

This is, imo, way off topic, but I'm not necessarily of the opinion that adherence to truth is the most important thing. Some truths are more important than others. It is better to be mistaken, charitable and happy, than to be correct and miserable.

I would probably lie to protect the Jews from the Nazis, though that's probably not the type of truth you had in mind.

If someone was a creationist, but helped hundreds or thousands of people live happier lives, which is more important? Is it more important to correct his unbelief in evolution and the Big Bang? Or is it more important to promote social justice, community, charitable living, all of which leads toward greater happiness?

If religious teaching is getting in the way of things that are good and virtuous, than those teachings should be refuted. But, I've seen a lot of good done with religious teachings. Many atheists have adopted these teachings too.

Anyway, I'm kind if wired to try and get things right, even if they don't fit my pre-conceived notions of reality. But, sometimes, I wonder, if I focus too much on the intellectual, and not enough on virtues.

[TheGillotine]

Is atheism a belief system? I would argue no.

Correct, I got ahead of myself. It would be better to say atheism is part of a more honest belief system.


This is, imo, way off topic, but I'm not necessarily of the opinion that adherence to truth is the most important thing. Some truths are more important than others. It is better to be mistaken, charitable and happy, than to be correct and miserable.

I would probably lie to protect the Jews from the Nazis, though that's probably not the type of truth you had in mind.

If someone was a creationist, but helped hundreds or thousands of people live happier lives, which is more important? Is it more important to correct his unbelief in evolution and the Big Bang? Or is it more important to promote social justice, community, charitable living, all of which leads toward greater happiness?

If religious teaching is getting in the way of things that are good and virtuous, than those teachings should be refuted. But, I've seen a lot of good done with religious teachings. Many atheists have adopted these teachings too.

You preclude the possibility of being both honest and virtuous. I can simultaneously praise the good works of someone whilst denouncing which beliefs they espoused were false.

Who has a higher opinion of humanity: the person who believes that people need to be lied to in order to do good or the person who believes that an honest perspective of reality will lead to people doing good?

[Paul Brand]

Good rhetorical question. We're dilly-dallying around with whether Christianity has been a boon or bane on Western Society. Let us rather examine the contents of the belief. What Truth is there in Christianity? More importantly, why should someone believe that the teachings of Christianity are true? I can go through the Bible and point out falsehood after falsehood, and the Catechism would be subject to similar criticism but for its stringent unverifiability. If that which can be verified is shown to be false, why should someone believe those proclamations which are unverifiable?

Fedora is a Roman Catholic apologist. I'm not, though I agree with much of what Fedora is saying. I'm an Anabaptist, though my readings are skewed towards Anglicanism. I agree with Fedora on his statements regarding the Big Bang, and evolution. I agree with his comments about Genesis 1-5 being allegory, but I would go much, much further than that (and I think a number of Catholics would too).

Anabaptists are critical of the influence of the Roman Empire had on the Catholic Church, and seek to restore Christian practice pre-Constantine, which didn't benefit from having government protection (quite the opposite was the case, where Christians were heavily persecuted).

But, Anabaptists do adhere to the creeds (e.g. Apostles' Creed and Nicene Creed).

I don't know if I would take the Apostles Creed as a litmus test of whether one is a Christian. There may, for example, be reasons to doubt the virgin birth based on the Isaiah text, where the prophecy originated, or based on Paul's lack of mentioning it.

To answer your questions for myself, yes I would reject tenets that are adequately shown to be false. My approach to Scripture is probably more liberal than Fedora's, and I don't necessarily subscribe to doctrinal inerrancy of Scriptures.

What Truth is there in Christianity? Hard to summarize quickly, since I approach religion as something that is all-encompassing. Christians believe that the world is fallen, that we don't live up to our created potential, and that Christianity helps explain our homing instinct for something beyond this planet, something that is more real than this reality. We hope for something that resolves issues of evil, and injustice, and that the last word hasn't yet been spoken on these matters. I think a lot of people who seek God, tend to do so because they seek justice, and can't find it without looking beyond the world.

Christianity is how Christians make sense of the world. I can't make sense of reality without God. And to many atheists, that is just the way things are. There are no ultimate reasons for why things are the way they are. They just are, and the way things are, are blind to how things ought to be. Without God, it seems that we can't really describe what evil is, other than we somehow evolved to find it distasteful. But, even this is an illusion. Good and evil are illusions, they don't objectively exist, we can't tell someone else that an atrocity is wrong, other than appealing to a person's metaphysical instincts. Perhaps there is something real, and not illusory behind these instincts. Evolution can explain why we behave a certain way, but science in general cannot help us with discerning good and evil. Science is blind to value judgments, and any application of value to science, is a metaphysical claim.

[Paul Brand]

Correct, I got ahead of myself. It would be better to say atheism is part of a more honest belief system.



You preclude the possibility of being both honest and virtuous. I can simultaneously praise the good works of someone whilst denouncing which beliefs they espoused were false.To clarify, I don't preclude the value of both. But, our time and resources are limited, I would suppose, and we probably should figure out what matters are more important.

Who has a higher opinion of humanity: the person who believes that people need to be lied to in order to do good or the person who believes that an honest perspective of reality will lead to people doing good?

If you think that deconverting someone is a good use of your time, and will promote more good in the end, then go for it. Personally, I don't think atheism has anything of value to offer (nor can it even in theory). All of the good that atheists do, I can subscribe to beliefs that are not inherently atheistic. If you are a proponent of secular humanism, maybe there is some value in that, but not atheism. There are no universal characteristic of atheism, other than disbelief in a universal creator, and this disbelief, has nothing to do (in itself) with practicing good or evil.

[TheGillotine]

Christianity is how Christians make sense of the world. I can't make sense of reality without God. And to many atheists, that is just the way things are. There are no ultimate reasons for why things are the way they are. They just are, and the way things are, are blind to how things ought to be. Without God, it seems that we can't really describe what evil is, other than we somehow evolved to find it distasteful. But, even this is an illusion. Good and evil are illusions, they don't objectively exist, we can't tell someone else that an atrocity is wrong, other than appealing to a person's metaphysical instincts. Perhaps there is something real, and not illusory behind these instincts. Evolution can explain why we behave a certain way, but science in general cannot help us with discerning good and evil. Science is blind to value judgments, and any application of value to science, is a metaphysical claim.

I don't really see what the dictates of a god have to do with good and evil. Commandment isn't really a good basis for determining whether actions are good or evil. In fact, I'd say that blind adherence to divine commands is a very bad moral basis.

[Doctor Who]

Don't know how you got that from the passage. The Church exists in the world, and must conform its laws to the realities of the world, in order to encourage its faithful to become closer to God and do His work. The assumption that just because it was good and proper for priests to be married at some time means that it should always be so is erroneous. The church's laws are laws of men, and men can change them to fit the needs of those they currently govern. That's church law, mind you. There are laws of God that man can never change. But celibacy is a law of the Church.

Good example of why it can be dangerous for laity to read scripture without proper guidance.

So you are not laity?

I would think that the Bible contains the laws of God - and that scripture in 1 Timothy 3 didn't contain a time limit on how long priests can marry.

Anyway, later in Chapter 4 of 1 Timothy

1 The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from devils, 2 seduced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are branded as though with a red-hot iron: 3 they forbid marriage and prohibit foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving by all who believe and who know the truth.

there is a warning about those who forbid marriage.

[TheGillotine]

To clarify, I don't preclude the value of both. But, our time and resources are limited, I would suppose, and we probably should figure out what matters are more important.



If you think that deconverting someone is a good use of your time, and will promote more good in the end, then go for it. Personally, I don't think atheism has anything of value to offer (nor can it even in theory). All of the good that atheists do, I can subscribe to beliefs that are not inherently atheistic. If you are a proponent of secular humanism, maybe there is some value in that, but not atheism. There are no universal characteristic of atheism, other than disbelief in a universal creator, and this disbelief, has nothing to do (in itself) with practicing good or evil.

Just to be clear, I am not here to deconvert people. I'm here to question people's beliefs and hopefully get them to either question their beliefs or enrich my own perspective by providing good answers to my questions.

In my opinion (and it is only opinion), people can come to more sophisticated and brilliant perspectives only when they critically examine their preconceptions.

[Paul Brand]

I don't really see what the dictates of a god have to do with good and evil. Commandment isn't really a good basis for determining whether actions are good or evil. In fact, I'd say that blind adherence to divine commands is a very bad moral basis.

I don't think I used divine dictates as part of my argument. We recognize good and evil without it being dictated to us. Even Scripturally, that was part of the apostle Paul's argument in his letter to Rome that the Gentiles could also recognize good and evil without Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses). (This leads into the overarching argument that salvation was for both Jews and Gentiles, not just Jews).

[TheGillotine]

I don't think I used divine dictates as part of my argument. We recognize good and evil without it being dictated to us. Even Scripturally, that was part of the apostle Paul's argument in his letter to Rome that the Gentiles could also recognize good and evil without Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses). (This leads into the overarching argument that salvation was for both Jews and Gentiles, not just Jews).

So where does God come into the question of ethics?

[Paul Brand]

So where does God come into the question of ethics?

I think it's because we are created with that sense. There is a purposeful explanation within Christian thinking for the actuality of good and evil. If it's not purposeful, then it is probably illusory.

[FashionableFedora]

So you are not laity?

I am laity, and I do read scripture. But I don't think that reading scripture gives me the ability to interpret scripture, without any education or firsthand experience with it.

I would think that the Bible contains the laws of God - and that scripture in 1 Timothy 3 didn't contain a time limit on how long priests can marry.

Time limit, as in a "statute of limitations?" No, it didn't have that. Where do you get the idea that it's immutable though? Besides, it wasn't saying "you can get married." It was saying "If you are married, be a good husband." World of difference there.

1 The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from devils, 2 seduced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are branded as though with a red-hot iron: 3 they forbid marriage and prohibit foods which God created to be accepted with thanksgiving by all who believe and who know the truth.

Cherrypicking passages and taking them out of context is no more valid in theology than it is in journalism or history. The Church glorifies and celebrates marriage. For the laity, marriage exists between a man and a woman. For those whom God calls to the consecrated life, marriage exists between the devotee and the Church (specifically, a diocese). Just as the Church is Christ's bride on earth, so is she the bride of all called to consecrated ministry.

Regardless of whom one is married to, the duty of marriage consists of giving one fully to one's partner. It may be possible in some settings for a man to give himself fully to a wife and to the Church, but in such a relationship, the Church must come first. The Holy Father has decided that is too great a burden for priests in the modern world.

[Entropy]

I don't think I used divine dictates as part of my argument. We recognize good and evil without it being dictated to us. Even Scripturally, that was part of the apostle Paul's argument in his letter to Rome that the Gentiles could also recognize good and evil without Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses). (This leads into the overarching argument that salvation was for both Jews and Gentiles, not just Jews).
Circular logic alert.
So where does God come into the question of ethics?
Good question.
I think it's because we are created with that sense. There is a purposeful explanation within Christian thinking for the actuality of good and evil. If it's not purposeful, then it is probably illusory.
A specific god has been inserted on purpose, that's how.

Can you explain how "divine dictates" and "created with a sense of good and evil" are really any different in this context? Also, why would "purposeful" necessarily have to align with a (specifically, your) relgious viewpoint?

[JohnLocke]

I don't think I used divine dictates as part of my argument. We recognize good and evil without it being dictated to us. Even Scripturally, that was part of the apostle Paul's argument in his letter to Rome that the Gentiles could also recognize good and evil without Torah (i.e. the Law of Moses). (This leads into the overarching argument that salvation was for both Jews and Gentiles, not just Jews).

I don't think everyone believes the same things are good and evil, so it is hardly some thing out there that is simply observable. Of course, I have a sense of it, but it's someone I just feel deeply, intuitively. Does my sense of good/evil exist outside of myself in an ultimate way? I would lean towards no. I want it to, but I don't think my desire for something to exist has any bearing on whether it actually does. So, as much as I want good and evil to exist like a tangible object does, I just can find any compelling evidence to show that it does.

[Doctor Who]

I am laity, and I do read scripture. But I don't think that reading scripture gives me the ability to interpret scripture, without any education or firsthand experience with it.

As laity, are you sure you are giving the correct interpretations?



Time limit, as in a "statute of limitations?" No, it didn't have that. Where do you get the idea that it's immutable though? Besides, it wasn't saying "you can get married." It was saying "If you are married, be a good husband." World of difference there.


Since no deadline was provided, none should be assumed. The difference is that the standard of the Bible was "as a priest, you can be married", whereas the standard of the church now is "as a priest, you can't be married."


Cherrypicking passages and taking them out of context is no more valid in theology than it is in journalism or history. The Church glorifies and celebrates marriage. For the laity, marriage exists between a man and a woman. For those whom God calls to the consecrated life, marriage exists between the devotee and the Church (specifically, a diocese). Just as the Church is Christ's bride on earth, so is she the bride of all called to consecrated ministry.

You've accused me of cherrypicking, yet provided no context to prove that I have. I have provided references to a Catholic Bible - please show me where and how I am cherry picking.

Who is the scripture warning us about then - who are the ones that claim to be Christian that are forbidding marriage?


Regardless of whom one is married to, the duty of marriage consists of giving one fully to one's partner. It may be possible in some settings for a man to give himself fully to a wife and to the Church, but in such a relationship, the Church must come first. The Holy Father has decided that is too great a burden for priests in the modern world.

What Holy Father do you mean (don't know if you mean God and/or the Pope)? Besides, in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic church, priests can be married. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches) Why do two standards exist?

[FashionableFedora]

As laity, are you sure you are giving the correct interpretations?

No, that's why when I have questions, I seek the guidance of a priest.


Since no deadline was provided, none should be assumed. The difference is that the standard of the Bible was "as a priest, you can be married", whereas the standard of the church now is "as a priest, you can't be married."

There is none assumed. The Holy Father (the pope) can change the church's laws to fit the current needs of the church. Not sure why you think time factors into it. And it's not the "Standard of the Bible." It was the established practice at the time. Find me a passage that says "God desires for his presbyters to be able to marry."

You've accused me of cherrypicking, yet provided no context to prove that I have. I have provided references to a Catholic Bible - please show me where and how I am cherry picking.

You're taking individual passages, stripping them of historical and scriptural context, and then interpreting them. How is that not cherry picking? I could provide you passages that, without context, seem to imply the opposite of what you're arguing. St. Paul's letters posit that Christians would, ideally, not be married at all. Furthermore, you're using the Church's law against marriage as proof that the church fits this description:

The Spirit has explicitly said that during the last times some will desert the faith and pay attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines that come from devils, 2 seduced by the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are branded as though with a red-hot iron

But you give no evidence, other than that one cherry-picked phrase, that the church is any such thing. The scripture also says, "No rotten tree bears good fruit." The fruits of the Church are charity, mercy, and spiritual guidance. It's quite a stretch to think that the church fits your description.

Who is the scripture warning us about then - who are the ones that claim to be Christian that are forbidding marriage?

I'm really not sure who Timothy is writing about here. I don't claim to be an interpreter of scripture, but I will look into it if you like.

What Holy Father do you mean (don't know if you mean God and/or the Pope)? Besides, in the Eastern Rite of the Catholic church, priests can be married. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches) Why do two standards exist?

The Pope is the Holy Father. I know that Eastern rite priests can marry, but I'm not crystal clear on the history. My best recollection is that these churches were part of the Schism of 1054 and were separated from Rome. When they sought to rejoin communion with Rome, the Pope allowed their priests to continue to marry. Nothing wrong with that. Christian unification is a great thing. It is right in the sight of God, and the Pope seems to have decided that to prioritize stubborn conformity to human laws over unification of Christ's Church would not be the right thing to do. Not my decision. There's talk that the Anglican Church could have a similar arrangement if they are brought back into communion with Rome.

[Paul Brand]

Circular logic alert.Do I have to ask what you think is circular?

A specific god has been inserted on purpose, that's how.What question are you answering?

Can you explain how "divine dictates" and "created with a sense of good and evil" are really any different in this context? What context are you referring to?

Also, why would "purposeful" necessarily have to align with a (specifically, your) relgious viewpoint?Not sure where the assertion came from. I speak from a Christian perspective. The Christian perspective on this isn't necessarily exclusive to Christianity (i.e. it is a shared perspective).

It feels like you rushed this post to publication.

[Paul Brand]

I don't think everyone believes the same things are good and evil, so it is hardly some thing out there that is simply observable. Of course, I have a sense of it, but it's someone I just feel deeply, intuitively. Does my sense of good/evil exist outside of myself in an ultimate way? I would lean towards no. I want it to, but I don't think my desire for something to exist has any bearing on whether it actually does. So, as much as I want good and evil to exist like a tangible object does, I just can find any compelling evidence to show that it does.

Well written.

The evidence is in the sense of good/evil being more than just an illusion. Perhaps this isn't compelling evidence to you. It is to some. CS Lewis and Francis Collins come to mind. It's probably had less impact on me, but it is growing on me, after re-thinking the issue.

I've never been an alcoholic, but those that have been, and gone through the AA program, seem to have benefited in thinking that we are accountable for our actions to something/someone that is above humanity. If an 'illusion' helps people recover from alcoholism, then it won't seem illusory to them. Maybe it's not unlike a placebo. Or maybe it isn't really an illusion, that there is something beyond us, in which we seek justice, accountability, and love. It's not one of those things I can logically prove, but that doesn't necessarily make the evidence not compelling.

[TheGillotine]

Well written.

The evidence is in the sense of good/evil being more than just an illusion. Perhaps this isn't compelling evidence to you. It is to some. CS Lewis and Francis Collins come to mind. It's probably had less impact on me, but it is growing on me, after re-thinking the issue.

I've never been an alcoholic, but those that have been, and gone through the AA program, seem to have benefited in thinking that we are accountable for our actions to something/someone that is above humanity. If an 'illusion' helps people recover from alcoholism, then it won't seem illusory to them. Maybe it's not unlike a placebo. Or maybe it isn't really an illusion, that there is something beyond us, in which we seek justice, accountability, and love. It's not one of those things I can logically prove, but that doesn't necessarily make the evidence not compelling.

Why does something have to be rooted in the supernatural to have substance? Why would a natural source for our sense of morality make morality illusory?

[Entropy]

Do I have to ask what you think is circular?
Your claim that one does not need divine dictates to recognize morality is confusing within the context of christianity to me. Maybe I misunderstand, but I take that to mean that you do not need a specific god to define morality but that the ability to recognize it is inherant in all of us. How do you reconcile that with your (presumed) view that god is morality defined?

What question are you answering?
I was answering Gillotines question about where your god's place is in ethics if there is no divine dictate necessary.

What context are you referring to?
The context of your religious view on morality. See above. Maybe I'm mistaken on how I'm interpreting your view.

Not sure where the assertion came from. I speak from a Christian perspective. The Christian perspective on this isn't necessarily exclusive to Christianity (i.e. it is a shared perspective).
You presume that our ability to recognize morality is purposeful or illusory. Why must that purpose derive entirely from your religion and not something else? In other words, it seems as though christianity claims a monopoly on it by saying that if it's explaination isn't correct, then morality must not exist at all.

It feels like you rushed this post to publication.
Quite possibly.

[Paul Brand]

Why does something have to be rooted in the supernatural to have substance? I don't really use the term supernatural, but if I were to use it and define it, I would define it as our present reality which we experience as being a subset of ultimate reality. The subset of reality is not itself complete.

This doesn't answer your question. I think it makes more sense to answer the second question first, so see below.


Why would a natural source for our sense of morality make morality illusory?

Well, I would characterize God as natural, but I don't suppose you would share that sentiment.

It's not that the source is natural, it is that the source is blind, doing things without intention or purpose. I don't see how morality can be derived from blind objects of matter. I don't think it can, but it is sometimes difficult to prove something doesn't exist.

If we are created to recognize good and evil, then it seems more substantive. You could argue that this still isn't objective, that just because a creator willed something to be recognized, doesn't mean it objectively exists. And perhaps to some extent I would agree with that. (I often do argue that one is free to disagree with God about how things ought to be done). But, it still seems to me that the existence of good and evil is more substantive when it is purposeful rather than by blind accident.

[JohnLocke]

Well written.

The evidence is in the sense of good/evil being more than just an illusion. Perhaps this isn't compelling evidence to you. It is to some. CS Lewis and Francis Collins come to mind. It's probably had less impact on me, but it is growing on me, after re-thinking the issue.

I've never been an alcoholic, but those that have been, and gone through the AA program, seem to have benefited in thinking that we are accountable for our actions to something/someone that is above humanity. If an 'illusion' helps people recover from alcoholism, then it won't seem illusory to them. Maybe it's not unlike a placebo. Or maybe it isn't really an illusion, that there is something beyond us, in which we seek justice, accountability, and love. It's not one of those things I can logically prove, but that doesn't necessarily make the evidence not compelling.

When I was really young, I believed in god. Now, I don't. At the time, both seemed 100% real but it is impossible that at one of the points I was not under an illusion of truth, since at least one has to be correct. Yet, I never thought that I was under an illusion or doubt the realness of the reality I perceive. If both felt equally real at the time, how do I know which one is really true? The only way I can think of is by using something external to my own perception. Logic is the best I got.

This is why "feelings" that there is a god don't do me much good and sensory experience doesn't do much for me nor does the fact that people have religious experiences.

[lovmath]

When I was really young, I believed in god. Now, I don't. At the time, both seemed 100% real but it is impossible that at one of the points I was not under an illusion of truth, since at least one has to be correct. Yet, I never thought that I was under an illusion or doubt the realness of the reality I perceive. If both felt equally real at the time, how do I know which one is really true? The only way I can think of is by using something external to my own perception. Logic is the best I got.

This is why "feelings" that there is a god don't do me much good and sensory experience doesn't do much for me nor does the fact that people have religious experiences.

How do you explain hynosis?

[Entropy]

How do you explain hynosis?

How do you not explain it?

[lovmath]

How do you not explain it?

I accept that there is higher being who has given me limited abilities

hypnotists are able to manipulate evil spirits that reside within certain athiests.

[Entropy]

I accept that there is higher being who has given me limited abilities

hypnotists are able to manipulate evil spirits that reside within certain athiests.

Cool.

[Aeitra]

I... You... Hypnosis right?
You are saying then that only certain people are granted this ability?

[TheGillotine]

I don't really use the term supernatural, but if I were to use it and define it, I would define it as our present reality which we experience as being a subset of ultimate reality. The subset of reality is not itself complete.

This doesn't answer your question. I think it makes more sense to answer the second question first, so see below.




Well, I would characterize God as natural, but I don't suppose you would share that sentiment.

It's not that the source is natural, it is that the source is blind, doing things without intention or purpose. I don't see how morality can be derived from blind objects of matter. I don't think it can, but it is sometimes difficult to prove something doesn't exist.

If we are created to recognize good and evil, then it seems more substantive. You could argue that this still isn't objective, that just because a creator willed something to be recognized, doesn't mean it objectively exists. And perhaps to some extent I would agree with that. (I often do argue that one is free to disagree with God about how things ought to be done). But, it still seems to me that the existence of good and evil is more substantive when it is purposeful rather than by blind accident.

Ah, but humans, while basically material entities, are also thinking, empathetic, social entities. These qualities, I think, are sufficient to start to formulate meaningful moral systems. That we developed these qualities through "blind", natural processes I think is irrelevant.

And would God's qualities not be born of blind accident?

[TheGillotine]

I accept that there is higher being who has given me limited abilities

hypnotists are able to manipulate evil spirits that reside within certain athiests.

Sigmund Freud: Modern Sorcerer

[TheGillotine]

Sigmund Freud: Modern Sorcerer

Literally the Wizard of Id.

[Baby, ByeBye]

1. Hyponosis works
2. God exists

[Baby, ByeBye]

you can't explain that!

[Paul Brand]

Your claim that one does not need divine dictates to recognize morality is confusing within the context of christianity to me. Maybe I misunderstand, but I take that to mean that you do not need a specific god to define morality but that the ability to recognize it is inherant in all of us. How do you reconcile that with your (presumed) view that god is morality defined?I could be missing the point still. I think you are saying something to the effect that:

1)There exists different religions with different moral precepts.

2)We can internally discern moral precepts without religion.

3)There is tension between the two statements. (For example, why would there be more than one religion if we can internally discern morality).


I think the pointer is that we feel so strongly that something we believe is right and others are wrong. This strong feeling is in tension with the idea that our sense of morality was derived from natural processes that are blind to how things ought to be. So, if one was to maintain a sense of rationalism, it leaves us with a choice to affirm our feelings as being more than just illusory, or to abandon those feelings. Of course, I think most people choose not to abandon those feelings, but I don't know if this is consistent. There are some people I've talked with on this board, who would affirm these feelings are illusory, that there is no real substance behind them. There is no objective morality, just explanations of why we behave this or that way.

Regarding your premises, I wouldn't argue that we can with full accuracy understand good and evil. I think we tend to share a lot of common moral precepts, but we are also all blinded by selfish desires, and our moral compass is somewhat broken. I think what most, if not all, religions share is the belief that there does exist a non-illusory reality of good and evil. I think this also seems to be shared by the majority of non-theists (though probably not all). So, perhaps our internal moral compass is not sufficient in itself, and becuase it doesn't work perfectly, we end up with different religions that have some notable differences in moral precepts.

I also take a rather progressive view of morality. There are practices from long ago that they didn't think twice about, that we think is morally deficient. They might think the same things about us. To some extent, wisdom is cumulative, though easily lost. I don't want to stress progressivism too hard, because in some ways we appear to be headed backwards,and there appears to be some oscillations through history.

But the idea of moral progress is something I keep in mind when reading the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings from human authors regarding their understanding of God, and their interpretations of their experiences. There's probably a lot more that could be said about that, but I'll leave it for another day.

You presume that our ability to recognize morality is purposeful or illusory. Why must that purpose derive entirely from your religion and not something else? In other words, it seems as though christianity claims a monopoly on it by saying that if it's explaination isn't correct, then morality must not exist at all.I'm using morality as a pointer to God, not any particular religion. After we are pointed to God, then I find Christ and the Christian faith to help fill in more precisely what this all points toward, but perhaps that is another discussion for another day, after I convert you all to theism, of course. ;)

[Paul Brand]

Ah, but humans, while basically material entities, are also thinking, empathetic, social entities. These qualities, I think, are sufficient to start to formulate meaningful moral systems. That we developed these qualities through "blind", natural processes I think is irrelevant.I'll just say I don't think these qualities are sufficient to formulate a non-illusory moral system. Morality is deeply metaphysical, and metaphysics has no connection with natural processes, except that those natural processes give us the illusory sense that metaphyics is based on reality.

And would God's qualities not be born of blind accident?If it were blind, than our sense of morality would be illusory.

[TheGillotine]

I'll just say I don't think these qualities are sufficient to formulate a non-illusory moral system. Morality is deeply metaphysical, and metaphysics has no connection with natural processes, except that those natural processes give us the illusory sense that metaphyics is based on reality.

If it were blind, than our sense of morality would be illusory.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting how you're jumping from "a sense is formed through natural processes" to "that sense is illusory or meaningless". I mean, our physical senses (vision, hearing, etc.) were formed through these same processes and I don't think you'd dismiss them as illusory simply because of this, or propose that a supernatural being must exist to explain why we find those senses important.

[Paul Brand]

I'm sorry, I'm not getting how you're jumping from "a sense is formed through natural processes" to "that sense is illusory or meaningless". I mean, our physical senses (vision, hearing, etc.) were formed through these same processes and I don't think you'd dismiss them as illusory simply because of this, or propose that a supernatural being must exist to explain why we find those senses important.

The difference is describing what 'is' vs what 'ought' to be. As I said earlier, describing what 'is' is the easy part. Normative questions are, as far as I can tell, entirely metaphysical.

edit: I'm debating whether using the term 'metaphycics' is the best choice of words. I'm pretty much just saying that normative questions are not answerable by observing nature.

[Buck]

One problem with religious moral code: there is no research of human moral behaviors in religion; then where did religious moral code come from?

Just like religion explains the universe -- "God did it", religious moral code is nothing more than "God said it" -- another case of humans putting words in God's mouth. Then, there is the usual problem: moral standard changes over time and from place to place. As soon as humans put words in God's mouth, God is about to be wrong again.

[Doctor Who]

There is none assumed. The Holy Father (the pope) can change the church's laws to fit the current needs of the church. Not sure why you think time factors into it. And it's not the "Standard of the Bible." It was the established practice at the time. Find me a passage that says "God desires for his presbyters to be able to marry."


The passage is that they can, yet now they can't.

If the church deviates from the Bible, how is that any different from another church doing the same thing? How do you know that your deviation is right, or that deviations are proper in the first place?

Jesus had something to say about what the Jewish religious leaders were teaching in Matthew 15 7 Hypocrites! How rightly Isaiah prophesied about you when he said: 8 This people honours me only with lip-service, while their hearts are far from me. 9 Their reverence of me is worthless; the lessons they teach are nothing but human commandments.'

If human commandments resulted in worthless reverence back then, wouldn't they do the same now?


You're taking individual passages, stripping them of historical and scriptural context, and then interpreting them. How is that not cherry picking? I could provide you passages that, without context, seem to imply the opposite of what you're arguing. St. Paul's letters posit that Christians would, ideally, not be married at all. Furthermore, you're using the Church's law against marriage as proof that the church fits this description:


What historical and scriptural context would you like to add then? I know what Paul said to, but it wasn't a command to stay single. He was the one that wrote 1 & 2 Timothy which I've quoted from.

But you give no evidence, other than that one cherry-picked phrase, that the church is any such thing. The scripture also says, "No rotten tree bears good fruit." The fruits of the Church are charity, mercy, and spiritual guidance. It's quite a stretch to think that the church fits your description.

In the World Wars, when Catholic German Bishops blessed the German troops and Catholic American Bishops blessed the American troops; which side was right? They both prayed that their side troops would win the war (which was dependent on how many Catholics on the other side that they killed).

I'm really not sure who Timothy is writing about here. I don't claim to be an interpreter of scripture, but I will look into it if you like.

I look forward to your response. In that same verse where Paul writes to Timothy, it also talks about those prohibiting food. Hopefully you can include that too.

The Pope is the Holy Father. I know that Eastern rite priests can marry, but I'm not crystal clear on the history. My best recollection is that these churches were part of the Schism of 1054 and were separated from Rome. When they sought to rejoin communion with Rome, the Pope allowed their priests to continue to marry. Nothing wrong with that. Christian unification is a great thing. It is right in the sight of God, and the Pope seems to have decided that to prioritize stubborn conformity to human laws over unification of Christ's Church would not be the right thing to do. Not my decision. There's talk that the Anglican Church could have a similar arrangement if they are brought back into communion with Rome.

The point is that some can marry while others can't, so it isn't a matter of "too great a burden for priests in the modern world."

Regardless of whom one is married to, the duty of marriage consists of giving one fully to one's partner. It may be possible in some settings for a man to give himself fully to a wife and to the Church, but in such a relationship, the Church must come first. The Holy Father has decided that is too great a burden for priests in the modern world.

[DownInTexas]

I'm really not sure who Timothy is writing about here. I don't claim to be an interpreter of scripture, but I will look into it if you like.

1 Timothy was written to Timothy, by Paul. Not by Timothy.

[Noddy]

That's because Catholicism is a lie. Not the Bible. Catholics are discouraged from reading the scriptures, and it's no surprise why. A fellow in one of our programs grew up Catholic his entire life and started reading the Bible after he lost his job and had all this free time. Suddenly he started asking his priest things about what he was reading and the guy basically told him not to trust his own interpretations, just listen to the priests teachings. Mind control at it's best.

rofl

[Noddy]

Technically speaking, Christians believed the Big Bang theory before atheists did, and most atheistic cosmologists rejected the theory based on religious implications. One could argue that a large number of atheists resisted the Big Bang theory on religious grounds.


what tripe

[Noddy]

My ethical code improved after I was saved.

How so?

[Noddy]

I'm not Roman Catholic so I'm not going to defend the Pope and their practices. I can only defend mainstream evangelical Protestant Christianity.

and you're not good at that, although, to be fair, you don't have much to work with

[Noddy]

you guys are so different

lol
nice one

[Noddy]

God transformed my life for better...best point of my life, brought me more blessings than what i could do on my own. I have a clearer view of my future and better relationship with others. I am happier and unlike atheists, I know good triumphs over evil.

Sadly, good does not always triumph over evil.






For instance, if you are right and the god you imagine does exist, good moral loving human apes who do not accept jesubus as their personal saviour will be tormented for an eternity in a lake of hellfire and damnation by your evil god



.

[Noddy]

I am surprised to see so few jews in this poll so far. Maybe the jewish actuaries that I know don't piss away their time and value by responding to AO polls.

It's possible that many of the ao Jews understand the spirit of the poll. You can be a non-believing Jew. There are not that many Jews in the general population and of them, a not negligible proportion are atheist.

[Noddy]

You guys understand the Bible is filled with sinners...just because a prominent figure in the Bible does something doesn't mean its ok.

What about god, he features fairly promenantly, no?

Can I be a jealous worshiper?
"Be worshiped by none other than me or I will pull your beard and poke you in the eye!

[Noddy]

Only if you're an idiot or a psychopath.

or both

[Brock]

I'm not Roman Catholic so I'm not going to defend the Pope and their practices. I can only defend mainstream evangelical Protestant Christianity.

Happy Easter.

[Noddy]

Just noticed this stunning example of cognitive dissonance.

sweet

[Noddy]

The Nazis very strongly rejected the Christian traditions and religion.

Competing ideologies are not to be tolerated by any self respecting ideology.

However, hitler was superstitious and Catholicism and Protestantism and belief in the supernatural was widespread.


Furthermore
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

In 1939 unbelievers were estimated to represent approx 1.5 % of the population


Where did you learn that little gem anyway? Who taught you to parrot that? Were you in a program?

[Entropy]

I could be missing the point still. I think you are saying something to the effect that:

1)There exists different religions with different moral precepts.

2)We can internally discern moral precepts without religion.

3)There is tension between the two statements. (For example, why would there be more than one religion if we can internally discern morality).


I think the pointer is that we feel so strongly that something we believe is right and others are wrong. This strong feeling is in tension with the idea that our sense of morality was derived from natural processes that are blind to how things ought to be. So, if one was to maintain a sense of rationalism, it leaves us with a choice to affirm our feelings as being more than just illusory, or to abandon those feelings. Of course, I think most people choose not to abandon those feelings, but I don't know if this is consistent. There are some people I've talked with on this board, who would affirm these feelings are illusory, that there is no real substance behind them. There is no objective morality, just explanations of why we behave this or that way.
Yeah, that is pretty much what I'm gettingat. I'm with Gillotine on this one (in a sense), here you're saying that strong feelings cannot be directly attributable to natural processes. What about the mothering nature? Is that not a strong feeling that people have that is pretty much obvious that it's directly tied to natural processes? Should we presume that mothering is directed by god too? At this point, why not societal bonds (not including morality) like helping your neighbor (yes, this is natural, not religious), etc...? Where do you draw that line?

Regarding your premises, I wouldn't argue that we can with full accuracy understand good and evil. I think we tend to share a lot of common moral precepts, but we are also all blinded by selfish desires, and our moral compass is somewhat broken. I think what most, if not all, religions share is the belief that there does exist a non-illusory reality of good and evil. I think this also seems to be shared by the majority of non-theists (though probably not all). So, perhaps our internal moral compass is not sufficient in itself, and becuase it doesn't work perfectly, we end up with different religions that have some notable differences in moral precepts.
This makes sense, but verges on basically being a god of the gaps argument. Especially regarding any particular religion, which I see you specify later as being more of a filler after the fact. This does leave the question as to why you need to introduce a supernatural being at all and not just philosophy in general though. I do like the idea that you seem to think that "most" religions are working toward the same goal, but it does beg the question "how can anyone possible "prove" that one religion would be better than any other" in this sense, without using non-religious (read: philosophical or societal) measurements like those we could have used in the first place?

I also take a rather progressive view of morality. There are practices from long ago that they didn't think twice about, that we think is morally deficient. They might think the same things about us. To some extent, wisdom is cumulative, though easily lost. I don't want to stress progressivism too hard, because in some ways we appear to be headed backwards,and there appears to be some oscillations through history.

But the idea of moral progress is something I keep in mind when reading the Bible. The Bible is a collection of writings from human authors regarding their understanding of God, and their interpretations of their experiences. There's probably a lot more that could be said about that, but I'll leave it for another day.
This smacks of a non-absolute morality imo. Or at the least, essentially an unfixable moral compass. NTTAWWT. But again, aren't we left with a "pointer" towards different measurements that could possibly be more fruitful because of this? Especially because, as you have somewhat pointed out, we do have somewhat of a separation of morality and specific religion. Why bring along all the baggage and strife if we can describe it without the complications of "salvation" or "rebirth" or any other dogma. I tend to think that religion does an ok job of teaching/learning about morality and is very useful for those people who wouldn't think about these things otherwise (although it does tend to lead some to believe that without their religion people would indiscriminantly rape and kill each other), but that the best course of action would be to use all of the tools at hand, including all religion and all philosophy, and not discount some of the best of what humanity has developed before and after any one particular religion's teachings, only because those people tend to be born in a different part of the world.

I'm using morality as a pointer to God, not any particular religion. After we are pointed to God, then I find Christ and the Christian faith to help fill in more precisely what this all points toward, but perhaps that is another discussion for another day, after I convert you all to theism, of course. ;)
To me it still feels like you have introduced god due to a desire to find something and not because of any need. As to how one religion can be any better than any other... yeah, let's not get into specifics.

[FashionableFedora]

sweet

FYI, I explained why that statement was correct, but ignore that if you want.

[TheGillotine]

FYI, I explained why that statement was correct, but ignore that if you want.

That reminds me, why would God divinely inspire a group of people to worship other gods?

[FashionableFedora]

That reminds me, why would God divinely inspire a group of people to worship other gods?

He didn't. I said the version of Sumerian creation myth in Genesis is divinely inspired. That doesn't mean ALL Sumerian actions were divinely inspired, or that any actions that were divinely inspired were correctly interpreted. Your question is trite.

[DownInTexas]

Competing ideologies are not to be tolerated by any self respecting ideology.

However, hitler was superstitious and Catholicism and Protestantism and belief in the supernatural was widespread.


Furthermore
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_aspects_of_Nazism

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

In 1939 unbelievers were estimated to represent approx 1.5 % of the population


Where did you learn that little gem anyway? Who taught you to parrot that? Were you in a program?

From your first link:
The discussion among historians and theologians about religion in Nazi Germany often came to similar results. For Kathleen Harvill Burton,[18] there was a religious objective in National Socialism: make traditional Christianity disappear, and transform it into positive Christianity, based on Nazi mysticism as preached by Alfred Rosenberg

Essentially, they reject Christianity as it existed, and tried to replace it with something that suited their own goals.

[TheGillotine]

He didn't. I said the version of Sumerian creation myth in Genesis is divinely inspired. That doesn't mean ALL Sumerian actions were divinely inspired, or that any actions that were divinely inspired were correctly interpreted. Your question is trite.

Right... can you differentiate between creation myths that are divinely inspired and those that aren't?

[FashionableFedora]

Right... can you differentiate between creation myths that are divinely inspired and those that aren't?

By how well it reflects our knowledge of God, that we have directly from His revelation.

[Entropy]

By how well it reflects our knowledge of God, that we have directly from His revelation.

Doesn't that just mean "by how well it fits in with the corresponding religion?".

[V1per41]

By how well it reflects our knowledge of God, that we have directly from His revelation.

I may me mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that you had said you didn't think the bible was infallible. Is there another revelation that I'm not aware of, what is this knowledge that you are referring to, and how do you know it's accurate?

[gosuruss]

Hitler stamped out free thought and atheism in the 30s:

4. Adolf Hitler: We Will Fight the Atheistic Movement
We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

- Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933


The New York Times Story: "Atheist Hall Converted."

"In Freethinkers Hall, which before the Nazi resurgence was the national headquarters of the German Freethinkers League, the Berlin Protestant church authorities have opened a bureau for advice to the public in church matters. Its chief object is to win back former churchgoers and assist those who have not previously belonged to any religious congregation in obtaining church membership. The German Freethinkers League, which was swept away by the national revolution, was the largest of such organizations in Germany. It had about 500,000 members..."

- The New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 2, on Hitler's outlawing atheistic and freethinking groups in the Spring of 1933, after the Enabling Act authorizing Hitler to rule by decree

3. Adolf Hitler: Secular Schools Cannot be Tolerated

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people.

- Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant

[oirg]

The revelation seems to be as revealing as a burqa.

[lovmath]

Stats update...Athiest Actuaries are 45%.....

[DownInTexas]

still a plurality, just not a majority.

[Baby, ByeBye]

i thought there'd be more jews. or are all NYC jews atheist.

[actuary_pilot]

a google search of naziism + Christianity gives this link (among many others):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

a google search of naziism + Catholocism gives this link (among many others):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

a google search of naziism + Jehovah's Witnesses gives this link (among many others):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany

[Mel-o-rama]

You forgot Mormon/Mormonism

Yeah - I had to vote "Christian." :)

I wish I had time to join the conversation. I'll add my quick observations to subscribe to this thread...

--I'm liking Gillo and his logic more and more, though I still disagree with him.

--I find it very strange to claim that Hitler wasn't a Christian, especially when his persecution of the Jews and gays stemmed largely from his Christian beliefs.

--Atheism is both not a religion and is a belief system? (Hee hee.)

--Atheists don't do atrocities in the name of atheism? It wasn't too difficult to find this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Rev olution

--And lack of Jews in the poll? Well, we did lose Lucy. :(

[Baby, ByeBye]

Yeah - I had to vote "Christian." :)

I wish I had time to join the conversation. I'll add my quick observations to subscribe to this thread...

--I'm liking Gillo and his logic more and more, though I still disagree with him.

--I find it very strange to claim that Hitler wasn't a Christian, especially when his persecution of the Jews and gays stemmed largely from his Christian beliefs.

--Atheism is both not a religion and is a belief system? (Hee hee.)

--Atheists don't do atrocities in the name of atheism? It wasn't too difficult to find this...
U
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Rev olution

--And lack of Jews in the poll? Well, we did lose Lucy. :(

She would've voted atheist though

[lovmath]

I can't believe how Athiests outnumber Christians .....let's add some more votes here and see

[Baby, ByeBye]

I can't believe how Athiests outnumber Christians .....let's add some more votes here and see

or maybe you should go to another forum where the average IQ is lower.

[Mel-o-rama]

... and that's not condenscending. :)

[Baby, ByeBye]

... and that's not condenscending. :)

Oh hey, I never realized you're on the 2001 ship

[tude]

prostitute riding on the beast....

[gosuruss]

... and that's not condenscending. :)

as condescending as it is, if you go to any forum where there is a high iq where their being a vote like this is not directly related to the theme of the forum, i would bet every time you would see results like this.

keep in mind, active forum users spend more time on the internet. and people who spend a lot of time on the internet tend to be much less religious.

[Mel-o-rama]

Oh hey, I never realized you're on the 2001 ship

Yeah - I'm still waiting on that 10-year pin. (PM-ing the man doesn't help. :))

[Mel-o-rama]

as condescending as it is, if you go to any forum where there is a high iq where their being a vote like this is not directly related to the theme of the forum, i would bet every time you would see results like this.

keep in mind, active forum users spend more time on the internet. and people who spend a lot of time on the internet tend to be much less religious.

Yeah - I'm being a little tongue-and-cheek here, as I often get accused of being arrogant and condescending.

And yes - I would expect a higher proportion of athiests among posters on this forum. But I'm used to that. Is it because we're smarter than other people? I don't think so. (Otherwise, you'd think I'd be an atheist. :))

I'm curious as to whether a study has been done between IQ and theist/atheist bias. I suspect that one would find that ignorance rains on the theist and atheist in equal proportions.

And those who spend time on the internet aren't necessarily smarter. They just think they are because they do all their "research" and stay up on the latest trends. That's different from having a high IQ.

[Quasi]

....I'm curious as to whether a study has been done between IQ and theist/atheist bias. I suspect that one would find that ignorance rains on the theist and atheist in equal proportions.....

Many have been done (maybe not on IQ specifically, but on intelligence) and posted on the AO. I posted one about analytical thinking and believing in God just last week http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=239413

There have been plenty of studies showing that religious people tend to be less intelligent. And those that self-identify as very religious are even less intelligent than those that consider themselves moderately religious. Try a quick google search, there have been tons of studies and they pretty much all go in the same direction. More education -> more likely to be an atheist. Better analytical thinking -> more likely to be an atheist. Higher intelligence -> more likely to be an atheist.

I suspect that you'll find the studies to be flawed and go right on believing that there's no difference in intelligence between atheists and non-atheists despite all of the evidence to the contrary. Obviously these studies don't say that every atheist is smarter than every religious person, there are ranges and the differences are fairly subtle....but they are there and they shouldn't be too surprising.

And if you want to make yourself feel better I'm sure you can find a study funded by a religious university that says there's not a significant difference. But it will be in the vast majority (assuming it even exists).

[Mel-o-rama]

Hmmm ... how did I miss that thread? Anyway, I like the following quote from that study, especially the last paragraph:

There are surely many factors at play here, but the researchers say their results suggest that one’s style of thought may be a crucial contributor to religious belief. Intuitive thinkers are more likely to be religious; analytical types, less so. “One explanation for belief is that it is based on a number of intuitions we have about the world around us. People don’t necessarily come to belief because they reason into it. Intuition helps us,” says Norenzayan.

For instance, the commonly held belief that the mind and soul are distinct from the body stems from intuition. “It is not based in logic or reason. That’s not why people find this compelling,” says Norenzayan.

That’s not to say that one way of thinking is more valuable than the other, only that the friction between intuitive and analytical thinking may help explain the origins of religious belief — or disbelief. “We know that in human psychology there are two systems of thinking. System one is intuitive; it is rapid and effortless. System two is analytical, and is more reasoned and thoughtful. Our study supports the idea that analytic thinking can push people away from intuitive thinking,” says Norenzayan.

The authors stress that their findings only scratch the surface of how religious belief develops. Faith is a complicated thing, influenced by culture and experience, Norenzayan says, such as those who find religion during situations of fear or morality. “We are not saying that analytical thinking turns people against religion. … There are lots of things going on,” says Norenzayan. “Our findings do not suggest one form of thinking is better than the other either. We don’t believe that. Both are important and both have costs and benefits.”

I don't think it's the overall level of intelligence a person has that determines if he becomes an atheist, but rather it's the level of importance he places on the "analytical" thinking over "intuitive" thinking.

[TheGillotine]

Hmmm ... how did I miss that thread? Anyway, I like the following quote from that study, especially the last paragraph:



I don't think it's the overall level of intelligence a person has that determines if he becomes an atheist, but rather it's the level of importance he places on the "analytical" thinking over "intuitive" thinking.

:tup:

[Entropy]

Truth vs. Truthiness!
Brain vs. Gut!
Look before you leap vs. Leap of faith!
Sunday! Sunday! Sunday!
Tickets on sale now!

[Mel-o-rama]

This is exactly where most atheists seem to struggle. They are slow to place any value on "intuitive" thinking. And they are quick to ding those that do.

At least that Norenzayan guy admits that "intuitive" thinking has its benefits (in addition to its costs), while "analytical" thinking has its costs (in addition to its benefits).

[Anthemyst]

This is exactly where most atheists seem to struggle. They are slow to place any value on "intuitive" thinking. And they are quick to ding those that do.

At least that Norenzayan guy admits that "intuitive" thinking has its benefits (in addition to its costs), while "analytical" thinking has its costs (in addition to its benefits).

I think, for me personally anyway, what bothers me about intuitive thinking is there's no correcting a mistake. With analytial thinking, perhaps your analysis was wrong, but you can always go back, check your work, reconsider your premises, etc. With intuitive thinking, are you going to go back, check your work, and realize your intuition was saying something different the whole time? No, of course not. I mean, you might realize that what felt like intuition was just some kind of misguided prejudice, but you're using analytical thinking to figure that out for the most part.

But I do think intuitive thinking is very valuable. It's clear our brains are more built for intuitive thinking, and in a situation where snap decisions are life-or-death it is invaluable. Analytical thinking almost always has some intuition as a starting point, anyway. I've thought long and hard about my atheism from many different angles and used plenty of analytical thinking to refine all my thoughts on the subject, but it started with a nagging, "Something about this is off" feeling.

[Entropy]

This is exactly where most atheists seem to struggle. They are slow to place any value on "intuitive" thinking. And they are quick to ding those that do.

I know you can't see this, but I'm not sure that this is true.

[gosuruss]

I'm curious as to whether a study has been done between IQ and theist/atheist bias. I suspect that one would find that ignorance rains on the theist and atheist in equal proportions.

And those who spend time on the internet aren't necessarily smarter. They just think they are because they do all their "research" and stay up on the latest trends. That's different from having a high IQ.

Lol. 5 minutes of research will open your eyes to see whether ignorance rains upon theist and atheist in equal proportions. Average IQ is higher. Average score on religious quiz higher. Average SATs highers. <10% of the population but over 90% of the national academy of sciences. Of those with IQs greater than 140, 90% do not consider themselves strongly religious.

Here's how it works. 90+% of population is given the null hypothesis: "Your religion is true." The people with IQs of 80 almost never come to the conclusion that what is being offered is logically incoherent. The people with IQs of 130 or 140 tend to come to this conclusion much more often. That's why atheism has higher IQ then most religions. So it's not necessarily an argument for why atheism is the correct belief system given the current information we have, but sometimes I like to ask why 97% of the royal academy of sciences rejects the concept of a god but you accept it. i'm more reaching towards: what exactly is this high IQ cohort who has devoted their life to the study of the universe and life etc missing that you are understanding with your conclusion?

[gosuruss]

This is exactly where most atheists seem to struggle. They are slow to place any value on "intuitive" thinking. And they are quick to ding those that do.

At least that Norenzayan guy admits that "intuitive" thinking has its benefits (in addition to its costs), while "analytical" thinking has its costs (in addition to its benefits).

They are just tiptoeing around the political landscape there.

[Klaymen]

sometimes I like to ask why 97% of the royal academy of sciences rejects the concept of a god but you accept it.

Maybe God can't be scientifically observed, and this is a group of people who only care about what can be.

[Mel-o-rama]

Lol. 5 minutes of research will open your eyes to see whether ignorance rains upon theist and atheist in equal proportions. Average IQ is higher. Average score on religious quiz higher. Average SATs highers. <10% of the population but over 90% of the national academy of sciences. Of those with IQs greater than 140, 90% do not consider themselves strongly religious.

Here's how it works. 90+% of population is given the null hypothesis: "Your religion is true." The people with IQs of 80 almost never come to the conclusion that what is being offered is logically incoherent. The people with IQs of 130 or 140 tend to come to this conclusion much more often. That's why atheism has higher IQ then most religions. So it's not necessarily an argument for why atheism is the correct belief system given the current information we have, but sometimes I like to ask why 97% of the royal academy of sciences rejects the concept of a god but you accept it. i'm more reaching towards: what exactly is this high IQ cohort who has devoted their life to the study of the universe and life etc missing that you are understanding with your conclusion?

You'll have to excuse me for not relating to this argument. Being of the >140 crowd, and having given much, much thought to life and studying the universe, I see myself as one big glaring counterexample. Perhaps it's just my arrogance, narcissism, or condescension. :)

[Mel-o-rama]

I think, for me personally anyway, what bothers me about intuitive thinking is there's no correcting a mistake. With analytial thinking, perhaps your analysis was wrong, but you can always go back, check your work, reconsider your premises, etc. With intuitive thinking, are you going to go back, check your work, and realize your intuition was saying something different the whole time? No, of course not. I mean, you might realize that what felt like intuition was just some kind of misguided prejudice, but you're using analytical thinking to figure that out for the most part.

But I do think intuitive thinking is very valuable. It's clear our brains are more built for intuitive thinking, and in a situation where snap decisions are life-or-death it is invaluable. Analytical thinking almost always has some intuition as a starting point, anyway. I've thought long and hard about my atheism from many different angles and used plenty of analytical thinking to refine all my thoughts on the subject, but it started with a nagging, "Something about this is off" feeling.

I think you've hit on the basic strengths and weaknesses of both types of thought. Ideally, one finds a good balance between using both to one's advantage. Using analytical thinking is indeed important when considering a religious belief system (as I tried to argue earlier in that other thread). But analytical thinking is limited. The Incompleteness Theorem applies (as you helped straighten me out). Intuitive thinking is needed to fill in the blanks, even being limited as it is as you pointed out.

The process that you describe sounds very similar to what I do, only we appear to have come to different conclusions, which is okay.

A lot of atheists like to argue that one can ONLY use analytical thought to determine the existence of God, but the reasons given stem mainly from ideas tied with the process of thinking analytically. Thus you end up with a circular argument.

[Klaymen]

You'll have to excuse me for not relating to this argument. Being of the >140 crowd, and having given much, much thought to life and studying the universe, I see myself as one big glaring counterexample. Perhaps it's just my arrogance, narcissism, or condescension. :)
:iatp: I'm also in the 140+ crowd, another outlier.
So we're :qunq: intelligent :qunq:. Big deal. This is being portrayed as some sort of great asset but it did it occur to anyone that it might be a hidrance? A curse?

[ditkaworshipper]

Yeah - I'm still waiting on that 10-year pin. (PM-ing the man doesn't help. :))
File a religious discrimination suit imo.
This is exactly where most atheists seem to struggle. They are slow to place any value on "intuitive" thinking. And they are quick to ding those that do.

At least that Norenzayan guy admits that "intuitive" thinking has its benefits (in addition to its costs), while "analytical" thinking has its costs (in addition to its benefits).
I don't really agree with you on this one. Religious people tend to only value "intuitive" thinking when it supports their assumptions. To be fair, atheists are the same way.

Random thought: does the article's use of intuitive confuse anyone else? I'm used to the Meyers Briggs definition of the word.
Lol. 5 minutes of research will open your eyes to see whether ignorance rains upon theist and atheist in equal proportions. Average IQ is higher. Average score on religious quiz higher. Average SATs highers. <10% of the population but over 90% of the national academy of sciences. Of those with IQs greater than 140, 90% do not consider themselves strongly religious.

Here's how it works. 90+% of population is given the null hypothesis: "Your religion is true." The people with IQs of 80 almost never come to the conclusion that what is being offered is logically incoherent. The people with IQs of 130 or 140 tend to come to this conclusion much more often. That's why atheism has higher IQ then most religions. So it's not necessarily an argument for why atheism is the correct belief system given the current information we have, but sometimes I like to ask why 97% of the royal academy of sciences rejects the concept of a god but you accept it. i'm more reaching towards: what exactly is this high IQ cohort who has devoted their life to the study of the universe and life etc missing that you are understanding with your conclusion?
Nitpick: The National Academy of Sciences is not a pure meritocracy. I agree with your basic premise though.

[Pseudolus]

sometimes I like to ask why 97% of the royal academy of sciences rejects the concept of a god but you accept it.

To do science, when trying to determine why any given X happens, it is necessary to set aside the "God did it" hypothesis - not because you can rule out such a hypothesis (by def'n, you can't), but because such a hypothesis is not useful to you. Kinda like why philosophers don't spend much time thinking about solipsism, or about the idea that all sensory information is 100% illusory - it's not disprovable, but, if it's true, there's nothing else interesting for them to say.

It's then not a big step - a faux one, to be sure, but not grand - to go from "for me to do my work I should think as if God doesn't exist" to "God actually doesn't exist".

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

:iatp: I'm also in the 140+ crowd, another outlier.
So we're :qunq: intelligent :qunq:. Big deal. This is being portrayed as some sort of great asset but it did it occur to anyone that it might be a hidrance? A curse?

This is what my parents think. When I told them that I didn't believe in God, they told me I was too smart for my own good and that being smart is a hinderance to my spirituality.

FWIW, I'm not super smart. I've never had an IQ test, but I would guess that I am above average, but not Mensa-smart or anything.

[Mel-o-rama]

I don't really agree with you on this one. Religious people tend to only value "intuitive" thinking when it supports their assumptions. To be fair, atheists are the same way.

To be honest, what I said previously is the impression that I get when talking with atheists: that it needs to be "analytical" thought all the way, and you theists are only using "intuitive" thought, and we're smarter because we're "analytical" and you're not.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what atheists are saying, but it would help if more of them would admit that they do use some "intuitive" thought and that we theists do use some "analytical" thought.

[Quasi]

This is exactly where most atheists seem to struggle. They are slow to place any value on "intuitive" thinking. And they are quick to ding those that do.

At least that Norenzayan guy admits that "intuitive" thinking has its benefits (in addition to its costs), while "analytical" thinking has its costs (in addition to its benefits).

I place great value on intuitive thinking. Several of those "what kind of thinker" tests that they give at goofy management seminars put me solidly on the side of intuitive thinking. I just can't ignore the analytical/logical part of my mind in order to follow any religion I've ever heard of.

Gut/intuitive thinking can only get you so far. My null hypothesis as a child (based on my upbringing) was that there was a God. My childhood intuition/gut told me there was a God. Then I started questioning things and came to the conclusion that none of those stories I was told as a child made any sense. I'm sure my experience is similar to what many/most of those smart atheists went through. I think I'd probably be happier if I could find a way to suspend disbelief and tie myself up in the logical pretzels required to be religious but I can't.

In other words, it isn't just analytical thinkers that reject religion. That's what that one study was about but there are plenty of other studies that don't focus on analytical versus intuitive thinking that also show that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to be religious.

[Mel-o-rama]

This is what my parents think. When I told them that I didn't believe in God, they told me I was too smart for my own good and that being smart is a hinderance to my spirituality.

FWIW, I'm not super smart. I've never had an IQ test, but I would guess that I am above average, but not Mensa-smart or anything.

As I followed gosuruss's lead and did 5 minutes of research, I came across a peculiar result on the wiki page on Religiosity and Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence):

Similarly, studies of Mormons in the US show that Mormons with higher education attend church more regularly than uneducated Mormons. Survey research indicated that 41% of Mormons with only elementary school education attend church regularly, compared to 76% of Mormon college graduates and 78% of Mormons who went beyond their college degrees to do graduate study attending church regularly.

The word "Mormon" caught my eye, but I wonder if this is true of other denominations. It seems counter to the whole idea of "the smarter you are the less religious you become." It also seems counter to your specific experience. Perhaps we're all outliers. :)

[Quasi]

To be honest, what I said previously is the impression that I get when talking with atheists: that it needs to be "analytical" thought all the way, and you theists are only using "intuitive" thought, and we're smarter because we're "analytical" and you're not.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what atheists are saying, but it would help if more of them would admit that they do use some "intuitive" thought and that we theists do use some "analytical" thought.

I think you're getting that feeling because it's nearly impossible to debate someone without going to the analytical side. I can say "my gut tells me that your religion is hogwash" and you can respond "my gut says nuh-huh" and we're done talking. How do you argue that someone else's gut instincts are wrong? By pointing out facts.

So atheists talk about the factual/logical/analytical parts of religion that seem impossible to us. We have gut feelings about religion also, we just don't argue based on them all that often. Your side often falls back to the intuitive/squishy arguments because that's about all you've got. It certainly doesn't prove your intuition is wrong, but there isn't much analytical proof that you're right.

[Entropy]

As I followed gosuruss's lead and did 5 minutes of research, I came across a peculiar result on the wiki page on Religiosity and Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence):

The word "Mormon" caught my eye, but I wonder if this is true of other denominations. It seems counter to the whole idea of "the smarter you are the less religious you become." It also seems counter to your specific experience. Perhaps we're all outliers. :)

I know you can't see this but, maybe they are trying to overcompensate by going more often because they feel less secure in their faith from all the analytical thinking they've done at school?

[Baby, ByeBye]

To do science, when trying to determine why any given X happens, it is necessary to set aside the "God did it" hypothesis - not because you can rule out such a hypothesis (by def'n, you can't), but because such a hypothesis is not useful to you. Kinda like why philosophers don't spend much time thinking about solipsism, or about the idea that all sensory information is 100% illusory - it's not disprovable, but, if it's true, there's nothing else interesting for them to say.

It's then not a big step - a faux one, to be sure, but not grand - to go from "for me to do my work I should think as if God doesn't exist" to "God actually doesn't exist".

That's not a bad point.

[gosuruss]

You'll have to excuse me for not relating to this argument. Being of the >140 crowd, and having given much, much thought to life and studying the universe, I see myself as one big glaring counterexample. Perhaps it's just my arrogance, narcissism, or condescension. :)

?

I know there are very smart and intelligent people who believe in religion. The fact that you may be one does not discredit a word I have said.

Remember, the null hypothesis here is VERY strong. Communities are forged around making sure everyone in the herd retains that null hypothesis. In some communities, the social repercussions are so great you have to be someone who has zero f***s to give before you are willing to be honest about the truth of those stories taught to you

[Entropy]

I think you're getting that feeling because it's nearly impossible to debate someone without going to the analytical side. I can say "my gut tells me that your religion is hogwash" and you can respond "my gut says nuh-huh" and we're done talking. How do you argue that someone else's gut instincts are wrong? By pointing out facts.

So atheists talk about the factual/logical/analytical parts of religion that seem impossible to us. We have gut feelings about religion also, we just don't argue based on them all that often. Your side often falls back to the intuitive/squishy arguments because that's about all you've got. It certainly doesn't prove your intuition is wrong, but there isn't much analytical proof that you're right.

It doesn't help that the intuitive "proof" is equally "valid" for pretty much all competing religions... and atheism to boot.

The way I see it, it makes the most sense to use your intuitive thinking when analytical thinking fails, not because you don't like what your analytical thinking is coming up with. Intuition comes with inherant bias.

[gosuruss]

To do science, when trying to determine why any given X happens, it is necessary to set aside the "God did it" hypothesis - not because you can rule out such a hypothesis (by def'n, you can't), but because such a hypothesis is not useful to you. Kinda like why philosophers don't spend much time thinking about solipsism, or about the idea that all sensory information is 100% illusory - it's not disprovable, but, if it's true, there's nothing else interesting for them to say.

It's then not a big step - a faux one, to be sure, but not grand - to go from "for me to do my work I should think as if God doesn't exist" to "God actually doesn't exist".

To me, I see people who understand a bit about the universe and have an understanding of what we know and what we don't know, and we have other people who don't have any idea what we do and don't know and will often claim that we don't know what we do know. You have a cohort of people who are willing to say -- yes, we don't understand this right now, but we will keep looking. That same cohort also sees the futility of attributing something to god given the advances we have continually made in dispelling the prior generations notions of what god accounted for. And of course, we are just talking about a very general notion of God here.. not even a personal God that answers prayers and cares about what animals we consume. Believing in things like prayer just takes some willful ignorance and fallacious reasoning. It doesn't require a science degree.

I don't really buy this argument. Perhaps for theoretical physicists discussing string theory and universes from nothing, but what about the vast number of scientists across different fields? Most of their fields don't even relate to what god is given credit for in the 21st century and advances they make in their fields are not really contradictory to god.

Secondly, there have been many scientists who view what they are discovering as unweaving God's work. So you can hold the assumption god exists and created all of this and you are now just observing and attempting to understand his majestic creation.

[gosuruss]

I think you're getting that feeling because it's nearly impossible to debate someone without going to the analytical side. I can say "my gut tells me that your religion is hogwash" and you can respond "my gut says nuh-huh" and we're done talking. How do you argue that someone else's gut instincts are wrong? By pointing out facts.

So atheists talk about the factual/logical/analytical parts of religion that seem impossible to us. We have gut feelings about religion also, we just don't argue based on them all that often. Your side often falls back to the intuitive/squishy arguments because that's about all you've got. It certainly doesn't prove your intuition is wrong, but there isn't much analytical proof that you're right.

I truly think gut feelings about how the universe works and what happens to us after we die are completely meaningless.... i agree, it's impossible to argue with that

[gosuruss]

As I followed gosuruss's lead and did 5 minutes of research, I came across a peculiar result on the wiki page on Religiosity and Intelligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence):



The word "Mormon" caught my eye, but I wonder if this is true of other denominations. It seems counter to the whole idea of "the smarter you are the less religious you become." It also seems counter to your specific experience. Perhaps we're all outliers. :)

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

have fun

the level of religious belief you have is not how often you go to church. Many many many people go because of social reasons.

My girlfriends dad is not religious at all. Her mother is. He goes every sunday and doesn't say a word, lol.

[Mel-o-rama]

?

I know there are very smart and intelligent people who believe in religion. The fact that you may be one does not discredit a word I have said.

Remember, the null hypothesis here is VERY strong. Communities are forged around making sure everyone in the herd retains that null hypothesis. In some communities, the social repercussions are so great you have to be someone who has zero f***s to give before you are willing to be honest about the truth of those stories taught to you

!

And I still don't relate to your argument. Plus, I'm afraid I don't fall into your herd mentality conjecture, either. I was born as what you might call an "outsider" Mormon. All my life I've been surrounded by people different from me. My father even went so far as to try to convince me to leave the Mormon church and seriously question its beginnings. I went through that exercise, and I'm still religious. I've analyzed that null hypothesis thousands of different ways.

[gosuruss]

!

And I still don't relate to your argument. Plus, I'm afraid I don't fall into your herd mentality conjecture, either. I was born as what you might call an "outsider" Mormon. All my life I've been surrounded by people different from me. My father even went so far as to try to convince me to leave the Mormon church and seriously question its beginnings. I went through that exercise, and I'm still religious. I've analyzed that null hypothesis thousands of different ways.

If you let me keep asking you questions and you don't quit on the thread, I think we can get to the bottom of this. But I don't want to start and then have you quit 5 posts in, or else it's a waste of time. I really truly believe that the claims of the Mormon (or Christian) religion can not hold up to scrutiny, and it's only a matter of questions

[Mel-o-rama]

I place great value on intuitive thinking. Several of those "what kind of thinker" tests that they give at goofy management seminars put me solidly on the side of intuitive thinking. I just can't ignore the analytical/logical part of my mind in order to follow any religion I've ever heard of.

Gut/intuitive thinking can only get you so far. My null hypothesis as a child (based on my upbringing) was that there was a God. My childhood intuition/gut told me there was a God. Then I started questioning things and came to the conclusion that none of those stories I was told as a child made any sense. I'm sure my experience is similar to what many/most of those smart atheists went through. I think I'd probably be happier if I could find a way to suspend disbelief and tie myself up in the logical pretzels required to be religious but I can't.

In other words, it isn't just analytical thinkers that reject religion. That's what that one study was about but there are plenty of other studies that don't focus on analytical versus intuitive thinking that also show that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to be religious.

Just like Amethyst, you've described a process similar to mine. I wish I could understand how we come up with different conclusions. I can't say that one of us is smarter than the other. :)

I think you're getting that feeling because it's nearly impossible to debate someone without going to the analytical side. I can say "my gut tells me that your religion is hogwash" and you can respond "my gut says nuh-huh" and we're done talking. How do you argue that someone else's gut instincts are wrong? By pointing out facts.

So atheists talk about the factual/logical/analytical parts of religion that seem impossible to us. We have gut feelings about religion also, we just don't argue based on them all that often. Your side often falls back to the intuitive/squishy arguments because that's about all you've got. It certainly doesn't prove your intuition is wrong, but there isn't much analytical proof that you're right.

Yes I think you're right about when the arguments break down: when it comes down to gut vs. gut. But I'd like to point out that we theists use more analytical thought than you guys would give us credit for. It's just that when we offer our proofs, they heavily rely on intuitive axioms, and atheists tend to skip to attacking the axioms while thinking it discredits the analytical thought based on those axioms.

[Mel-o-rama]

If you let me keep asking you questions and you don't quit on the thread, I think we can get to the bottom of this. But I don't want to start and then have you quit 5 posts in, or else it's a waste of time. I really truly believe that the claims of the Mormon (or Christian) religion can not hold up to scrutiny, and it's only a matter of questions

I'm willing to give it a try. Shoot...

[Entropy]

Yes I think you're right about when the arguments break down: when it comes down to gut vs. gut. But I'd like to point out that we theists use more analytical thought than you guys would give us credit for. It's just that when we offer our proofs, they heavily rely on intuitive axioms, and atheists tend to skip to attacking the axioms while thinking it discredits the analytical thought based on those axioms.

I know you won't see this but, those intuitive axioms you refer to tend to leave no room whatsoever for any kind of analytical thought. They almost immediately turn the whole argument either clearly circular or into just pre determined conclusions. Meaning: your axioms include your conclusion.

I'd love to see a list of intuitive axioms that doesn't do this, with a little bit of analytic thought, that "proves" that a specific religion is true. My guess: your intuitive axioms are not relateable at all and you think that shouldn't matter.

[gosuruss]

I'm shocked at all the posts in this thread.

Never heard any of that before.

Let's see:
Religious people are born into it, and by implication are unthinking minions too dumb as they grow older to question beliefs and come to a different conclusion. Hit the "conveniently ignore" buttom on all those who convert to other religions.

Atheists are intelligent, enlightened people who are embarrassed if at least 50% of supposedly smart actuaries aren't likewise atheists. Hit the "conveniently ignore" button on all those raised in households that were either atheistic, irreligious, or 'secularly religious' for reasons other than actual love/strong belief in God.

People on the AO actually think the polling of AO posters is actually reflective of the general population of actuaries, and then have the nerve to call themselves intelligent.



I'm shocked... SHOCKED!

I'm shocked.. those are the conclusions you took from my post.

I didn't call them unthinking minions. I'm simply pointing out truths regarding peoples intellect and their persistency with their current religion. People do convert religions, but if you take out the marriage induced conversions it's really not huge. Half the population has an IQ less than 100. In related news, half the US population thinks the earth was created in the past 10,000 years.

I am saying, if you feed ANYBODY an idea from when they are born, the dumber people are less likely to question it than the smarter ones. That's the point I was trying to make (and therefore, it shouldn't surprise us atheists have a higher IQ to start). Do you dispute this? More intelligent people tend to be more inquisitive and ask more questions. There are plenty of very smart people who do remain religious (many on this board support that).

Sure, some were raised in atheistic households. But that isn't a very large portion of people and a lot of empirical evidence suggests that most US atheists were raised in christian homes. Furthermore atheism and non religious is the fastest growing "religious denomination", and secular families have lower child birth rates than religion. To suggest this transition is inorganic, that is to say, that atheists are just born of atheists and are just believing what their parents/society believe, is just not rooted in fact. Are people born in atheist homes given advantages to come to the atheist conclusion? Sure. Could they be manipulated to believe what their parents tell them? Sure. But the same could be said about families who believe the earth is older than 10,000 years old, and that ain't necessarily a bad thing. I suppose atheist parents probably extol the virtue of not being afraid to question one's or societies beliefs as well -- as this has played a major part in increased atheism.

And I even pointed out that this was not likely to be reflective of general population of actuaries, because we're on the internet.

Would you like to continue?

[TheGillotine]

I know you won't see this but, those intuitive axioms you refer to tend to leave no room whatsoever for any kind of analytical thought. They almost immediately turn the whole argument either clearly circular or into just pre determined conclusions. Meaning: your axioms include your conclusion.

I'd love to see a list of intuitive axioms that doesn't do this, with a little bit of analytic thought, that "proves" that a specific religion is true. My guess: your intuitive axioms are not relateable at all and you think that shouldn't matter.

I'd like to see an argument for the existence of God. At this point I'd be happy even if the axioms are iffy or even downright silly.

I haven't heard anything new in a while :(

[Baby, ByeBye]

:confused:


You are apparently ego-centric.

My post was in reference to the entire thread.

How convenient

[gosuruss]

:confused:


You are apparently ego-centric.

My post was in reference to the entire thread.

Well I mentioned most of what you were criticizing within the past 2 pages. I felt the need to defend myself. You can't just take pot shots like that and call people's views unreasoned and then when a person responds you just throw up the ??? smiley.

[Mel-o-rama]

Have to go ... lawn needs mowed before it rains.

Entropy: I just took you off my Ignore list. I guess I can't stay angry at you forever. :) (Now if I could just remember why Griffin6 is on my list. Who was that anyway?)

Gosuruss: I look forward to your question session, and I'll try not to be as antagonistic as I get sometimes.

[gosuruss]

Had it been a pot-shot at you or a specific poster, I'd agree.

Quite honestly, it was more of a response to the first few pages, and then I just quickly scanned the rest. In all honesty, it had nothing at all to do with your posts. Thus the ego-centrism comment.

Sorry then. I don't keep up with what the first 39 pages of this thread were. That would be ridiculous

[gosuruss]

Have to go ... lawn needs mowed before it rains.

Entropy: I just took you off my Ignore list. I guess I can't stay angry at you forever. :) (Now if I could just remember why Griffin6 is on my list. Who was that anyway?)

Gosuruss: I look forward to your question session, and I'll try not to be as antagonistic as I get sometimes.

I will write some tonight. I really don't mind antagonism. This is the internet. My skin is hardened.

[Entropy]

Entropy: I just took you off my Ignore list. I guess I can't stay angry at you forever. :) (Now if I could just remember why Griffin6 is on my list. Who was that anyway?)

:toast:

[lovmath]

Jews+Christian > Athiests

[Baby, ByeBye]

Jews+Christian > Athiests

You do realize the Christian group probably consists of ten groups rights

[Descalzo]

You do realize the Christian group probably consists of ten groups rights

So?

[Baby, ByeBye]

So?

just thought it weird that he's singling out the jews. when mormonism is equally estranged

[keyser soze]

Druid

[gosuruss]

Gosuruss: I look forward to your question session, and I'll try not to be as antagonistic as I get sometimes.

Ok --

Let's begin.. I will just write some statements here just so we can establish some background information.. Tell me if you disagree with any of the statements.

1) You are a mormon
2) You believe Mormonism to be true. You regard other religions as false in their supernatural claims. So, you don't think the Prophet Muhammad (of the Quran) was actually a prophet. Mormonism builds upon Christianity, so you would accept the divinity of Jesus as well.
3) When you say you believe in mormonism, you are not just saying you find that the religion brings you peace, or that you appreciate the structure it provides. You are saying you literally believe Joseph Smith to have been in contact with the Creator of the Universe and angels. You believe Joseph Smith found some gold plates in the ground with some sort of "reformed egyptian" on there with writings he transcribed

Now, my first question is this... Do you think it is possible Joseph Smith was a very charismatic and intelligent human being that was delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_claimed_to_be_Jesus

Here is a partial list of people who have claimed to be god or the messiah in the past few thousand years. It is not uncommon. This type of delusion apparently afflicts itself upon a lot of people. There was no treatment for schizophrenia back in the day -- there is now. There was certainly a cohort of people that were crazy and untreated -- some of them charismatic and intelligent.

Is it possible for Joseph smith NOT to have actually communicated with God yet have made the impact he had through his teachings? Is it possible he did not actually find gold tablets in the ground with reformed egyptian written on them, and was either imagining them or making it up?

A better question is.. Do you think this is an unreasonable position for me to hold? What argument is there to suggest this position is unreasonable?

What makes Joseph Smith credible yet all of those messiah claimants uncredible (I realize Joseph Smith is not a messiah claimant, but the question remains)?

[Mel-o-rama]

That's a long list of questions and all at once! It'll take me a while to get through them all, so I'll start at the beginning and work my way throughout the day.

I'll start with the three background statements...

1) You are a mormon
True.

2) You believe Mormonism to be true. You regard other religions as false in their supernatural claims. So, you don't think the Prophet Muhammad (of the Quran) was actually a prophet. Mormonism builds upon Christianity, so you would accept the divinity of Jesus as well.
Mostly true. I do believe Mormonism to be true. However, other religions aren't completely false. Every religion has a portion of Truth. For example, I do indeed accept the divinity of Jesus, but so do the Baptists and the Presbyterians, etc. It would be wrong for me to say they are completely false.

About Muhammed, I consider him to be an inspired man, and in fact it is not beyond my belief system to accept that God may have raised up that man for his own purposes. Muhammed provided much needed religion among a group of people that had no chance in accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God.

For more background, I suggest reading this 2000 article published in the prominent Mormon magazine, which explores that idea further:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng

3) When you say you believe in mormonism, you are not just saying you find that the religion brings you peace, or that you appreciate the structure it provides. You are saying you literally believe Joseph Smith to have been in contact with the Creator of the Universe and angels. You believe Joseph Smith found some gold plates in the ground with some sort of "reformed egyptian" on there with writings he transcribed
This is entirely true.

I'll be back with more...

[Buck]

...
About Muhammed, I consider him to be an inspired man, and in fact it is not beyond my belief system to accept that God may have raised up that man for his own purposes. Muhammed provided much needed religion among a group of people that had no chance in accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God.
...

You accepted Jesus Christ as the son of God; Muslims accepted Mohammad as the son of God ... other religious people accepted something else as the son of God. The problem with that, they fight over such "sons" in the form of religious wars all the time.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Awww bucks Avatar is back

[Buck]

Awww bucks Avatar is back

Isn't that good?

BTW, you've been here since January 2012, yet know all about my Avatar?

[Baby, ByeBye]

Isn't that good?

BTW, you've been here since January 2012, yet know all about my Avatar?

I like how people think I've joined for less than 4 months

[TheGillotine]

You accepted Jesus Christ as the son of God; Muslims accepted Mohammad as the son of God ... other religious people accepted something else as the son of God. The problem with that, they fight over such "sons" in the form of religious wars all the time.

No. Just... no.

[Mel-o-rama]

You accepted Jesus Christ as the son of God; Muslims accepted Mohammad as the son of God ... other religious people accepted something else as the son of God. The problem with that, they fight over such "sons" in the form of religious wars all the time.

Overlooking the fact that Islam does not believe in any son of God ... you do touch on an important point, but that's a different issue. I'll come back around to this after gosuruss's questions.

[Mel-o-rama]

Here comes the next chunk. Maybe it won't take as long as I thought ...

Now, my first question is this... Do you think it is possible Joseph Smith was a very charismatic and intelligent human being that was delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe?
I do acknowledge this as a possibility. Having studied his life (so far), I've concluded that he either was who he really says he was, OR he really did think he was who he said he was. In either case, I'm convinced that he did not see himself as a scammer going after money and sex. Such a profile doesn't fit what he accomplished.

Also, it's pretty well held that Joseph Smith was not intelligent. You only need to read a few pages of his Book of Mormon translation and count the "And it came to pass"es. He didn't employ all the fancy word variation techniques that were used in translating the (KJV) Bible into English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_claimed_to_be_Jesus

Here is a partial list of people who have claimed to be god or the messiah in the past few thousand years. It is not uncommon. This type of delusion apparently afflicts itself upon a lot of people. There was no treatment for schizophrenia back in the day -- there is now. There was certainly a cohort of people that were crazy and untreated -- some of them charismatic and intelligent.
I must admit that there are a lot of crazy people on those lists. I see that even George Washington was considered to be a God by those Hawaiians after he died. Funny!

But I also noticed that Joseph Smith wasn't listed on any of these lists. There are some Mormons that are listed, but each of those guys were eventually excommunicated and made impotent. (Hmmm - bad choice of words there?)

I guess what I'm saying is that most of the people on those lists were quickly seen to be schizophrenic. Evidently with Joseph Smith--not quite so much. One big difference is he never claimed to be anything more than a modern day prophet who was simply relaying what God said. Joseph Smith never claimed divinity for himself.

We could explore this further, but in a nutshell, I also accept the possibility that perhaps Joseph Smith really was who he said he was. (I think this gets covered in the next batch of questions ...)

[WellThen]

I know you won't see this but, those intuitive axioms you refer to tend to leave no room whatsoever for any kind of analytical thought. They almost immediately turn the whole argument either clearly circular or into just pre determined conclusions. Meaning: your axioms include your conclusion.

I'd love to see a list of intuitive axioms that doesn't do this, with a little bit of analytic thought, that "proves" that a specific religion is true. My guess: your intuitive axioms are not relateable at all and you think that shouldn't matter.

Religious "debate" can be brought to a halt once everyone is reminded that beliefs and assumptions are the same thing. Then it becomes a debate on whether or not your assumptions are fair to make, which is far more interesting than talking about the reasoning, or lack thereof, in religions. The biggest assumption is whether or not "you" exists outside of the body (or brain), i.e. immortality (or soul). This usually makes everything else moot.

[gosuruss]

Here comes the next chunk. Maybe it won't take as long as I thought ...


I do acknowledge this as a possibility. Having studied his life (so far), I've concluded that he either was who he really says he was, OR he really did think he was who he said he was. In either case, I'm convinced that he did not see himself as a scammer going after money and sex. Such a profile doesn't fit what he accomplished.

Also, it's pretty well held that Joseph Smith was not intelligent. You only need to read a few pages of his Book of Mormon translation and count the "And it came to pass"es. He didn't employ all the fancy word variation techniques that were used in translating the (KJV) Bible into English.


This is really all I need.

Even if I agreed he thought who he said he was, that doesn't change the equation. And I don't doubt a lot of these people do think they are who they say they are.

You are trying to explain events -- one man started a church, was very influential, had inspirational things to say, people believed he was in contact with god.

You have a natural explanation for this and you acknowledge it as a possibility -- the same natural explanation you likely apply to the thousands of other people who have claimed to speak to god. (these people didn't actually speak to god, they just THOUGHT they were but they were delusional. The mind plays tricks on people).

I argue where ever you have a possible natural explanation for events that have occurred you should never assume a supernatural explanation for events without incredibly overwhelming evidence.

Now, if you have evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith did in fact speak to God and said things with omniscience that the other frauds hadn't.. I'm all ears. Please don't post some prophecies that are vague and undated, because that doesn't show much omniscience.

[gosuruss]

That's a long list of questions and all at once! It'll take me a while to get through them all, so I'll start at the beginning and work my way throughout the day.

I'll start with the three background statements...


True.


Mostly true. I do believe Mormonism to be true. However, other religions aren't completely false. Every religion has a portion of Truth. For example, I do indeed accept the divinity of Jesus, but so do the Baptists and the Presbyterians, etc. It would be wrong for me to say they are completely false.

About Muhammed, I consider him to be an inspired man, and in fact it is not beyond my belief system to accept that God may have raised up that man for his own purposes. Muhammed provided much needed religion among a group of people that had no chance in accepting Jesus Christ as the son of God.

For more background, I suggest reading this 2000 article published in the prominent Mormon magazine, which explores that idea further:

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2000/08/a-latter-day-saint-perspective-on-muhammad?lang=eng


This is entirely true.

I'll be back with more...

The IE here can't read that LDS article.

I will save my comments. But I think you run into major issues when you say Muhammad was inspired by God. And frankly, the middle east needs less religion, not more.

[gosuruss]

This is really all I need.

Even if I agreed he thought who he said he was, that doesn't change the equation. And I don't doubt a lot of these people do think they are who they say they are.

You are trying to explain events -- one man started a church, was very influential, had inspirational things to say, people believed he was in contact with god.

You have a natural explanation for this and you acknowledge it as a possibility -- the same natural explanation you likely apply to the thousands of other people who have claimed to speak to god. (these people didn't actually speak to god, they just THOUGHT they were but they were delusional. The mind plays tricks on people).

I argue where ever you have a possible natural explanation for events that have occurred you should never assume a supernatural explanation for events without incredibly overwhelming evidence.

Now, if you have evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith did in fact speak to God and said things with omniscience that the other frauds hadn't.. I'm all ears. Please don't post some prophecies that are vague and undated, because that doesn't show much omniscience.

Suppose a blind man takes a multiple choice test blind folded with no braile letters. He aces the 100 question test. He claims, god told him the answers.

I would argue, well, maybe had an ear piece in. Maybe he had one surgically implanted so it wasn't visible. Maybe he had a button camera transmitting to a van and a surgically inserted vibrating chip in his toe to tell him A B C or D. Maybe he had the CIA seize the test on the way to the testing center and he was relayed all of the answers and memorized them.

As long as you still acknowledge that these are possibilities, I think it irrational to take this man at his word that God told him. I find this irrational for a few reasons... Throughout history, many people have thought God talked to them. The vast majority are considered frauds by most for obvious reasons. So you know people have the capability of being delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe. Furthermore, there is no evidence there is a creator of the universe who likes to speak to human beings.

So to summarize:

1) We know there are natural explanations for the events that have occurred

2) We know people can be delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe

I think this must lead us to statement 3.

3) As long as there are natural explanations for events that have occurred we should not believe one's claim to speak to the creator of the universe without absurdly overwhelming evidence.

[Mel-o-rama]

The IE here can't read that LDS article.

I will save my comments. But I think you run into major issues when you say Muhammad was inspired by God. And frankly, the middle east needs less religion, not more.

While I put together my response, here's the text of that article...

A Latter-day Saint Perspective on Muhammad By James A. Toronto

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.Viewing Muhammad from the understanding of the restored gospel provides greater knowledge of Heavenly Father’s love for His children in all nations.20908_000_012

Recently I received a phone call from two Church members in Los Angeles who had become acquainted with a Muslim neighbor from Pakistan. When they shared with him the story of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, his response surprised them. After stating that Muslims accept no prophets after Muhammad, he said that Joseph Smith’s story shared similarities with Muhammad’s. He said, “We believe Muhammad encountered a divine messenger who informed him of his new calling as prophet. He received revelations of new scripture that contains God’s word to mankind, and he established a community of believers that developed into a major world religion.” Knowing little about Muslims and Islam * or about Muhammad, the members were unsure in their responses.

The issues raised by this experience imply a broader question that is relevant for all Latter-day Saints in view of the Church’s global presence and the increasingly pluralistic societies in which we all live: What is an appropriate Latter-day Saint attitude toward other religions’ claims of divinely inspired prophets, scriptures, visions, and miracles? The following may be helpful and is based on gospel insights I have gained over the years while studying and living in Muslim societies. Seeing Muhammad’s role in religious history from the perspective of the restored gospel provides great understanding of one of history’s most influential spiritual leaders, helps us appreciate Heavenly Father’s love for His children of all nations, and gives principles to guide us in building positive relations with friends and neighbors of other faiths.

Thoughts on Interfaith Relations
President Gordon B. Hinckley has consistently advocated dialogue and mutual respect in interfaith relations. He has admonished members of the Church to cultivate “a spirit of affirmative gratitude” for those of differing religious, political, and philosophical persuasions, adding that “we do not in any way have to compromise our theology” in the process. He gave this counsel: “Be respectful of the opinions and feelings of other people. Recognize their virtues; don’t look for their faults. Look for their strengths and their virtues, and you will find strength and virtues that will be helpful in your own life.” 1

President Hinckley’s emphasis on building interfaith understanding is rooted in fundamental gospel principles—humility, charity, respect for eternal truth, and recognition of God’s love for all mankind—taught by Jesus Christ and by ancient and modern prophets. The Savior repeatedly affirmed Heavenly Father’s boundless concern for the well-being of each of His sons and daughters, as in the parable of the lost sheep (see Luke 15). In the parable of the good Samaritan, He taught that one of the keys to true discipleship is to treat others kindly and compassionately in spite of political, racial, or religious differences (see Luke 10:25–37). He denounced intolerance and rivalry among religious groups and the tendency to extol one’s own virtues and deprecate the spiritual status of others. Addressing a parable to those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others,” Jesus condemned the pride of the Pharisee who prayed, “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are” and commended the humility of the publican who implored, “God be merciful to me a sinner” (see Luke 18:9–14).

The Book of Mormon teaches that Heavenly Father “is mindful of every people, whatsoever land they may be in; … and his bowels of mercy are over all the earth” (Alma 26:37; see also 1 Ne. 1:14). Because of this love for His children of all nations, the Lord has provided spiritual light to guide and enrich their lives. Elder Orson F. Whitney (1855–1931) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed that God “is using not only his covenant people, but other peoples as well, to consummate a work, stupendous, magnificent, and altogether too arduous for this little handful of Saints to accomplish by and of themselves.” 2

Elder B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) of the Seventy also spoke on this doctrine: “While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is established for the instruction of men; and it is one of God’s instrumentalities for making known the truth yet he is not limited to that institution for such purposes, neither in time nor place. God raises up wise men and prophets here and there among all the children of men, of their own tongue and nationality, speaking to them through means that they can comprehend. … All the great teachers are servants of God; among all nations and in all ages. They are inspired men, appointed to instruct God’s children according to the conditions in the midst of which he finds them.” 3

The Prophet Joseph Smith often expounded on this theme of the universality of God’s love and the related need to remain open to all available sources of divine light and knowledge. “One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,’” he said, “is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.” 4 The Prophet exhorted Church members to “gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them.” 5

Church leaders continually have encouraged members to foster amicable relations with people of other faiths by acknowledging the spiritual truth they possess, emphasizing the similarities in belief and lifestyle, and teaching us to disagree agreeably. Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke on this theme to members and nonmembers during an area conference in Tahiti: “Keep all the truth and all the good that you have. Do not abandon any sound or proper principle. Do not forsake any standard of the past which is good, righteous, and true. Every truth found in every church in all the world we believe. But we also say this to all men—Come and take the added light and truth that God has restored in our day. The more truth we have, the greater is our joy here and now; the more truth we receive, the greater is our reward in eternity.” 6

During October 1991 general conference, President Howard W. Hunter of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said: “As members of the Church of Jesus Christ, we seek to bring all truth together. We seek to enlarge the circle of love and understanding among all the peoples of the earth. Thus we strive to establish peace and happiness, not only within Christianity but among all mankind.” 7

Likewise, Elder Russell M. Nelson quoted a public statement issued by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in October 1992, calling upon “all people everywhere to re-commit themselves to the time-honored ideals of tolerance and mutual respect. We sincerely believe that as we acknowledge one another with consideration and compassion we will discover that we can all peacefully coexist despite our deepest differences.” He then added: “That pronouncement is a contemporary confirmation of the Prophet Joseph’s earlier entreaty for tolerance. Unitedly we may respond. Together we may stand, intolerant of transgression but tolerant of neighbors with differences they hold sacred. Our brothers and sisters throughout the world are all children of God.” 8

Latter-day Saint Interest in Muhammad
One of the noteworthy examples of the Latter-day Saint commitment to treasure up true principles and cultivate affirmative gratitude is the admiration that Church leaders have expressed over the years for the spiritual contributions of Muhammad.

As early as 1855, at a time when Christian literature generally ridiculed Muhammad as the Antichrist and the archenemy of Western civilization, Elders George A. Smith (1817–75) and Parley P. Pratt (1807–57) of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles delivered lengthy sermons demonstrating an accurate and balanced understanding of Islamic history and speaking highly of Muhammad’s leadership. Elder Smith observed that Muhammad was “descended from Abraham and was no doubt raised up by God on purpose” to preach against idolatry. He sympathized with the plight of Muslims, who, like Latter-day Saints, found it difficult “to get an honest history” written about them. Speaking next, Elder Pratt went on to express his admiration for Muhammad’s teachings, asserting that “upon the whole, … [Muslims] have better morals and better institutions than many Christian nations.” 9

Latter-day Saint appreciation of Muhammad’s role in history can also be found in the 1978 First Presidency statement regarding God’s love for all mankind. This declaration specifically mentions Muhammad as one of “the great religious leaders of the world” who received “a portion of God’s light” and affirms that “moral truths were given to [these leaders] by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.” 10

In recent years, respect for the spiritual legacy of Muhammad and for the religious values of the Islamic community has led to increasing contact and cooperation between Latter-day Saints and Muslims around the world. This is due in part to the presence of Latter-day Saint congregations in areas such as the Levant, North Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Southeast Asia. The Church has sought to respect Islamic laws and traditions that prohibit conversion of Muslims to other faiths by adopting a policy of nonproselyting in Islamic countries of the Middle East. Yet examples of dialogue and cooperation abound, including visits of Muslim dignitaries at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City; Muslim use of Church canning facilities to produce halal (ritually clean) food products; Church humanitarian aid and disaster relief sent to predominantly Muslim areas including Jordan, Kosovo, and Turkey; academic agreements between Brigham Young University and various educational and governmental institutions in the Islamic world; the existence of the Muslim Student Association at BYU; and expanding collaboration between the Church and Islamic organizations to safeguard traditional family values worldwide. 11 The recent initiation of the Islamic Translation Series, cosponsored by BYU and the Church, has resulted in several significant exchanges between Muslim officials and Latter-day Saint Church leaders. A Muslim ambassador to the United Nations predicted that this translation series “will play a positive role in the West’s quest for a better understanding of Islam.” 12

A cabinet minister in Egypt, aware of the common ground shared by Muslims and Latter-day Saints, once remarked to Elder Howard W. Hunter of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that “if a bridge is ever built between Christianity and Islam it must be built by the Mormon Church.” 13 The examples of Latter-day Saint–Muslim interaction mentioned above, together with the Church’s establishment in 1989 of two major centers for educational and cultural exchange in the Middle East (Jerusalem and Amman), reflect the traditional attitude of respect for Islam that Church leaders have exhibited from earliest times. These activities represent tangible evidence of Latter-day Saint commitment to promote greater understanding of the Muslim world and witness an emerging role for the Church in helping to bridge the gap that has existed historically between Muslims and Christians.


(click to view larger)

Not shown are North America and South America, whose percentage of Muslims is less than 5 percent. North America has approximately 7 million Muslims, or 2.3 percent of the population, of which 5.5 million are in the United States. South America has approximately 1 million Muslims, accounting for 2 percent of the population. (Map by Tom Child; information courtesy of Oxford University Press.)

The Life of Muhammad
Who, then, was Muhammad, and what is there in his life and teachings that has attracted the interest and admiration of Church leaders? What strength and virtues can we find in Muslim experience that, as President Hinckley has suggested, will be helpful in our own spiritual lives?

At the dawn of the 21st century, Islam is one of the largest and fastest-growing religions in the world. Muslims currently number more than one billion (almost one-fifth of the world’s population), concentrated primarily in Southeast Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, the Middle East, and North Africa, but with significant populations located in Europe and North America. Some even project that Islam will become the most populous religion in the world during the first half of this new century. The roots of this dynamic and, for some people, misunderstood religious movement can be traced back 14 centuries to the humble beginnings and founding work of Muhammad, whom Muslims consider to be the last of a long line of prophets sent by God to teach Islam to the world.

Muhammad (Arabic, “praised”) was born in 570 C.E. 14 in Mecca, a prosperous city that was a center of caravan trade and religious pilgrimage in the northwest Arabian peninsula. Orphaned in early childhood, he lived a life of poverty as a youth, working as a herdsman for his family and neighbors, an occupation that gave him ample time and solitude to contemplate the deeper questions of life. Muhammad gained a reputation in the community as a trusted arbiter and peacemaker as indicated in the following account:

“At one time the Quraish [Muhammad’s tribe] decided to rebuild the Ka’ba [sacred shrine], to reset the stones above the foundations. In one of the corners they wanted to put the black stone, but could not decide who should have the honour of placing it there. They would have quarrelled violently if [Muhammad] the young man they all admired and trusted had not come by. They asked [him] … to settle the dispute. He told them to spread a large cloak and place the black stone in the middle. They did so. Then, he asked a man from each of the four clans who were in dispute to take hold of a corner of the cloak. In this way they all shared the honour of carrying the stone.” 15

At the age of 25, Muhammad married a widow, Khadija, who was 15 years his senior and a prosperous caravan merchant. She knew of his reputation for honesty and hard work, and she made the proposal of marriage that turned out to be a successful and happy one, producing four daughters and two sons. For the next 15 years Muhammad was engaged with Khadija in running the family business and raising their family. It was during this period also that he retreated often into the solitude of the desert to pray, meditate, and worship. He had become dissatisfied with the corruption, idolatry, and social inequities that plagued Mecca; he sought for a higher truth that would provide peace, justice, and spiritual fulfillment for him and his people.

In 610 C.E., when he was 40, his spiritual seeking and preparation reached a culmination. According to Islamic history, one night while Muhammad was engaged in prayer and meditation on Mount Hira near Mecca, the angel Gabriel appeared to him to deliver a message from God (Arabic, Allah). 16 Three times the angel commanded that Muhammad “Recite! In the name of thy Lord who created, created man of a blood-clot. Recite! And thy Lord is the Most Generous, who taught by the pen—Taught man that he knew not” (Qur’an 96:1–5). 17

For a period of 22 years, from 610 C.E. to his death in 632, Muhammad received communications that he said were from Allah, by way of the angel Gabriel, and that he memorized verbatim and recited orally to his disciples. These oral recitations of Allah’s mind and will are collectively referred to as al-Qur’an (“recitation”) by Muslims. However, Muhammad’s preaching against idolatry, polytheism, female infanticide, and other religious and social corruptions met fierce opposition in Mecca. His message was rejected in this early period in Mecca, and he and his fledgling community of converts, mostly a few family members and close friends, were shunned, persecuted, and even tortured.

Then a group of men came from the town Yathrib and asked Muhammad to act as an arbiter in the squabbles which were ruining their town. Muhammad saw an opportunity to alleviate the suffering of his followers and agreed to leave Mecca. First he sent his followers, and then he himself went to the town, which would thereafter be known as Madinat an-Nabi (“City of the Prophet”), or simply Medina. This emigration (Arabic, hijra), from Mecca to Medina, took place in 622 C.E., the year commemorated as the starting point of the Muslim Hijri calendar. Muslims saw in the Hijra a fundamental turning point in the life of the prophet and in the nature of the Muslim community. From being a rejected preacher, Muhammad became a statesman, legislator, judge, educator, and military leader.

In Medina, the Muslims had freedom to establish themselves securely, develop their institutions for governance and education, and become a prosperous community, in contrast to their status in Mecca as a persecuted, marginal religious minority.

A few years after the Hijra, Muhammad was able to return to the city of Mecca, where his teachings were gradually adopted. Today Mecca is considered by Muslims to be the spiritual center of Islam and the holiest of cities, with Medina as the second and Jerusalem the third holiest cities.

In 632, at the age of 62, Muhammad died unexpectedly after a short fever. By any measure Muhammad was phenomenally successful during his career, even though his name and achievements have been the subject of controversy over the centuries in Western civilization. During the last half of the 20th century, however, non-Muslim historians have become more objective and complimentary, acknowledging that Muhammad’s achievements in both political and religious realms assure him a place as one of the most influential figures in history.

Contrary to Western civilization’s stereotype of Muhammad as a false prophet or enemy of Christians, Muslim sources portray a man of unfailing humility, kindness, good humor, generosity, and simple tastes. Though he smiled often, it is said he seldom laughed because, as one famous hadith (report of Muhammad’s sayings or actions) states, “If you knew what I know you would cry much and laugh little.” His gentle humor is evident in the following story:

“One day a little old woman came to him to ask whether old wretched women would also go to Paradise. ‘No,’ he answered, ‘there are no old women in Paradise!’ Then, looking at her grieved face, he said with a smile: ‘They will all be transformed in Paradise, for there, there is only one youthful age for all!’”

He dispensed wise and practical advice to followers. When a man asked if he needed to tie his camel up, since he already trusted in God’s help and protection, Muhammad replied: “First tether it, and then trust in God.” Some reports indicate that Muhammad’s family were poor and often hungry, only able to afford coarse bread at times. His statement, faqri fakhri, “My poverty is my pride,” reveals his joy in simple pleasures, and this saying was later adopted as a slogan by Muslim ascetics. He was especially fond of children, allowing his two young grandsons to climb on his back while he was performing prayers. A man once criticized him for kissing his grandson Hasan, saying, “I have 10 boys but have never kissed any of them.” Muhammad answered, “He who does not show mercy will not receive mercy.” 18

In his last speech in the mosque in Medina, given on the day he died, Muhammad displayed humility and magnanimity in bidding farewell to his community after more than 30 years of sacrifice on their behalf: “If there is any man whose honour I might have injured, here I am to answer for it. If I have unjustifiably inflicted bodily harm on anyone, I present myself for retribution. If I owe anything to anyone, here is my property and he may help himself to it. … Nobody should say: ‘I fear enmity and rancor of the Messenger of God.’ I nurse no grudge towards anyone. These things are repugnant to my nature and temperament. I abhor them so.” 19

With this view of Muhammad in mind, we can understand why Muslims commonly bless his name when it is mentioned in speech or writing, invoke his name in conversations, and celebrate his birthday. Pious Muslims strive to emulate his example in every aspect of life: mode of dress, style of grooming, table manners, religious rituals, and benevolence toward others.

The Teachings of Muhammad
Islamic life revolves around five basic principles that are outlined in general terms in the Qur’an and expounded in the teachings and customs (Arabic, sunna) of Muhammad. These five pillars are the witness of faith, prayer, almsgiving, fasting, and pilgrimage to Mecca. Some examples of Muhammad’s teachings on charitable giving and fasting will illustrate his manner of teaching and his central role in Muslim life.

The principle of almsgiving is designed to care for the poor and to foster empathy in the community of believers. The Qur’an states that charity and compassion, not mechanical observance of rituals, define one’s worthiness in God’s sight (2:177). Muhammad’s sayings clearly teach the practice of charity:

“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

“Each person’s every joint must perform a charity every day the sun comes up: to act justly between two people is a charity; to help a man with his mount, lifting him onto it or hoisting up his belongings onto it is a charity; a good word is a charity; every step you take to prayers is a charity; and removing a harmful thing from the road is charity.”

“Charity extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire.”

“Smiling to another person is an act of charity.”

“He who sleeps with a full stomach knowing that his neighbor is hungry [is not a believer].” 20

Muslims view fasting as having a dual purpose: to bring about a state of humility and surrender of one’s soul to God, and to foster compassion and care for the poor in the community. Thus, fasting and almsgiving go hand in hand: denying of oneself cannot be complete without giving of oneself.

I was reminded of this principle among Muslims, and the profound influence of Muhammad’s example in their lives, while living in Cairo, Egypt, during the holy month of fasting, Ramadan. 21 My family and I were invited by a Muslim friend, Nabil, to participate in his family’s evening meal in which they broke their fast. As we entered their modest apartment in one of the most impoverished quarters of Cairo, I noticed that one of the rooms was occupied by numerous peasant women (distinguishable by their black clothing) and their children. They were all sitting on the floor with food spread out before them on a cloth, quietly waiting for the call to prayer that marks the end of fasting each day. When I asked if they were his relatives, he replied: “No, I don’t know any of them. It is our habit to invite strangers off the street who cannot afford good food to share our Ramadan meal. We do this because it was one of the customs of our prophet, Muhammad.”

I was deeply moved by my Muslim friend’s unselfishness and compassion for the poor, and humbled by his good example in practicing a principle that I had learned from the Bible years before but had rarely observed: “When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; … but when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee” (Luke 14:12–14).

A Latter-day Saint Perspective
How, then, might Latter-day Saints regard the Muslim community? The most helpful approach is to recognize the truths and values we share with our Muslim brothers and sisters, even while politely acknowledging that theological differences exist. Certainly Latter-day Saints do not agree with Islamic teachings that deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, the need for modern prophets, or the principle of eternal progression. But by being humble and open to spiritual light wherever it may be found, we benefit from the religious insights of Muslims and affirm similarities in belief such as faith, prayer, fasting, repentance, compassion, modesty, and strong families as cornerstones of individual spirituality and community life. 22

In a recent meeting with Muslim dignitaries, Elder Neal A. Maxwell of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles focused on the common spiritual heritage of Mormons and Muslims. After quoting a verse from the Qur’an, he observed:

“God is the source of light in heaven and on earth. We share the belief with you. We resist the secular world. We believe with you that life has meaning and purpose. … We revere the institution of the family. … We salute you for your concern for the institution of the family. … Mutual respect, friendship, and love are precious things in today’s world. We feel those emotions for our Islamic brothers and sisters. Love never needs a visa. It crosses over all borders and links generations and cultures.” 23

The Prophet Joseph Smith, in one of his most eloquent pronouncements on tolerance and compassion, encouraged the Saints to expand their vision of the human family, to view people of other faiths and cultures as our Heavenly Father does and not according to the “narrow, contracted notions of men.” He taught that the Father will take complex personal, political, and social circumstances into account at the last day and render final judgment based on a divine, merciful perspective that surpasses our limited human understanding:

“While one portion of the human race is judging and condemning the other without mercy, the Great Parent of the universe looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard; He views them as His offspring, and without any of the contracted feelings that influence the children of men, causes ‘His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.’ He holds the reins of judgment in His hands; He is a wise Lawgiver, and will judge all men, not according to the narrow, contracted notions of men, but, ‘according to the deeds done in the body whether they be good or evil,’ or whether these deeds were done in England, America, Spain, Turkey, or India. He will judge them, ‘not according to what they have not, but according to what they have,’ those who have lived without law, will be judged without law, and those who have a law, will be judged by that law. We need not doubt the wisdom and intelligence of the Great Jehovah; He will award judgment or mercy to all nations according to their several deserts, their means of obtaining intelligence, the laws by which they are governed, the facilities afforded them of obtaining correct information, and His inscrutable designs in relation to the human family; and when the designs of God shall be made manifest, and the curtain of futurity be withdrawn, we shall all of us eventually have to confess that the Judge of all the earth has done right.” 24

In response to the interfaith dilemma raised by the Church members in Los Angeles, I was grateful to state that we belong to a church that affirms the truths taught by Muhammad and other great teachers, reformers, and religious founders. We recognize the goodness reflected in the lives of those in other religious communities. While we do not compromise revealed eternal truths of the restored gospel, we never espouse an adversarial relationship with other faiths. Rather, in accordance with modern prophetic counsel, we seek to treasure up that which is virtuous and praiseworthy in other faiths and to cultivate an attitude of “affirmative gratitude” toward them. As Latter-day Saints, we believe that it is vital to respect and benefit from the spiritual light found in other religions, while seeking humbly to share the additional measure of eternal truth provided by latter-day revelation.

[Mel-o-rama]

This is really all I need.

Even if I agreed he thought who he said he was, that doesn't change the equation. And I don't doubt a lot of these people do think they are who they say they are.

You are trying to explain events -- one man started a church, was very influential, had inspirational things to say, people believed he was in contact with god.

You have a natural explanation for this and you acknowledge it as a possibility -- the same natural explanation you likely apply to the thousands of other people who have claimed to speak to god. (these people didn't actually speak to god, they just THOUGHT they were but they were delusional. The mind plays tricks on people).

First off, I must admit that it's difficult to answer this question directly without delving into the life of Joseph Smith, but for now it may be more useful to stay general. For example, take out "Joseph Smith" and insert "Moses" and I believe your question remains the same. Or insert "Jesus as Son of God" and your question is the same.

I argue where ever you have a possible natural explanation for events that have occurred you should never assume a supernatural explanation for events without incredibly overwhelming evidence.
And I must ask: why? Coming back to the analytical thought vs. intuitive thought discussion, I will eventually show that your argument here is circular and depends on an element of intuitive thought.

The existence of a possible explanation does not in and of itself constitute a conclusive proof. Similarly, Occam's Razor is never meant to be a conclusive proof. I'll get back to this some more when I reply to your "exam" post.

Now, if you have evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith did in fact speak to God and said things with omniscience that the other frauds hadn't.. I'm all ears. Please don't post some prophecies that are vague and undated, because that doesn't show much omniscience.
One problem is that I do believe that God spoke to some of these other people. I believe he talked to Mohammed, and that he talks to the Pope today, even though those religions aren't entirely correct. On the other hand, I believe David Koresh was delusional. These things can only be determined on a case by case basis. It would be too much of a convenience and a logical error to conclude that none of these guys talked with God and that they were all delusional.

More to come...

[TheGillotine]

Suppose a blind man takes a multiple choice test blind folded with no braile letters. He aces the 100 question test. He claims, god told him the answers.

I would argue, well, maybe had an ear piece in. Maybe he had one surgically implanted so it wasn't visible. Maybe he had a button camera transmitting to a van and a surgically inserted vibrating chip in his toe to tell him A B C or D. Maybe he had the CIA seize the test on the way to the testing center and he was relayed all of the answers and memorized them.

As long as you still acknowledge that these are possibilities, I think it irrational to take this man at his word that God told him. I find this irrational for a few reasons... Throughout history, many people have thought God talked to them. The vast majority are considered frauds by most for obvious reasons. So you know people have the capability of being delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe. Furthermore, there is no evidence there is a creator of the universe who likes to speak to human beings.

So to summarize:

1) We know there are natural explanations for the events that have occurred

2) We know people can be delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe

I think this must lead us to statement 3.

3) As long as there are natural explanations for events that have occurred we should not believe one's claim to speak to the creator of the universe without absurdly overwhelming evidence.

I disagree. I think, that like all claims, the claim that one is privy to communication with God should be weighed against the evidence. The fact that in the past, people have been proven wrong about this does not mean that all people making this claim should be disbelieved as long as you can come up with some possible (albeit absurd) other explanation.

[JohnLocke]

These things can only be determined on a case by case basis. It would be too much of a convenience and a logical error to conclude that none of these guys talked with God and that they were all delusional.More to come...

???

[gosuruss]

I disagree. I think, that like all claims, the claim that one is privy to communication with God should be weighed against the evidence. The fact that in the past, people have been proven wrong about this does not mean that all people making this claim should be disbelieved as long as you can come up with some possible (albeit absurd) other explanation.

I don't think we disagree. I am saying that in the absence of strong evidence we must revert to the natural explanation if one exists. And due to the magnitude of the claim it would require extremely strong evidence.

Unless Mel-O is able to provide some very strong evidence for this, than I think my statements apply.

The point is we know people make this stuff up or are delusional about it. So the alternative hypothesis that he did not speak to God is not an unreasonable conclusion because people do this all the time and we all acknowledge this.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

One problem is that I do believe that God spoke to some of these other people. I believe he talked to Mohammed, and that he talks to the Pope today, even though those religions aren't entirely correct. On the other hand, I believe David Koresh was delusional. These things can only be determined on a case by case basis. It would be too much of a convenience and a logical error to conclude that none of these guys talked with God and that they were all delusional.

This doesn't make sense to me.

Do you believe that God wants everyone to be Mormon? Why doesn't God tell the Pope to be Mormon? If God speaks to the Pope and tells him that Catholisism is right and tells you that Mormonism is right, then God is inconsistent.

[Mel-o-rama]

Suppose a blind man takes a multiple choice test blind folded with no braile letters. He aces the 100 question test. He claims, god told him the answers.

I would argue, well, maybe had an ear piece in. Maybe he had one surgically implanted so it wasn't visible. Maybe he had a button camera transmitting to a van and a surgically inserted vibrating chip in his toe to tell him A B C or D. Maybe he had the CIA seize the test on the way to the testing center and he was relayed all of the answers and memorized them.

As long as you still acknowledge that these are possibilities, I think it irrational to take this man at his word that God told him. I find this irrational for a few reasons... Throughout history, many people have thought God talked to them. The vast majority are considered frauds by most for obvious reasons. So you know people have the capability of being delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe. Furthermore, there is no evidence there is a creator of the universe who likes to speak to human beings.

I would tend to agree with you on this case, mainly because I wouldn't be able to see how God helping this man pass the exam would make the world a better place. There are several reasons why I tend to believe in Jesus and/or believe that Joseph Smith saw God.

#1) The message makes sense -- that is, it's mostly consistent with what I already believe.
#2) The message is internally self-consistent.
#3) The messenger was a good person who didn't take advantage of the followers (such as taking their money and buying expensive cars).
#4) The messenger stuck to his beliefs.

... I suppose there's more, but you get the idea. None of these is definitive proof when it comes to analytical thought. But with a little bit of intuitive thought, you can make the jump to believing that person is who he says is. "It just feels right." You can use analytical thought to see if these points and others stick, but you need the intuitive thought to put it all together.

So to summarize:

1) We know there are natural explanations for the events that have occurred

2) We know people can be delusional about speaking to the creator of the universe

I agree on both accounts.
I think this must lead us to statement 3.

3) As long as there are natural explanations for events that have occurred we should not believe one's claim to speak to the creator of the universe without absurdly overwhelming evidence.
And this is where the circular logic comes in. Why does the existence of "natural" explanations imply that one of them has to be the truth? What logic proves that a "natural" explanation trumps a "supernatural" explanation? You can't answer this question without using intuitive thought.

[Mel-o-rama]

???

!!!

[Mel-o-rama]

The point is we know people make this stuff up or are delusional about it. So the alternative hypothesis that he did not speak to God is not an unreasonable conclusion because people do this all the time and we all acknowledge this.

I'm not denying that "he did not speak to God" is a reasonable conjecture. I'm just saying that you can't logically go from "it's a reasonable conjecture" to "it must be true" without proof.

[Entropy]

Are there any other times where you would let intuition trump analytical, or only where your religion is concerned?

[Mel-o-rama]

Let me try this one. I'm not sure where it fits, but it relates...

Let's say I write the numbers 1 to 1000 randomly all over a piece of paper, then I challenge you to find the number 15. You search for about a minute and can't find it. What do you do? Your choices:

#1) Keep looking and find it.
#2) Stop looking but take my word for it that it's there.
#3) Stop looking and say, "This number isn't 15. That number isn't 15. And neither is this one ... I don't believe any of these numbers is 15."

[Mel-o-rama]

Are there any other times where you would let intuition trump analytical, or only where your religion is concerned?

Quick answer -- I only have a minute. We use intuitive thought all the time. I'll be back...

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

There are several reasons why I tend to believe in Jesus and/or believe that Joseph Smith saw God.

#1) The message makes sense -- that is, it's mostly consistent with what I already believe. The message is what you have been taught your entire life so of course it is consistent with what you believe.

#2) The message is internally self-consistent.All religions can claim a self-consistent message
#3) The messenger was a good person who didn't take advantage of the followers (such as taking their money and buying expensive cars).Money is not the only way to take advantage of people. Telling a 14 year old girl that God told her to marry you can also be taking advantage of someone.
#4) The messenger stuck to his beliefs.
Many liars or delusional people stick to their lies or delusions.

[Entropy]

Quick answer -- I only have a minute. We use intuitive thought all the time. I'll be back...

I understand that we use it all the time, and I appreciate what it is capable of. I'm specifically asking about when it trumps analytical thought. I'm sure it happens all the time, but I'm guessing that we generally (should?) recognize the error of it but just don't care. Example would maybe be gambling to make up losses.

Maybe with any specific religion it is the only time when you can't actually test results ex post? So it's the only time where you can't then go back and decide if intuition was justified? Not sure where I'm going here.

Or maybe you don't think you ever use intuition to trump analytics in regards to your religion? This kind of ties into Gosu's questions I think.

I know you're composing a response, just thought I'd add some.

[Entropy]

Let me try this one. I'm not sure where it fits, but it relates...

Let's say I write the numbers 1 to 1000 randomly all over a piece of paper, then I challenge you to find the number 15. You search for about a minute and can't find it. What do you do? Your choices:

#1) Keep looking and find it.
#2) Stop looking but take my word for it that it's there.
#3) Stop looking and say, "This number isn't 15. That number isn't 15. And neither is this one ... I don't believe any of these numbers is 15."

Before making any of these choices I would revisit my assumption that you actually wrote down all the numbers in the first place. That said, if my goal was to find it, I would never opt for #2 or #3.

ETA: That might change if I knew why the experiment was set up in the first place I guess. Do you have any reason to decive me? Do I gain anything from verification? Etc... Usually the answers to these would lead me to #1. If the outcome was completely inconsequential (read: obviously not religion or regarding the afterlife or divinity etc) then I might opt for #2.

[Mel-o-rama]

I understand that we use it all the time, and I appreciate what it is capable of. I'm specifically asking about when it trumps analytical thought. I'm sure it happens all the time, but I'm guessing that we generally (should?) recognize the error of it but just don't care. Example would maybe be gambling to make up losses.

Simple answer: I think we use intuitive thought when analytical thought isn't necessary. It isn't necessarily an error. Stuff like: "What should I order? I think I feel like turkey today."

Maybe with any specific religion it is the only time when you can't actually test results ex post? So it's the only time where you can't then go back and decide if intuition was justified? Not sure where I'm going here.

Or maybe you don't think you ever use intuition to trump analytics in regards to your religion? This kind of ties into Gosu's questions I think.

An important fact: I know that I am not 100% certain that Mormonism or Christianity is Reality. I know a lot of my belief system is based on intuitive thought, and I know that such thought is limited. I know that there is no way to definitively prove the existence of God using analytical thought alone. I have my doubts. I think that if you ask any of us theists, we'd all answer the same.

So why do we believe in this stuff? We all have to believe in something so that we can make decisions and remain sane. Based on your intuitive thinking, you lean more toward atheism/agnosticism, but you can't definitively prove your belief system, either. You just do believe that way. I lean more toward Mormonism. It just feels right, the same way that the nonexistence of God just feels right to you.

[Buck]

Simple answer: I think we use intuitive thought when analytical thought isn't necessary. It isn't necessarily an error. Stuff like: "What should I order? I think I feel like turkey today."



An important fact: I know that I am not 100% certain that Mormonism or Christianity is Reality. I know a lot of my belief system is based on intuitive thought, and I know that such thought is limited. I know that there is no way to definitively prove the existence of God using analytical thought alone. I have my doubts. I think that if you ask any of us theists, we'd all answer the same.

So why do we believe in this stuff? We all have to believe in something so that we can make decisions and remain sane. Based on your intuitive thinking, you lean more toward atheism/agnosticism, but you can't definitively prove your belief system, either. You just do believe that way. I lean more toward Mormonism. It just feels right, the same way that the nonexistence of God just feels right to you.
You are Mormon because you were indoctrinated as so since your were very young. Then, you do not have the ability to think critically -- your Mormonism took over your brain -- there is no "intuitive thinking" or anything else.

[Anthemyst]

Point of clarification: The nonexistence of God doesn't feel right to me. I said earlier that my atheism started with gut-feeling doubts, but it was in conflict with the very real, strong feeling I had that God existed and that I had a personal relationship with Him. It's just that after I dared to examine it closely for a while, I eventually came to the conclusion that this strong feeling, or 'faith', was really just wishing.

[Mel-o-rama]

Before making any of these choices I would revisit my assumption that you actually wrote down all the numbers in the first place. That said, if my goal was to find it, I would never opt for #2 or #3.

ETA: That might change if I knew why the experiment was set up in the first place I guess. Do you have any reason to decive me? Do I gain anything from verification? Etc... Usually the answers to these would lead me to #1. If the outcome was completely inconsequential (read: obviously not religion or regarding the afterlife or divinity etc) then I might opt for #2.

I think this is where I was going, though now I'm realizing it's not a perfect analogy. Let's say the Creator tells you, "I sent my Son down there. Can you find him?" Then you say, "There are 100 who say their your Son. How am I supposed to tell which one it is." And the Creator says, "Oh, you'll know."

So you find David Koresh, Ernest Norman, Sun Myung Moon, and all these other bozos. You know they can't be the Son. After checking 50 out of 100 possible candidates and sure that none of them is He, would you be correct in assuming that the remaining 50 cannot also be the Son?

Terrible analogy notwithstanding, there is no existing logical rule that can take you from "they all can't be right" to "none of them are right" OR from "if you have several natural explanations and several supernatural explanations" to "it has to be one of the natural explanations." You need a little bit of intuition to make these "leaps of faith" to arrive at the conclusions.

[lovmath]

Point of clarification: The nonexistence of God doesn't feel right to me. I said earlier that my atheism started with gut-feeling doubts, but it was in conflict with the very real, strong feeling I had that God existed and that I had a personal relationship with Him. It's just that after I dared to examine it closely for a while, I eventually came to the conclusion that this strong feeling, or 'faith', was really just wishing.

:yellowcard:

[Anthemyst]

I think this is where I was going, though now I'm realizing it's not a perfect analogy. Let's say the Creator tells you, "I sent my Son down there. Can you find him?" Then you say, "There are 100 who say their your Son. How am I supposed to tell which one it is." And the Creator says, "Oh, you'll know."

So you find David Koresh, Ernest Norman, Sun Myung Moon, and all these other bozos. You know they can't be the Son. After checking 50 out of 100 possible candidates and sure that none of them is He, would you be correct in assuming that the remaining 50 cannot also be the Son?

Terrible analogy notwithstanding, there is no existing logical rule that can take you from "they all can't be right" to "none of them are right" OR from "if you have several natural explanations and several supernatural explanations" to "it has to be one of the natural explanations." You need a little bit of intuition to make these "leaps of faith" to arrive at the conclusions.

If the Creator had told me his Son was on earth, I agree that I would spend my life searching for Him. Of course, if the Creator told me anything then I would know that He existed, and thus that supernatural explanations are valid and not to be passed over in favor of natural ones. If the existence of the supernatural is a given, there is no reason to prefer a natural explanation. But it's not.

[Mel-o-rama]

You are Mormon because you were indoctrinated as so since your were very young. Then, you do not have the ability to think critically -- your Mormonism took over your brain -- there is no "intuitive thinking" or anything else.

:lol:

... oh, sorry about that. Sometimes you're funny. Perhaps you could explain the difference between me and MWTIGL. We started with the same null hypothesis. We grew up and went down different paths.

And perhaps you missed my post earlier when I talked about my Mormon-church-antagonistic father. Part of that included missing out on a lot of church when I was a kid, and not getting baptized at the normal age of 8.

Yes ... I was <gasp> inactive.

[Anthemyst]

:yellowcard:

Good thing I'm not winning the Love Connection poll, I guess...

[Mel-o-rama]

Point of clarification: The nonexistence of God doesn't feel right to me. I said earlier that my atheism started with gut-feeling doubts, but it was in conflict with the very real, strong feeling I had that God existed and that I had a personal relationship with Him. It's just that after I dared to examine it closely for a while, I eventually came to the conclusion that this strong feeling, or 'faith', was really just wishing.

I understand what you're saying.

If the Creator had told me his Son was on earth, I agree that I would spend my life searching for Him. Of course, if the Creator told me anything then I would know that He existed, and thus that supernatural explanations are valid and not to be passed over in favor of natural ones. If the existence of the supernatural is a given, there is no reason to prefer a natural explanation. But it's not.

A good point. But what exactly does "supernatural" mean? Is it something beyond what I understand to be "natural"? Or is it simply something that exists outside the realm of analytical thought?

If someone tells me there's some immortal man sitting in the clouds watching over me, I may think that guy is crazy, but I'd have to admit that such an image is not too difficult to picture. Since I have no way to look above the clouds, I have no way to confirm it. Thus my friend's conjecture is a "supernatural" one.

But then let's see I find a way to look above the clouds and see this immortal man. Then does it become "natural"?

In order to call something "supernatural" I would have to impose limits on the analytical thinking system I'm using (based on what I know or what is observable at this time). But then such a system could only be used to evaluate "natural" phenomenon, which is defined by the system itself.

This is all fine until one uses that analytical system to evaluate the existence of God. To say "you can only use natural evidences to prove anything" is equivalent to saying "you can only use this analytical system to evaluate what can be evaluated by this analytical system," and that is circular logic.

[Quasi]

:lol:

... oh, sorry about that. Sometimes you're funny. Perhaps you could explain the difference between me and MWTIGL. We started with the same null hypothesis. We grew up and went down different paths.

And perhaps you missed my post earlier when I talked about my Mormon-church-antagonistic father. Part of that included missing out on a lot of church when I was a kid, and not getting baptized at the normal age of 8.

Yes ... I was <gasp> inactive.

Please don't think I'm trying to back up a Buck post, but......

Mormonism was still the null hypothesis for you as far as religion goes. It was the first one you heard about growing up. Do you deny that you were much, much more likely to end up a Mormon than a kid who didn't have Mormon parents? Like for instance me.

Even though your parents (or just father) weren't ideal Mormons, that was what you heard the most of in your impressional years. Unless you're saying that your ex/bad Mormon dad spoke about other religions and their beliefs just as often as he spoke about Mormonism....and that you went to non-Mormon churches as often as you went to Mormon churches growing up.

In other words, I think that your Mormon family has a lot to do with you ending up Mormon. Of course we'll never know, but you have to admit that the percentage of people with Mormon parents that later end up Mormon is WAY larger than the percentage of people with non-Mormon parents that later end up Mormon.

And that tells you that a person's null hypothesis regarding religion is very important. You started out hearing about Mormonism...sure your dad tried to talk you out of it, but it was still the religion that's going to feel like home since it's the first you really heard about. Your intuition is going to tell you that it's true and it's going to take a mountain of evidence to change your mind. I started out with a non-Mormon family and that was my null hypothesis, until what I see as a mountain of evidence persuaded me that it was nonsense. Maybe I'm easier to persude using analytical evidence than you. Maybe you're more stubborn than me. Everyone is different. Now I'm just rambling. Thanks for your posts I find them very interesting.