What is Your Religion?

[Buck]

And, did your God create bacteria? Why? What is the "covenant" between your God and bacteria?

[actuary_pilot]

I see where your problem is. False premise. The "enjoyment" feeling you get from your "desires" is simply a chemical reaction in your brain. God can easily conjure up that feeling without implanting any need for "desires" or "free will".


I never said that capacity for desire is a need. But God did give us that. He allows us to control our own desires - but gives guidelines on how desires can be misused. Just like the owner manual for something that is manufactured gives guidlines on how not to misuse the thing manufactured.

[actuary_pilot]

And, did your God create bacteria? Why? What is the "covenant" between your God and bacteria?

I do believe God created bacteria - not sure what you are getting at. The Bible doesn't talk about any covenant that God made with bacteria - or plants or animals - but it does talk about covenants that God made with humans.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I never said that capacity for desire is a need. But God did give us that. He allows us to control our own desires - but gives guidelines on how desires can be misused. Just like the owner manual for something that is manufactured gives guidlines on how not to misuse the thing manufactured.

But why did he give us that. He surely knows it will be misused. He could've easily made happy human beings without free will. There's nothing in the realm of relativism that says free will is better or more perfect than no free will.

[actuary_pilot]

But why did he give us that. He surely knows it will be misused. He could've easily made happy human beings without free will. There's nothing in the realm of relativism that says free will is better or more perfect than no free will.

He could have also made us robots that are programmed to do everything we are supposed to. But he wanted intelligent beings made in his image that worshipped him because they wanted to. He was loving to give us desires that make us feel good. For example - he could have made us without color. He could have made all food taste bland. He could have made the earth without beauty. But he designed things for us so that we can enjoy. That is a loving act and his hope was that some of his human creation would return that love.

He did know that desire could be misused. That potential exited. Just like if you give the car keys to your teenage son - you know the potental exists for him to misuse it. But you expect him to use it responsibly. This is actually a reward for the son.

Manufacturers of kitchen knives know that the potential exists for thier misuse - they can be used for murder. But that is not the intended use of the knife - it was intended to be used for eating.

[Baby, ByeBye]

He could have also made us robots that are programmed to do everything we are supposed to. But he wanted intelligent beings made in his image that worshipped him because they wanted to. He was loving to give us desires that make us feel good. For example - he could have made us without color. He could have made all food taste bland. He could have made the earth without beauty. But he designed things for us so that we can enjoy. That is a loving act and his hope was that some of his human creation would return that love.


Robots can be intelligent too. Robots can love and worship too.
And again, you don't need "desires" or "free will" to feel good, that is just brain chemicals and can easily be created by God. None of this indicates that he is a "loving" god. Nor does any of this make him or us any more "perfect" than otherwise. This is all subjective speculation.

[Buck]

One is always free to "believe" anything one wants to.

But, in the Internet age, people also can make judgements on how stupid beliefs are. On this forum, there is long tradition of discussion of religion. This is why there are more people who want to declare themselves as atheists than anything else.

Most "holy books" (along with religions) were created by ancient humans thousands of years ago -- those people are pretty stupid.

[Buck]

I do believe God created bacteria ...

You are Christian? You think Christian God created bacteria?

[Whiskey]

You are Christian? You think Christian God created bacteria?

No, I think this one is a Mormon, but I could be wrong.

[actuary_pilot]

You are Christian? You think Christian God created bacteria?

Sure - why not.

[actuary_pilot]

Robots can be intelligent too. Robots can love and worship too.
And again, you don't need "desires" or "free will" to feel good, that is just brain chemicals and can easily be created by God. None of this indicates that he is a "loving" god. Nor does any of this make him or us any more "perfect" than otherwise. This is all subjective speculation.


I never said that having desires or free will made a person perfect.

[actuary_pilot]

No, I think this one is a Mormon, but I could be wrong.


Nope. Definitely not a momon.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I never said that having desires or free will made a person perfect.

I never said that either. I said you implied that having desire/free will is better than not. Which is a huge presumption.

[TheGillotine]

No - but humans build cities in areas where earthquakes are prevalent. These are hardly acts of God.


Right, so it's the kids fault for standing in the road.


I don't know what the Eddas are.


Norse mythological texts. Just as much reason to believe those as to believe the Hebrew mythological texts. In fact, they have a much more awesome ending. Ragnarok is a much better story than Revelation.




1. He isn't obsessed with ruling over mankind - if he was he wouldn't have turned the control over to humans and Satan to allow them to try to prove thier point. Man is obsessed with ruling over himself. However his name, his reputation , and his right to rule is very important. If you had children, and someone came up and told you children that you were an unjust parent, that you lied , and then tried to corrupt your children, how would you feel? Do you think it would be an important issue?

2. I believe that we are living in the last days. I obviously don't know when Armageddon which is the final war between God and Satan (and wicked men) will be. The Bible says that even Jesus doesn't - only God knows.

3. The laws that God had for the Israelites were good for them. The protected them from diseases. Also Slaves were released after 7 years or the Jubilee year which ever came first. There were laws to protect slaves. In many cases slaves held positions of great trust and honor. It wasn't the same as the slaves in the south in the 1800s.

4. If a person believes in God why is it so hard to believe Satan exists - the Bible depicts him as a real person who talked to God to accuse Job, and who tempted Jesus. It says that he was created as a perfect angel and he made himself Satan by desiring to have the worship that belongs to God.

[/QUOTE]

1) Humans aren't all children. So a better analogy would be: "If you had slaves, wouldn't you want them to worship you? If someone told you they wanted to be free, wouldn't you try to keep them as slaves? Maybe starve them to try to prove a point that they need you as a master? But then you watch as they start to feed themselves...

2) As has been said, Christians have been saying they're living in the last days for the past 2000 years. It really makes you sound insane when you start saying that stuff.

http://unsealedprophecy.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/end-is-near-785574.jpg

3)
13"If any man takes a wife and(A) goes in to her and then hates her 14and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,' 15then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, "I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity." And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.' And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip[a] him, 19and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin[c] of Israel. And she shall be his wife.(B) He may not divorce her all his days. 20But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and(C) the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has(D) done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house.(E) So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Awesome laws you got there. I think we've done better now.

And why don't you know the problem with slavery? Owning someone is not right. And it's not temporary for non-Israelites.
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly

Nope, Levitican law is pretty crappy. Basically like living in Saudi Arabia. And you want to talk about preventing disease? We've done a much better job of that. Turns out waving bird blood around your house doesn't work very well to prevent leprosy.

4) Satan is a very obvious myth. He exhibits all the common tropes of a trickster god, even fooling God in the story of Job (Yes, he fools God into tormenting Job). Plus, no being would be able to act in open rebellion to God without God willing it to do so. So everything Satan does is done with the permission of God. And there wouldn't be any "battle" with Satan. God would just wish him away.

[actuary_pilot]

Right, so it's the kids fault for standing in the road.

4) Satan is a very obvious myth. He exhibits all the common tropes of a trickster god, even fooling God in the story of Job (Yes, he fools God into tormenting Job). Plus, no being would be able to act in open rebellion to God without God willing it to do so. So everything Satan does is done with the permission of God. And there wouldn't be any "battle" with Satan. God would just wish him away.



God didn't torment Job - Satan did. God allowed it. If he didn't allow it then others observing might believe that the charges that Satan made were right. A God of justice had to allow it to prove that the charges Satan made against Job (and God) were false.

Willing something is not the same as allowing something. God did not will it he allowed it (both in the case of the first rebellion in the garden of Eden and in Jobs case).

[TheGillotine]

God didn't torment Job - Satan did. God allowed it. If he didn't allow it then others observing might believe that the charges that Satan made were right. A God of justice had to allow it to prove that the charges Satan made against Job (and God) were false.

Willing something is not the same as allowing something. God did not will it he allowed it (both in the case of the first rebellion in the garden of Eden and in Jobs case).

So, since you're intent on comparing humans to children, let's say a pedophile came up to you and said "I bet your kids wouldn't love you if you let me rape them."

Now, being just, you say "That's not true, go ahead and rape my kids, they'll love me all the same".

Now, maybe I'm crazy, but it sounds like in that story, the pedophile got what he wanted, the kids got screwed, and you're a fool.

Reread Job. Satan comes out ahead in that story. And Yahweh takes full responsibility in his ending diatribe.

[actuary_pilot]

Robots can be intelligent too. Robots can love and worship too.
And again, you don't need "desires" or "free will" to ... Nor does any of this make him or us any more "perfect" than otherwise. This is all subjective speculation.

I was replying to this that I don't believe that free will and desires are equated to perfection.

[Buck]

I was replying to this that I don't believe that free will and desires are equated to perfection.

You may want to tell others again that you think Christian God created bacteria.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I was replying to this that I don't believe that free will and desires are equated to perfection.

There's no equating in that quote. I said more perfect, as in, closer to perfect. As in. Having free will is better than no free will, having desire is better than no desire. You haven't justified these statements.

[Mel-o-rama]

Now, you say that if you wish you could find a parking space faster, and God did grant you a parking space right then a now, that somehow doesn't mess with "free will". Well of course it does. How does God give you a free parking space out of nowhere? Either that space was already there, or He had to make it appear. But he can't just make a car disappear, that would be "too obvious". He had to rush someone into the car and hush him to leave. Oh wait, he had to force someone to leave. That's messing with free will. But let's not even talk about that person, let's just focus on you. Say, you got the parking space faster, you got your groceries done earlier, and you went to pick up your kids earlier, but this got you into an accident. Or say, you actually got to the school earlier and you actually had to wait for your kids to get out of school, and that made you impatient and eventually led to you arguing with your kids. Yadi yada. Whatever the case is, this "universe" is no longer the same as when if God did not intervene. Determinism has been altered.

Thanks for your well-written post. I need to absorb it and gather my thoughts, but one thing comes immediately to mind (and I'll come back with more later).

If my parking lot experience really was God helping me out, then it wasn't really the case that the other guy was rushed or forced to get in his car. Rather, it was me saying, "Hey God, can you help me out?" and I got that impression to go down aisle C-3, even though it was jam-packed with cars and I couldn't see anyone walking to their car. I followed that impression and that's why I found the parking spot.

Looking from God's POV (again, this is all assuming it really was a miracle and God was communicating with me), when he heard me say, "Can you help me out?" he looked down and saw this guy headed toward his car. He said, "Hey Mel, go down this way, and you'll figure it out."

This isn't much different than me calling my wife at home to help direct me around an accident on the road. My wife goes to the computer, looks at where the accident is, and tells me how to get around it.

In either case, I don't believe free will was hindered.

I'll come back for more in a little while ...

[The Borg]

Read the Eddas. Do you believe everything that happened there? Mythological text =/= historical text.

You asked about me about the curse stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, and I informed you that it is spelled out plain as day in the OT along with the historical accounts of Israel's experiences of the curses being enacted upon them. Your response: Eddas? You mind as well have cited 'The Little Engine that Could'.

[TheGillotine]

You asked about me about the curse stipulations of the Mosaic covenant, and I informed you that it is spelled out plain as day in the OT along with the historical accounts of Israel's experiences of the curses being enacted upon them. Your response: Eddas? You mind as well have cited 'The Little Engine that Could'.

Curses don't exist. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons. This is real life.

And yes, the OT is a mythological text. I don't consider any of the magic spells described in that book to be real.

[The Borg]

And, did your God create bacteria? Why? What is the "covenant" between your God and bacteria?

Buckteria is spelled out plain as day in the curse stipulations, and continues to wreak havoc upon mankind today.

[actuary_pilot]

I never said that either. I said you implied that having desire/free will is better than not. Which is a huge presumption.

What I was saying is God would prefer to have humans worship him and demonstrate their love for him because they wanted to - not because they were programmed to.

Is that better? I don't know what you mean by better. But, I don't want to force my friends to be my friends, I don't want my children to love me because I programmed them to love me. I would prefer that my childrens love for me is reciprocated from my love to them.

[actuary_pilot]

, and you're a fool.

.

Since your argument has deteriorated into name calling i guess we don't need to discuss it any longer.

Have a nice day.

[actuary_pilot]

You may want to tell others again that you think Christian God created bacteria.

Why do you believe that that is a bad thing? Do other christians not believe this?

[The Borg]

Curses don't exist. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons. This is real life.

And yes, the OT is a mythological text. I don't consider any of the magic spells described in that book to be real.

Since your argument has deteriorated into citing D&D, I don't know that's much more to discuss.

[V1per41]

What I was saying is God would prefer to have humans worship him and demonstrate their love for him because they wanted to - not because they were programmed to.

Is that better? I don't know what you mean by better. But, I don't want to force my friends to be my friends, I don't want my children to love me because I programmed them to love me. I would prefer that my childrens love for me is reciprocated from my love to them.

False analogy since Yahweh could in no way in my opinion be considered loving, but let's for the sake of argument say that he is.

I agree that I would rather people like me for me, and not because I forced them to. However, would you consider it morally correct to torture your children/friends for eternity because they didn't love you back? Or do you think it would be ok to torture someone for all eternity because they didn't love you when they didn't even know you existed?

[Klaymen]

You may want to tell others again that you think Christian God created bacteria.
:lolup:

[actuary_pilot]

False analogy since Yahweh could in no way in my opinion be considered loving, but let's for the sake of argument say that he is.

Would you consider it morally correct to torture your children/friends for eternity because they didn't love you back? Or do you think it would be ok to torture someone for all eternity because they didn't love you when they didn't even know you existed?

I don't agree that he does. I don't believe in the hell fire doctorine and I do not believe the Bible teaches this. And to answer your question no i don't beleive that is moral.

For the same reason that if I had a dog that bit people it would not be moral for me to hang him by his toenails under a tree and build a fire under him and keep him alive just to torture him.

[Klaymen]

However, would you consider it morally correct to torture your children/friends for eternity because they didn't love you back? Or do you think it would be ok to torture someone for all eternity because they didn't love you when they didn't even know you existed?

This is lame because the element of being God is missing from your argument. He is not just some guy bound by human morals.

[Mel-o-rama]

Another thing I wanted to bring up about the starving children. This is more along the intuitive arguments (with a hint of a Pascal's Wager variant)...

I must admit that I want to believe God exists, because if he does, the starving children get something. They may have to wait until the next life to get "compensation." Or God may find some way to comfort them today while they're experiencing the hunger. Either way, if God exists, then I know that he's got them covered.

If God doesn't exist, then the starving children are just out of luck. They get nothing. There is no better life for them after death. It's all survival of the fittest, and they got the raw end of the stick. There are no souls, and some people really are better than others. Life is unfair, etc., etc.

I admit that I don't want to believe that. I would rather hope that there is a God. And that's where the faith comes from (hope in things that can't be seen/known). As much as it feels "off" to some atheists that a loving God would allow suffering, it feels just as "off" to me that a world of suffering doesn't have a God that we can turn to.

I just offer this up, realizing it doesn't prove anything (except perhaps to point out that the existence of suffering doesn't logically imply the non-existence of God), but it still seems to be a good talking point on the intuitive side.

[Baby, ByeBye]

This is lame because the element of being God is missing from your argument. He is not just some guy bound by human morals.

then saying God is loving is a pretty vacuous statement. For all we know, his definition of loving could be eternal torture, but us humans are too dumb to understand his morality

[V1per41]

I don't agree that he does. I don't believe in the hell fire doctorine and I do not believe the Bible teaches this. And to answer your question no i don't beleive that is moral.

For the same reason that if I had a dog that bit people it would not be moral for me to hang him by his toenails under a tree and build a fire under him and keep him alive just to torture him.

Revelation 20:10-15:

And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gaveup the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I'm sure you'll read it with some other meaning, but there are several passages making it clear that hell is a real place.

I also don't buy they "God lives by different moral standards, who are we to judge him?"
Torturing innocent people is never ok. If you think that in some alternate universe, or wherever you think your god resides, that it's somehow ok, then you are seriously misguided, and have a twisted view of morality.

[Anthemyst]

then saying God is loving is a pretty vacuous statement. For all we know, his definition of loving could be eternal torture, but us humans are too dumb to understand his morality

It also makes "morality" a pretty vacuous concept.

[actuary_pilot]

Revelation 20:10-15:


I'm sure you'll read it with some other meaning, but there are several passages making it clear that hell is a real place.

I also don't buy they "God lives by different moral standards, who are we to judge him?"
Torturing innocent people is never ok. If you think that in some alternate universe, or wherever you think your god resides, that it's somehow ok, then you are seriously misguided, and have a twisted view of morality.



But Hell (or Hades) is not the lake of fire...

Vs. 14 from the King James Version...

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

The lake of fire is identified as the "second death". Death is the opposite of life.

At Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10...

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

The condition of the dead is that they have no knowledge nor device - no feelings. They are dead - and if they are thrown into the "lake of fire" they cant feel it since the are not conscious.

[Anthemyst]

Another thing I wanted to bring up about the starving children. This is more along the intuitive arguments (with a hint of a Pascal's Wager variant)...

I must admit that I want to believe God exists, because if he does, the starving children get something. They may have to wait until the next life to get "compensation." Or God may find some way to comfort them today while they're experiencing the hunger. Either way, if God exists, then I know that he's got them covered.

If God doesn't exist, then the starving children are just out of luck. They get nothing. There is no better life for them after death. It's all survival of the fittest, and they got the raw end of the stick. There are no souls, and some people really are better than others. Life is unfair, etc., etc.

I admit that I don't want to believe that. I would rather hope that there is a God. And that's where the faith comes from (hope in things that can't be seen/known). As much as it feels "off" to some atheists that a loving God would allow suffering, it feels just as "off" to me that a world of suffering doesn't have a God that we can turn to.

I just offer this up, realizing it doesn't prove anything (except perhaps to point out that the existence of suffering doesn't logically imply the non-existence of God), but it still seems to be a good talking point on the intuitive side.

This is a big part of why I ultimately concluded that the "faith" or "intuition" or "just knowing" that I felt so strongly about God was actually wishing. Certainly a world with a loving, powerful God is better than one without a loving, powerful God. But believing the world to be better doesn't make it so, and historically the promise of rewards after death has been a powerful tool to keep the poor and oppressed content with their meager lot in life. It encourages complacency, it is the enemy of progress.

[actuary_pilot]

Revelation 20:10-15:


I'm sure you'll read it with some other meaning, but there are several passages making it clear that hell is a real place.

I also don't buy they "God lives by different moral standards, who are we to judge him?"
Torturing innocent people is never ok. If you think that in some alternate universe, or wherever you think your god resides, that it's somehow ok, then you are seriously misguided, and have a twisted view of morality.

By the way I didn't say that God lives by different moral standards- that was someone else. I agree that torturing innocent people is never ok.

[actuary_pilot]

But Hell (or Hades) is not the lake of fire...

Vs. 14 from the King James Version...

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

The lake of fire is identified as the "second death". Death is the opposite of life.

At Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10...

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

The condition of the dead is that they have no knowledge nor device - no feelings. They are dead - and if they are thrown into the "lake of fire" they cant feel it since the are not conscious.

And when something is thrown into a fire it ceases to exist - you can't get it back.

[TheGillotine]

Since your argument has deteriorated into name calling i guess we don't need to discuss it any longer.

Have a nice day.

Don't quote-mine me. "You" in my post was referring to God (analogized). Unless you actually do give people permission to rape your children. Address the point.


Another thing I wanted to bring up about the starving children. This is more along the intuitive arguments (with a hint of a Pascal's Wager variant)...

I must admit that I want to believe God exists, because if he does, the starving children get something. They may have to wait until the next life to get "compensation." Or God may find some way to comfort them today while they're experiencing the hunger. Either way, if God exists, then I know that he's got them covered.

If God doesn't exist, then the starving children are just out of luck. They get nothing. There is no better life for them after death. It's all survival of the fittest, and they got the raw end of the stick. There are no souls, and some people really are better than others. Life is unfair, etc., etc.

I admit that I don't want to believe that. I would rather hope that there is a God. And that's where the faith comes from (hope in things that can't be seen/known). As much as it feels "off" to some atheists that a loving God would allow suffering, it feels just as "off" to me that a world of suffering doesn't have a God that we can turn to.

I just offer this up, realizing it doesn't prove anything (except perhaps to point out that the existence of suffering doesn't logically imply the non-existence of God), but it still seems to be a good talking point on the intuitive side.

But in a world with no God making things better for these children, doesn't that encourage people to help them in this life?

[actuary_pilot]

Don't quote-mine me. "You" in my post was referring to God (analogized). Unless you actually do give people permission to rape your children. Address the point.




But in a world with no God making things better for these children, doesn't that encourage people to help them in this life?

Sorry the way you said it i misinterpreted. To answer your question - I am not God and I do not have the ability to fix it once the act is done. So I would not give people the permission to rape my children.

I do believe that God has allowed wickedness for a period of time. He does have the ability to undo all of the injustice that was done to each individual. After wickedness is removed from the earth at Armageddon - I believe he will resurrect dead people and give them a fresh start - and all of the children who were raped (by wicked people) will have a chance at a renewed life in a paradise on the earth.

As for punishment for the wicked people who did rape children and do other bad things - I believe that God will destroy them - where they will be dead - just as we would put a rabid dog to sleep - so that they will not be able to harm others.

[V1per41]

By the way I didn't say that God lives by different moral standards- that was someone else. I agree that torturing innocent people is never ok.

Sorry, probably should have made my post more clear, I didn't intend to insinuate that you had actually made that claim.

[Mel-o-rama]

This is a big part of why I ultimately concluded that the "faith" or "intuition" or "just knowing" that I felt so strongly about God was actually wishing. Certainly a world with a loving, powerful God is better than one without a loving, powerful God. But believing the world to be better doesn't make it so, and historically the promise of rewards after death has been a powerful tool to keep the poor and oppressed content with their meager lot in life. It encourages complacency, it is the enemy of progress.

I understand the first part you wrote. However, I slightly disagree with the "opiate of the masses" argument. The problem here is that historically, governments have used religion as a tool to suppress the masses. But I see this as a problem with governments and not with religion itself, while a lot of atheists will say: "Look at the Spanish Inquisition" or "Look at what happened when religion ruled during the Dark Ages."

In the case of the starving children, I believe that faith in God actually increases the chances of someone doing something about it. Who is it that you usually see out there trying to feed the hungry and asking for your funds to help? Isn't it all the churches?

[actuary_pilot]

Sorry, probably should have made my post more clear, I didn't intend to insinuate that you had actually made that claim.

no problem - a lot of people are saying a lot of things and it is hard to keep up with everyone.

[V1per41]

Sorry the way you said it i misinterpreted. To answer your question - I am not God and I do not have the ability to fix it once the act is done. So I would not give people the permission to rape my children.

I do believe that God has allowed wickedness for a period of time. He does have the ability to undo all of the injustice that was done to each individual. After wickedness is removed from the earth at Armageddon - I believe he will resurrect dead people and give them a fresh start - and all of the children who were raped (by wicked people) will have a chance at a renewed life in a paradise on the earth.

As for punishment for the wicked people who did rape children and do other bad things - I believe that God will destroy them - where they will be dead - just as we would put a rabid dog to sleep - so that they will not be able to harm others.

Is this the first or the second death? If Yahweh exists then he seems to be pretty comfortable with letting these kinds of people live normal lengthed lives here on Earth.

[The Borg]

But Hell (or Hades) is not the lake of fire...

Vs. 14 from the King James Version...

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

The lake of fire is identified as the "second death". Death is the opposite of life.

There are several meanings that the English word hell can be used for, and the meanings have varied since KJV. So, I don't think that the distinction you're making is a good starting point for the annilihation argument.

At Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10...

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest."

The condition of the dead is that they have no knowledge nor device - no feelings. They are dead - and if they are thrown into the "lake of fire" they cant feel it since the are not conscious.

Ecclesiastes is referring to physical life on earth ('under the sun'), so it doesn't provide support with regards to the annilihation argument. There are better passages to choose from for annilihation.

[V1per41]

I understand the first part you wrote. However, I slightly disagree with the "opiate of the masses" argument. The problem here is that historically, governments have used religion as a tool to suppress the masses. But I see this as a problem with governments and not with religion itself, while a lot of atheists will say: "Look at the Spanish Inquisition" or "Look at what happened when religion ruled during the Dark Ages."

In the case of the starving children, I believe that faith in God actually increases the chances of someone doing something about it. Who is it that you usually see out there trying to feed the hungry and asking for your funds to help? Isn't it all the churches?

The Red Cross. I know that it has been shown in studies that religious people give more to charity then non-religious. I have some doubts about the accuracy of such studies (I don't really count tithing as giving to charity), but I digress...
No one here (at least I didn't see it), is claiming that religious people aren't capable of doing good things. What the 'Spanish Inquisition' argument is meant to point out, is that, thanks to religion, you can get large amounts of otherwise good people to do very bad things. Rationality and critical thinking doesn't result in mass murder. -- and please don't anyone embarrass yourselves by bringing up state/character-worshiping regemes.

[Anthemyst]

I understand the first part you wrote. However, I slightly disagree with the "opiate of the masses" argument. The problem here is that historically, governments have used religion as a tool to suppress the masses. But I see this as a problem with governments and not religion itself, while a lot of atheists will say: "Look at the Spanish Inquisition" or "Look at what happened when religion ruled during the Dark Ages."

In the case of the starving children, I believe that faith in God actually increases the chances of someone doing something about it. Who is it that you usually see out there trying to feed the hungry and asking for your funds to help? Isn't it all the churches?

Mostly Catholics ;)

But, yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that overall religion makes people stop caring about the less fortunate. Obviously there are other parts of religion which do a great job of encouraging charity (Lovest thou me, feed my sheep, etc). I was really speaking to the very specific attitude of, "I can't stand the thought of suffering children, so I choose to believe that God exists and he will comfort them in the next life". I don't think it cancels out the drive to do good, but it does rub me the wrong way. And I agree that its history is due to the greed of man, not with religion inherently. But it is hard to ignore how easily one can be abused and twisted for selfish purposes by the other.

[Mel-o-rama]

Mostly Catholics ;)

But, yeah, I didn't mean to suggest that overall religion makes people stop caring about the less fortunate. Obviously there are other parts of religion which do a great job of encouraging charity (Lovest thou me, feed my sheep, etc). I was really speaking to the very specific attitude of, "I can't stand the thought of suffering children, so I choose to believe that God exists and he will comfort them in the next life". I don't think it cancels out the drive to do good, but it does rub me the wrong way. And I agree that its history is due to the greed of man, not with religion inherently. But it is hard to ignore how easily one can be abused and twisted for selfish purposes by the other.

Okay - that makes more sense. I guess what I wrote does come off sounding like that.

Let me think some more on that. I still owe more stuff on Bye Bye's and MWTIGL's comments on miracles vs. free will...

[actuary_pilot]

Is this the first or the second death? If Yahweh exists then he seems to be pretty comfortable with letting these kinds of people live normal lengthed lives here on Earth.

I do believe that the lake of fire and Hades - which many translations of the Bible referrs to as Hell exist at the same time. The condition of the dead is the same in both places - dead and not alive. The second death I believe is a death from which there is no resurrection - which is final.

Some people who are wicked individuals who are not reformable - go straight into the lake of fire - the second death - again - not alive not being tortured - just dead. Non existance.


Other people who have died have gone into hades - people who were generally good people and people who were bad but reformable. The dead coming out of Hades occurs during the 1000 years in revelation 20 (first few verses). During this time everyone has a fresh start. All of the issues raised in the Garden of Eden have been answered - and during this time people are educated exactly in the way that God wants to be worshipped.

Hades is thrown into the lake of fire because there will not be a need for a resurrection like there is now.

[Mel-o-rama]

On religion vs. charity, here's an interesting article that at least sounds like it knows what it's talking about and at first glance doesn't appear to be biased.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

I haven't read the whole thing, but it does point out that the religious contribute more time/money than the non-religious even on "non-religious" causes (that is, not tithing and similar stuff).

[TheGillotine]

Sorry the way you said it i misinterpreted. To answer your question - I am not God and I do not have the ability to fix it once the act is done. So I would not give people the permission to rape my children.

I do believe that God has allowed wickedness for a period of time. He does have the ability to undo all of the injustice that was done to each individual. After wickedness is removed from the earth at Armageddon - I believe he will resurrect dead people and give them a fresh start - and all of the children who were raped (by wicked people) will have a chance at a renewed life in a paradise on the earth.

As for punishment for the wicked people who did rape children and do other bad things - I believe that God will destroy them - where they will be dead - just as we would put a rabid dog to sleep - so that they will not be able to harm others.

How exactly is God fixing these things? In Job, he gives Job new wives, children, etc. But it doesn't seem to me that killing someone's children and replacing them with new children makes everything even.


And I want to go back to the logistics of miracles. Mel getting a feeling that he should turn left is very subtle, and I can understand how in a dualistic world that might work. But healing sick people, saving children from burning buildings, etc. are questions of material systems. How is God injecting someone with white blood cells? What force is God applying to protect someone?

I have my own ideas about how God interacts with the world, but I'm thinking of a very different God than you guys are.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Another thing I wanted to bring up about the starving children. This is more along the intuitive arguments (with a hint of a Pascal's Wager variant)...

I must admit that I want to believe God exists, because if he does, the starving children get something. They may have to wait until the next life to get "compensation." Or God may find some way to comfort them today while they're experiencing the hunger. Either way, if God exists, then I know that he's got them covered.

If God doesn't exist, then the starving children are just out of luck. They get nothing. There is no better life for them after death. It's all survival of the fittest, and they got the raw end of the stick. There are no souls, and some people really are better than others. Life is unfair, etc., etc.

I admit that I don't want to believe that. I would rather hope that there is a God. And that's where the faith comes from (hope in things that can't be seen/known). As much as it feels "off" to some atheists that a loving God would allow suffering, it feels just as "off" to me that a world of suffering doesn't have a God that we can turn to.

I just offer this up, realizing it doesn't prove anything (except perhaps to point out that the existence of suffering doesn't logically imply the non-existence of God), but it still seems to be a good talking point on the intuitive side.

This whole conversation got started because you believe that theists do quite a bit of analytical thinking to come up with their beliefs. When you say something that is basically "I want to believe in God...So I do!", it kindof supports the atheist belief that theists don't think analytically about God.

[V1per41]

On religion vs. charity, here's an interesting article that at least sounds like it knows what it's talking about and at first glance doesn't appear to be biased.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577

I haven't read the whole thing, but it does point out that the religious contribute more time/money than the non-religious even on "non-religious" causes (that is, not tithing and similar stuff).

Skimmed it, but definitely an interesting read. Not surprised to see the gap narrow when the compared purely secular charities. A little surprised it wasn't more.

[V1per41]

This whole conversation got started because you believe that theists do quite a bit of analytical thinking to come up with their beliefs. When you say something that is basically "I want to believe in God...So I do!", it kindof supports the atheist belief that theists don't think analytically about God.

Studies have shown that nearly all religious people say that they hold their particular religious beliefs because they they analyzed the data and have logically concluded that they have made the correct choice. They also believe that the reason most people are religious is because of things like "They were born into it", or "it just feels good"

So most people think that other people believe without critically thinking about their position. It doesn't matter whether you are religious or not.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I can imagine that most theists probably think that atheists just haven't looked at all the evidence, or haven't thought about it enough, because if they did, they would "see the glory of God". It's kind of the same thing on both sides. -- Obviously if you just had an open mind, and looked at all the evidence you would believe just like me -- Otherwise, why would they believe it?

[Anthemyst]

How exactly is God fixing these things? In Job, he gives Job new wives, children, etc. But it doesn't seem to me that killing someone's children and replacing them with new children makes everything even.


And I want to go back to the logistics of miracles. Mel getting a feeling that he should turn left is very subtle, and I can understand how in a dualistic world that might work. But healing sick people, saving children from burning buildings, etc. are questions of material systems. How is God injecting someone with white blood cells? What force is God applying to protect someone?

I have my own ideas about how God interacts with the world, but I'm thinking of a very different God than you guys are.

Do you (for this month, at least) believe God is limited in what kinds of miracles He can perform? With only power over thoughts or ideas, but not over physical reality (pretending for a minute that thoughts and ideas are somehow not products of physical reality)?

To be honest, I could get behind that God. I mean, I don't believe that God exists any more than I believe an all-powerful one does, but if He appeared to me and somehow convinced me I wasn't hallucinating and was like, "Hey, I need your help to make the world a better place! Do these things while I work on making people think nicer things!" I'd totally be on board.

[TheGillotine]

Do you (for this month, at least) believe God is limited in what kinds of miracles He can perform? With only power over thoughts or ideas, but not over physical reality (pretending for a minute that thoughts and ideas are somehow not products of physical reality)?

To be honest, I could get behind that God. I mean, I don't believe that God exists any more than I believe an all-powerful one does, but if He appeared to me and somehow convinced me I wasn't hallucinating and was like, "Hey, I need your help to make the world a better place! Do these things while I work on making people think nicer things!" I'd totally be on board.

No, I believe that God can change the world in whatever way She wants to. However, I don't face the same problem that Christians have because I don't think She's particularly interested in reducing suffering. She doesn't need to interact with the world, and probably doesn't want to because that would ruin the point. Although, if She did change something, I doubt you'd be able to tell.

[actuary_pilot]

How exactly is God fixing these things? In Job, he gives Job new wives, children, etc. But it doesn't seem to me that killing someone's children and replacing them with new children makes everything even.


And I want to go back to the logistics of miracles. Mel getting a feeling that he should turn left is very subtle, and I can understand how in a dualistic world that might work. But healing sick people, saving children from burning buildings, etc. are questions of material systems. How is God injecting someone with white blood cells? What force is God applying to protect someone?

I have my own ideas about how God interacts with the world, but I'm thinking of a very different God than you guys are.

Job will be resurrected along with all of his children.

God didn't kill Jobs children - but he allowed it to happen. There is a difference.

I don't believe that God is solving the problems you mention now. I believe that after Armageddon that he will solve the problems.

[Mel-o-rama]

Studies have shown that nearly all religious people say that they hold their particular religious beliefs because they they analyzed the data and have logically concluded that they have made the correct choice. They also believe that the reason most people are religious is because of things like "They were born into it", or "it just feels good"

So most people think that other people believe without critically thinking about their position. It doesn't matter whether you are religious or not.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I can imagine that most theists probably think that atheists just haven't looked at all the evidence, or haven't thought about it enough, because if they did, they would "see the glory of God". It's kind of the same thing on both sides. -- Obviously if you just had an open mind, and looked at all the evidence you would believe just like me -- Otherwise, why would they believe it?

Hey! I agree with this one! :)

[TheGillotine]

Job will be resurrected along with all of his children.

God didn't kill Jobs children - but he allowed it to happen. There is a difference.

I don't believe that God is solving the problems you mention now. I believe that after Armageddon that he will solve the problems.

The Book of Job makes it clear that God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens to Job.

Then came there unto him all his brethren, and all his sisters, and all they that had been of his acquaintance before, and did eat bread with him in his house: and they bemoaned him, and comforted him over all the evil that the LORD had brought upon him.

[Anthemyst]

Studies have shown that nearly all religious people say that they hold their particular religious beliefs because they they analyzed the data and have logically concluded that they have made the correct choice. They also believe that the reason most people are religious is because of things like "They were born into it", or "it just feels good"

So most people think that other people believe without critically thinking about their position. It doesn't matter whether you are religious or not.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I can imagine that most theists probably think that atheists just haven't looked at all the evidence, or haven't thought about it enough, because if they did, they would "see the glory of God". It's kind of the same thing on both sides. -- Obviously if you just had an open mind, and looked at all the evidence you would believe just like me -- Otherwise, why would they believe it?

Studies have shown this in general too, not just for religious belief. As a rule, people believe themselves to be above average on rationality, and others to be more guided by their emotions or personal biases.

Anyway, I am mostly satisfied that we've found the difference between how Mel and I approached the problem, which is all I was really interested in. Though we might have similar approaches, I think ultimately I believe the role of "intuitive reasoning" is far smaller than Mel does. This accounts for the different conclusions we have reached. We both agree that intuitive vs analytical reasoning is a false dichotomy and both have a vital role in thinking and must be used together, but I think intuitive thinking should mostly be limited to either moral reasoning, where empathy must take a big role, or in situations where one must make a snap judgement and doesn't have time for analytical thinking. Other than that, its role is to be the start of something, to be the spark that drives us to analytical thinking.

[Mel-o-rama]

How exactly is God fixing these things? In Job, he gives Job new wives, children, etc. But it doesn't seem to me that killing someone's children and replacing them with new children makes everything even.


And I want to go back to the logistics of miracles. Mel getting a feeling that he should turn left is very subtle, and I can understand how in a dualistic world that might work. But healing sick people, saving children from burning buildings, etc. are questions of material systems. How is God injecting someone with white blood cells? What force is God applying to protect someone?

I have my own ideas about how God interacts with the world, but I'm thinking of a very different God than you guys are.
Thanks for reminding me about these questions. And let me provide one possible answer.

Mormon doctrine seems to point toward every speck of matter having material and spiritual components. I think other religions believe something similar. If this is true, then God can simply command the white blood cells to move over there, and then the spiritual component resonates and causes the cells to move.

This is what I, personally, believe happens.

[TheGillotine]

Thanks for reminding me about these questions. And let me provide one possible answer.

Mormon doctrine seems to point toward every speck of matter having material and spiritual components. I think other religions believe something similar. If this is true, then God can simply command the white blood cells to move over there, and then the spiritual component resonates and causes the cells to move.

This is what I, personally, believe happens.

Well, that actually makes some sense.

Except what's a "spiritual component"?

[Mel-o-rama]

Well, that actually makes some sense.

Except what's a "spiritual component"?
I don't have a good answer, there, except perhaps to say it's the part of matter that's "intelligent" or able to respond to spiritual stimuli. Joseph Smith's words on the spirit in D&C 131:7 seem to relate:

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;"

[actuary_pilot]

The Book of Job makes it clear that God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens to Job.

I guess that is part of the problem with the King James Version which is written in Old English.

Here is the NWT...

"And there kept coming to him all his brothers and all his sisters and all those formerly knowing him, and they began to eat bread with him in his house and to sympathize with him and to comfort him over all the calamity that Jehovah had let come upon him; and they proceeded each one to give him a piece of money and each one a gold ring. "


So God isn't responsible - Satan brought the calamity - God allowed it.

[Mel-o-rama]

This whole conversation got started because you believe that theists do quite a bit of analytical thinking to come up with their beliefs. When you say something that is basically "I want to believe in God...So I do!", it kindof supports the atheist belief that theists don't think analytically about God.

I must admit that I'm a little at a loss, because I would expect you, of all these people, to understand me the most. Since you were in the church for 30 years, aren't you already familiar with how much most Mormons believe that they are critically analyzing their own belief systems? I mean, it's a major doctrine: think it out in your head before praying. If you come to a wrong conclusion, you will be answered with confusion. If, however you come to the right conclusion, you get the "burning bosom." Didn't you go through all this and experience the "burning bosom" and get up and "bear your testimony" and all that other Mormon stuff?

And then again, of all these people, you may be the most likely (along with Whiskey) to convince me of the scam of Mormonism. I'd really like to hear your take on the "burning bosom" and how you changed your null hypothesis. But when you say that we don't use analytical thinking, I just get confused because I'd expect you to already realize that we really do.

Going back to the skull-in-the-picture analogy (where I see the skull and gosuruss doesn't) ... I know that I see the skull (that is, I've worked out this consistent personal belief system that's highly consistent with Mormon doctrine). It doesn't matter if gosuruss sees the skull or not. It doesn't even matter that gosuruss thinks I don't see it and that I'm making it up. Either way, it doesn't change what I know, myself. I see the skull and it's as clear as day. (Well, actually, I see something there, but it's still hard to make out on a computer screen -- we can pretend I can see it. :))

It just surprises me that if someone demonstrates the ability to use critical thinking (passing actuarial exams, identifying innumeracies in the news, winning at chess, writing code, speaking intelligent, etc.), why one would expect that person to turn off that critical thinking when it comes to religion? I had one friend who thought I was the smartest person in the world until he realized I was a Mormon and a Republican, and then suddenly I wasn't so smart. I mean, for reals?

But setting aside the critical thinking thing, I value your input and I really am listening to you.

[Anthemyst]

Mel, when you say Mormonism has this doctrine, is it a requirement to examine analytically whether God exists or not? Because there seems to be some confusion in this discussion, and I think it might be over the distinction between "I critically analyze every single thing I believe" and "I take it as a given that God exists and I use the critcial thinking skills He gave me to figure out what it is He wants from me". Both are critical thinking, and atheists do theists a disservice by saying, "Oh, well, they assume God exists therefore they never think about anything they believe." I was fairly religious for most of my life, and I know for a fact one does not follow from the other.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I must admit that I'm a little at a loss, because I would expect you, of all these people, to understand me the most. Since you were in the church for 30 years, aren't you already familiar with how much most Mormons believe that they are critically analyzing their own belief systems? I mean, it's a major doctrine: think it out in your head before praying. If you come to a wrong conclusion, you will be answered with confusion. If, however you come to the right conclusion, you get the "burning bosom." Didn't you go through all this and experience the "burning bosom" and get up and "bear your testimony" and all that other Mormon stuff?

And then again, of all these people, you may be the most likely (along with Whiskey) to convince me of the scam of Mormonism. I'd really like to hear your take on the "burning bosom" and how you changed your null hypothesis. But when you say that we don't use analytical thinking, I just get confused because I'd expect you to already realize that we really do.

Going back to the skull-in-the-picture analogy (where I see the skull and gosuruss doesn't) ... I know that I see the skull (that is, I've worked out this consistent personal belief system that's highly consistent with Mormon doctrine). It doesn't matter if gosuruss sees the skull or not. It doesn't even matter that gosuruss thinks I don't see it and that I'm making it up. Either way, it doesn't change what I know, myself. I see the skull and it's as clear as day. (Well, actually, I see something there, but it's still hard to make out on a computer screen -- we can pretend I can see it. :))

It just surprises me that if someone demonstrates the ability to use critical thinking (passing actuarial exams, identifying innumeracies in the news, winning at chess, writing code, speaking intelligent, etc.), why one would expect that person to turn off that critical thinking when it comes to religion? I had one friend who thought I was the smartest person in the world until he realized I was a Mormon and a Republican, and then suddenly I wasn't so smart. I mean, for reals?

But setting aside the critical thinking thing, I value your input and I really am listening to you.

Haven't you read about Kurt Wise? It is bewildering, but people like him do exist. Harvard geology professor who is a young earth creationist.

[TheGillotine]

I guess that is part of the problem with the King James Version which is written in Old English.

Here is the NWT...

"And there kept coming to him all his brothers and all his sisters and all those formerly knowing him, and they began to eat bread with him in his house and to sympathize with him and to comfort him over all the calamity that Jehovah had let come upon him; and they proceeded each one to give him a piece of money and each one a gold ring. "


So God isn't responsible - Satan brought the calamity - God allowed it.

Again... the pedophile and your kids. Are you not responsible if you give a pedophile permission to rape your kids?

And looking at bible.cc (http://bible.cc/job/42-11.htm), every translation has "The evil/trouble that God/Jehovah brought upon him". The original Hebrew seems to support this.

[Mel-o-rama]

Mel, when you say Mormonism has this doctrine, is it a requirement to examine analytically whether God exists or not? Because there seems to be some confusion in this discussion, and I think it might be over the distinction between "I critically analyze every single thing I believe" and "I take it as a given that God exists and I use the critcial thinking skills He gave me to figure out what it is He wants from me". Both are critical thinking, and atheists do theists a disservice by saying, "Oh, well, they assume God exists therefore they never think about anything they believe." I was fairly religious for most of my life, and I know for a fact one does not follow from the other.

Yeah - the gist is to question Everything, even the existence of God.

[Mel-o-rama]

Haven't you read about Kurt Wise? It is bewildering, but people like him do exist. Harvard geology professor who is a young earth creationist.

Great! Now I'm going to have to check out this guy. Never heard of him before.

[ORLYLOL]

I guess that is part of the problem with the King James Version which is written in Old English.

Here is the NWT...

"And there kept coming to him all his brothers and all his sisters and all those formerly knowing him, and they began to eat bread with him in his house and to sympathize with him and to comfort him over all the calamity that Jehovah had let come upon him; and they proceeded each one to give him a piece of money and each one a gold ring. "


So God isn't responsible - Satan brought the calamity - God allowed it.

Book of Job:

http://acaciaultd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/the_dukes1.jpg

[Baby, ByeBye]

Great! Now I'm going to have to check out this guy. Never heard of him before.

Just read his wiki info , he made a notorious quote

[Anthemyst]

Yeah - the gist is to question Everything, even the existence of God.

Neat! I don't actually know a whole lot about Mormonism. My (probably very limited) experience with Catholocism is that they kind of frown on the whole "figuring it out for yourself" thing. But I did it anyway, because my intuition told me it was a good idea, and now look at me ;)

[Uncle Ted]

Neat! I don't actually know a whole lot about Mormonism. My (probably very limited) experience with Catholocism is that they kind of frown on the whole "figuring it out for yourself" thing. But I did it anyway, because my intuition told me it was a good idea, and now look at me ;)They don't frown on you figuring it out yourself, they frown on you reading a couple chapters of the Bible and assuming your theology is stronger than the theology of some of the most brilliant men of the past 2000 years who dedicated their lives to studying theology. Read, learn, understand, but give the benefit of the doubt, or at least allow a rebuttal when you come across something that you think smells fishy.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I must admit that I'm a little at a loss, because I would expect you, of all these people, to understand me the most. Since you were in the church for 30 years, aren't you already familiar with how much most Mormons believe that they are critically analyzing their own belief systems? I mean, it's a major doctrine: think it out in your head before praying. If you come to a wrong conclusion, you will be answered with confusion. If, however you come to the right conclusion, you get the "burning bosom." Didn't you go through all this and experience the "burning bosom" and get up and "bear your testimony" and all that other Mormon stuff?

And then again, of all these people, you may be the most likely (along with Whiskey) to convince me of the scam of Mormonism. I'd really like to hear your take on the "burning bosom" and how you changed your null hypothesis. But when you say that we don't use analytical thinking, I just get confused because I'd expect you to already realize that we really do.

Going back to the skull-in-the-picture analogy (where I see the skull and gosuruss doesn't) ... I know that I see the skull (that is, I've worked out this consistent personal belief system that's highly consistent with Mormon doctrine). It doesn't matter if gosuruss sees the skull or not. It doesn't even matter that gosuruss thinks I don't see it and that I'm making it up. Either way, it doesn't change what I know, myself. I see the skull and it's as clear as day. (Well, actually, I see something there, but it's still hard to make out on a computer screen -- we can pretend I can see it. :))

It just surprises me that if someone demonstrates the ability to use critical thinking (passing actuarial exams, identifying innumeracies in the news, winning at chess, writing code, speaking intelligent, etc.), why one would expect that person to turn off that critical thinking when it comes to religion? I had one friend who thought I was the smartest person in the world until he realized I was a Mormon and a Republican, and then suddenly I wasn't so smart. I mean, for reals?

But setting aside the critical thinking thing, I value your input and I really am listening to you.

Yes, I think you are mostly right. But I think you are underestimating how much the Mormon church emphasizes feelings. Work it out in your mind, sure, but ultimately it comes down to feelings. If you work it out in your mind, you still need the confirmation of feelings. Even if you work it out in your mind, you can be trumped by your feelings.

As for the burning of the bosom, yes, I did feel it so I "knew" it was all true. Part of my deconversion happened when I first found out that other religions also "feel" that their religion is true. They feel like they have been given confirmation from God that their religion is true. When I have brought this up on this forum I have been told that God isn't telling them their church is true, but He is telling them that they are doing what they should be right now. I just don't buy into this theory.

I think that part of the difference between you and me is that I was never challenged in my beliefs. I never knew any atheists growing up and I never had religious discussions with people of other faiths. I was a young earth creationist because that is what I was taught. When my BYU biology teacher taught about evolution, I just got angry, stopped listening, and thought he was teaching blasphemy. My mom taught me that dino bones were from other planets that God used to make our earth. (I think you mentioned that you had heard this one as well)

I think my point is that when I found out, fairly recently, that there was a whole lot of evidence against the bible being literal and that other religions also have "testimonies" of their religions, I started reevaluating everything. I started questioning everything. I felt like I needed to change my null hypothesis.

I don't think you have the same null hypotheses that I had. I doubt you are a young earth creationist, and you have had your beliefs challenged, so I don't think that your null hypothesis was as faulty as mine was so it can't be broken so easily.

[Klaymen]

Read, learn, understand, but give the benefit of the doubt, or at least allow a rebuttal when you come across something that you think smells fishy.
:iatp:

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

Yeah - the gist is to question Everything, even the existence of God.

I believe that you question things more than the average Mormon.

The Mormon church says to question everything, but that involves reading only church approved materials and praying about them to find out if they are true. It actively teaches to stay away from anything that is considered "anti-Mormon literature".

So while the Mormon church may say "question everything", what they really mean is "here are the questions and here are all the answers".

[TheGillotine]

I believe that you question things more than the average Mormon.

The Mormon church says to question everything, but that involves reading only church approved materials and praying about them to find out if they are true. It actively teaches to stay away from anything that is considered "anti-Mormon literature".

So while the Mormon church may say "question everything", what they really mean is "here are the questions and here are all the answers".

What would be "anti-mormon literature"?

And where do Mormons stand on Young-Earth Creationism?

[Mel-o-rama]

Thanks for the explanation. That all makes sense. You all have certainly given me a lot to think about. I would like to come back later and talk more specifically about the "burning bosom" (similar to the Eureka Moment) but I think I'm done for the week. Catch y'all later next week!

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

What would be "anti-mormon literature"?
Pretty much anything that contradicts the church. The connotation is that anti-Mormon literature is written by nutjobs whose only mission in life is to lie about the Mormons. http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Anti-Mormon

And where do Mormons stand on Young-Earth Creationism?

The Mormon church doesn't have an official stance on the age of the earth.http://en.fairmormon.org/Age_of_the_Earth

[actuary_pilot]

Again... the pedophile and your kids. Are you not responsible if you give a pedophile permission to rape your kids?

And looking at bible.cc (http://bible.cc/job/42-11.htm), every translation has "The evil/trouble that God/Jehovah brought upon him". The original Hebrew seems to support this.

The pedofile is responsible for the rape. Just as if a woman dresses provocatively - and goes out with a rapist - and get raped - is she responsible for her getting raped - no the rapist who committed the crime is. We can't divert the responsibility for the crime to a person who didn't commit it. But I don't think your extreme example is applicable since:

1. Job was not a child - he was a grow man
2. Satan didn't ask Jehovah if he could rape job. Rather he asked Jehovah to thrust out Jehovah's hand against Job. Jehovah made it clear that he wouldn't do this.
3. Jehovah told Satan explicitly that he couldn't kill Job
4. Jehovah made no mention of Jobs children. Satan took it upon himself to kill Job's children.

And not every translation translates "brought upon him". The NWT is as I quoted. Just because the majority of translations may translate the Hebrew that way does not necessarily make it the best way.

I still maintain that there i a difference between committing the crime and allowing the crime to be committed.

[TheGillotine]

The pedofile is responsible for the rape. Just as if a woman dresses provocatively - and goes out with a rapist - and get raped - is she responsible for her getting raped - no the rapist who committed the crime is. We can't divert the responsibility for the crime to a person who didn't commit it. But I don't think your extreme example is applicable since:

1. Job was not a child - he was a grow man
2. Satan didn't ask Jehovah if he could rape job. Rather he asked Jehovah to thrust out Jehovah's hand against Job. Jehovah made it clear that he wouldn't do this.
3. Jehovah told Satan explicitly that he couldn't kill Job
4. Jehovah made no mention of Jobs children. Satan took it upon himself to kill Job's children.

And not every translation translates "brought upon him". The NWT is as I quoted. Just because the majority of translations may translate the Hebrew that way does not necessarily make it the best way.

I still maintain that there i a difference between committing the crime and allowing the crime to be committed.

Of course Satan has some responsibility for what he did, but God has almost as much for giving him permission to do so.
1) Job had no control over what was being done to him and was powerless to stop it... like a child would be against a rapist.
2) Doesn't really matter if you do the crime or if one of your cronies does it.
3) But that he could torture him.
4) Jehovah could have stopped any harm from coming onto Job's children. No, he didn't mind Satan killing the children.

Another analogy. Your 5-year old son is playing out in the front yard. You have with you a rabid dog straining on its leash to go attack your son. You let go of the leash and the dog mauls your son. Are you at all responsible for this?

You're going to have to face the fact that God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.

[Buck]

You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for living a world of God, satans, angels ... those are fairytale figures for 5 year olds -- low IQ.

[Klaymen]

Of course Satan has some responsibility for what he did, but God has almost as much for giving him permission to do so.
1) Job had no control over what was being done to him and was powerless to stop it... like a child would be against a rapist.
2) Doesn't really matter if you do the crime or if one of your cronies does it.
3) But that he could torture him.
4) Jehovah could have stopped any harm from coming onto Job's children. No, he didn't mind Satan killing the children.

Another analogy. Your 5-year old son is playing out in the front yard. You have with you a rabid dog straining on its leash to go attack your son. You let go of the leash and the dog mauls your son. Are you at all responsible for this?

You're going to have to face the fact that God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.

I would agree that God shares some amount of responsibility. So? God did spare his life and in return for his suffering he ended up with a lot more than he had originally. It's not to say God enjoyed it.

[TheGillotine]

I would agree that God shares some amount of responsibility. So? God did spare his life and in return for his suffering he ended up with a lot more than he had originally. It's not to say God enjoyed it.

Right, so you buy your son a bunch of toys after you give someone permission to rape him. Plus, you don't even kill your son! You're an amazing father.

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I would agree that God shares some amount of responsibility. So? God did spare his life and in return for his suffering he ended up with a lot more than he had originally. It's not to say God enjoyed it.

How come nobody, including the bible writers, even care about Job's children and his servants. It's like they don't even matter. You seem to think it is important that God spared Job's life, but that probably didn't cross the minds of the servants as they were all being massacred.

[George L. Costanza]

How come nobody, including the bible writers, even care about Job's children and his servants. It's like they don't even matter. You seem to think it is important that God spared Job's life, but that probably didn't cross the minds of the servants as they were all being massacred.

Old testament doesn't count unless you're trying to bash gays or evolution. Where have you been?

[Baby, ByeBye]

Also, we don't take moral values from the OT, except for the 10 commandments

[Baby, ByeBye]

And to bash homos

[actuary_pilot]

Of course Satan has some responsibility for what he did, but God has almost as much for giving him permission to do so.
1) Job had no control over what was being done to him and was powerless to stop it... like a child would be against a rapist.
2) Doesn't really matter if you do the crime or if one of your cronies does it.
3) But that he could torture him.
4) Jehovah could have stopped any harm from coming onto Job's children. No, he didn't mind Satan killing the children.

Another analogy. Your 5-year old son is playing out in the front yard. You have with you a rabid dog straining on its leash to go attack your son. You let go of the leash and the dog mauls your son. Are you at all responsible for this?

You're going to have to face the fact that God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.

So do you think that a parent should do everything for his child? For example where would you draw the line. Should the parent fight every fight for his child? Maybe when the child is old enough to get a job - should he go with him on the interview? (if he didn't get the job could he blame his parent for not going with him?) Once he gets a job and there are conflicts at work - should the parent go and intervene for his child. (Should the child blame the parent if the conflict is not resolved?)

On the other hand if the parent did everything for his child - could the child one day blame him for not permitting him to do things on his own?

What makes the example you used fairly weak - is that Jehovah allowed Job to go through the suffering for a purpose. And, he was able to correct everything for him. And as for his children that died, Both Job and all of his children will be resurrected on earth in the future (after Armageddon) and they will be able to resume their lives in happiness - with a fresh start. Most parents can't do that for their children.

Revelation 21:3,4.
With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

All of the pain that Satan caused Job and his children will be forgotton. It will be as if he completely wipes the memory of this from them.

[Mel-o-rama]

Someone's spammin the Christian vote, now. Hah!

[Baby, ByeBye]

I wonder who..

[Mel-o-rama]

I did my spammin a long time ago. This is the work of somebody else. Someone who's shoes I am unfit to tie.

[Baby, ByeBye]

You don't fool me!

[Mel-o-rama]

Dang!

[gosuruss]

Week 2:

Mel,

I want you to look at the world in my light. Imagine for a moment the creator of the universe is not a being that communicates with individuals. Imagine we legitimately do not know why we are here. We just are. Given we are human beings evolved over millions of years... how do you think humans would explain their existence 4000 years ago? 3000 years ago? Just think for a second about the mountains of evidence we have that humans tend to form religions, especially in ignorance. Ignorance of natural phenomena have always reverted to religious explanations. I posted a link about the cargo cults last week.. I really hope you had a chance to read that. That is a collection of independent examples about how humans interpret purely natural things and can form a religion around it with priests who claim to telepathically speak to a messiah we know is false.

Now, you may say, well I think God has spoken to many cultures, but not all (you will point out Muhammad, and possibly others). What's interesting about this is if you assume that religions are not divinely inspired, and religions prop up all over the place with explanations of the gods and moral truths... there are bound to be popular religions just as there are popular sports teams and popular people. Given the vast number of religions there are some that will be very effective in converting people. Some were smart to teach "virtues" like faith, and to consider anyone who denies God a fool, and blasphemy is the unforgivable sin, or the punishment for apostasy is death, and ban any books that would contradict the word. Some of them that do missionary work (Mormons, Christians).. some of them who don't (Jews). All of these facets properly implemented should help grow your religion. One could argue Christianity has much to owe for being the official religion of the roman empire in 300 ad -- had he chose something different, it may not have survived to be in the position it is today.

I'm getting to my point which is this: even if you were to assume that god did not speak to any individual and make them a prophet, it does not surprise me in the least we have extremely popular religions today. And any popular religion probably has some profound things to say or it would not be very popular. And when you say you think God spoke to Muhammad as well, due to the impact he has had on society and some of the profound things he said as recorded in the Quran, all I see is an extremely popular religion among many. And I see Sharia Law.. and I have to ask whether God is sanctioning any of those awful decrees?

What is so unreasonable about believing we exist and don't know why -- and we have been coming up with these intuitive religious explanations about why since the beginning of time, which happen to be false? I get it, people have intuitively come to the conclusion there is a god. But they also intuitively came to the conclusion that the world was flat, that we were the center of the universe, and that we didn't evolve. It was intuitive to think that if we have babies, and our babies have babies, then we have parents and our parents had parents, and therefore we came from two people. Some people are still intuitively coming to the conclusion that natural disasters are acts of god because we tolerate homosexuals. At what point do we stop to say "intuitive feelings are not sufficient to establish almost anything about our existence in this world?" Is it intuitive to think that there are a trillion times a trillion stars in the universe? Is it intuitive to understand that our brain is parsellated into different pieces of gray matter that when you damage one part of the brain you will cease to be able to perform some functions but not others?

[Mel-o-rama]

Hey gosu, do you mind posting that cargo cult link again? I remember reading that a few months ago when it was brought up in an earlier discussion, and could use a refresher.

While I collect my thoughts together, let me ask this first to see where we stand. Do you still claim that there is no intuition involved in your belief that there is no god?

[oirg]

The main purpose of the Book of Job is to address the issue of theodicy - why bad thing happen to good people. What's been referred to as Satan is not the same being as the "anit-God" of Christianity, but rather is God's servant.


Job's Satan

In the Book of Job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Job), ha-Satan is a member of the divine council, "the sons of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God)" who are subservient to God. Ha-Satan, in this capacity, is many times translated as "the prosecutor", and is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. At the beginning of the book, Job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_(Bible)) is a good person "who feared God and turned away from evil" (Job 1:1), and has therefore been rewarded by God. When the divine council meets, God informs ha-Satan about Job's blameless, morally upright character. Between Job 1:9–10 and 2:4–5, ha-Satan merely points out that God has given Job everything that a man could want, so of course Job would be loyal to God; if all Job has been given, even his health, were to be taken away from him, however, his faith would collapse. God therefore grants ha-Satan the chance to test Job.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#cite_note-10) Due to this, it has been interpreted that ha-Satan is under God's control and cannot act without God's permission. This is further shown in the epilogue of Job in which God is speaking to Job, ha-Satan is absent from these dialogues. "For Job, for [Job's] friends, and for the narrator, it is ultimately Yahweh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh) himself who is responsible for Job's suffering; as Yahweh says to the 'satan', 'You have incited me against him, to destroy him for no reason.'" (Job 2:3) [7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satan#cite_note-ReferenceA-6)

[Entropy]

I must admit that I'm a little at a loss, because I would expect you, of all these people, to understand me the most. Since you were in the church for 30 years, aren't you already familiar with how much most Mormons believe that they are critically analyzing their own belief systems? I mean, it's a major doctrine: think it out in your head before praying. If you come to a wrong conclusion, you will be answered with confusion. If, however you come to the right conclusion, you get the "burning bosom." Didn't you go through all this and experience the "burning bosom" and get up and "bear your testimony" and all that other Mormon stuff?


You must realize that non-religious people do the same thing right? I would even wager that some of them get those feelings.

Think/concentrate/meditate about something and if it doesn't seem to work out you'll be confused? Probably due to all the time spent thinking about something that won't work out, realizing you have some work to do.

Finally coming up with something that makes sense and you get a good feeling inside, maybe a huge sense of accomplishment that just makes you smile? Yep, pretty sure that happens to atheists too.

Maybe you think that means we're all praying, even to the same (your) god? How do you know you're not praying to someone else's god, etc...? Seems to me that these processes are normal and you are yet again failing to utilize occam's razor and instead injecting a (your) god into the situation.

Also, as to your "evidence of miracles bigger than an open parking space", you need to realize that fevers break... or they don't. What about all those prayers about fevers breaking that didn't get answered? Chalk it up to an opportunity for those impacted to grow or learn? C'mon. You don't need to make up a reason for these things. Well, some people feel a need to but it really just seems like a crutch. Similar to the "I want there to be a god, so I believe there is one".

[gosuruss]

Hey gosu, do you mind posting that cargo cult link again? I remember reading that a few months ago when it was brought up in an earlier discussion, and could use a refresher.

While I collect my thoughts together, let me ask this first to see where we stand. Do you still claim that there is no intuition involved in your belief that there is no god?

http://www.andrsib.com/dawkins/cargo.htm

It's not an intuitive answer. Of course what is intuitive to me has in someway been affected by the pro christian messages i have received since i was a child..

[Buck]

Religious people do not know what an eviden is. This makes them unsuitable for any intellectual work. Religion is a brain damaging narc; once someone gains "faith", that person's brain paralyzed.

[Mel-o-rama]

Oh come on. At least gosuruss is having an intelligent conversation with me. Now you're just trolling, or you're purposefully not reading our posts.

[Anthemyst]

Oh come on. At least gosuruss is having an intelligent conversation with me. Now you're just trolling, or you're purposefully not reading our posts.

Whaddya mean now he's trolling?

[Mel-o-rama]

I'm still thinking, gosuruss. In the meantime, here's what I posted on another thread...

Here are quotes from two of my favorite atheists (supporting the idea that you can't really know that there is no God).

Carl Sagan:
An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.

Charles Darwin:
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.

[Anthemyst]

Those are fine quotes, but I'm always a little skeptical of when a theist (or anyone, I guess) invokes the "How can we ignorant humans truly know anything, especially about something as complicated as God?" argument after having previously demonstrated they believe they know the mind and will of God very specifically.

[Entropy]

Here are quotes from two of my favorite atheists (supporting the idea that you can't really know that there is no God).

I'm not sure that anyone here is making an argument that there is no god that cannot also be applied to the argument that there is no specific, personal god. This is why I consider myself agnostic but effectively atheist.

[gosuruss]

I'm still thinking, gosuruss. In the meantime, here's what I posted on another thread...

Here are quotes from two of my favorite atheists (supporting the idea that you can't really know that there is no God).

Carl Sagan:


Charles Darwin:

Neither quote does anything for me..

Sagan - wrong about what an atheist is. Atheists lack a belief in a god. An atheist may also feel strongly to confidently say the personal gods Zeus, or Allah, or God do not exist, because there is very compelling evidence and arguments to suggest they do not. I've never spoken to an atheist who said for sure that there was no god.. I always chuckle when I am asked to try and disprove the existence of something undefined. What is a god anyway? Define please!

Darwin - Seems like he's giving up.

[Mel-o-rama]

Okay - I think I hear what y'all are saying. It's not that "we believe there is no God," but rather it's "we don't believe there is a God," where the first statement implies knowledge that God doesn't exist, but the second statement does not.

Did I get that right?

[Anthemyst]

Okay - I think I hear what y'all are saying. It's not that "we believe there is no God," but rather it's "we don't believe there is a God," where the first statement implies knowledge that God doesn't exist, but the second statement does not.

Did I get that right?

Pretty much. Different people are different. I guess functionally I'd say, "I don't see nearly enough evidence for the existence of a God, much less what He would and wouldn't want, for me to live my life or make any decisions as though He exists." Whether you call that "not believing God exists" or "believing God deos not exist" makes little difference to me.

[Mel-o-rama]

Pretty much. Different people are different. I guess functionally I'd say, "I don't see nearly enough evidence for the existence of a God, much less what He would and wouldn't want, for me to live my life or make any decisions as though He exists." Whether you call that "not believing God exists" or "believing God deos not exist" makes little difference to me.

But the way you say it makes it sound like God could still exist, but it doesn't matter to you since you have all the information you need (not believing in God) in order to make decisions in your life. Does this sound right in your case?

[Anthemyst]

But the way you say it makes it sound like God could still exist, but it doesn't matter to you since you have all the information you need (not believing in God) in order to make decisions in your life. Does this sound right in your case?

Sure, I suppose God could exist. I have absolutely no idea how, everything I understand about science suggests it is unlikely, and I strongly suspect that anything which did exist that could be named God would be very different from the God portrayed in most human faiths such as Christianity. But new evidence may always arise at a later point in time.

[Anthemyst]

Because, as your initial observation which started this whole discussion stated, atheists are more likely to reject 'intuitive' thought in favor of 'analytical' thought, you will get almost no atheists that claim, "I know for certain that God does not exist". That is a statement of intuition, not an analytic scientific conclusion.

[Mel-o-rama]

Okay, I think this clarifies a subtle misunderstanding on my part.

It's one thing to say "I believe God doesn't exist," and to make such a bold statement (as Sagan says), you must have impossibly perfect knowledge of the universe. Without such knowledge, one must rely on intuition to make that last leap of faith.

It's another to say "I don't believe God exists (but it remains a possibility - doesn't matter to me)." It is possible to make this statement solely using analytical thought, as long as you're not making a definite statement on the existence of some kind of God.

[Mel-o-rama]

... and you ninja'ed me by ten minutes. Boy, do I type slow when I'm distracted!

[Entropy]

By Jupiter I believe he's got it!

[Triweasel]

By Jupiter I believe he's got it!

:h5:

nice work everyone. i consider this a successful day.

[Mel-o-rama]

Yes, but I still got that mountain of "evidence" on my side, and my own Occam's Razor to deal with. ;)

But at least it sounds like I'm getting what you guys are saying about what you believe. And further, my guess is that you don't really care what anyone else believes as long as those people don't infringe on freedoms consistent with your beliefs (like smoking, alcohol, gay marriage, etc.). But that's another discussion ...

(I'm preparing for my stint as Athiest Man in June if that offer is still on the table.)

Now to work on my response to gosuruss...

[Anthemyst]

But at least it sounds like I'm getting what you guys are saying about what you believe. And further, my guess is that you don't really care what anyone else believes as long as those people don't infringe on freedoms consistent with your beliefs (like smoking, alcohol, gay marriage, etc.). But that's another discussion ...

That is certainly true for me, but I think atheists might be more divided on it. I know at least one who is really bothered by the idea of people believing things for illogical reasons. Like, she wouldn't support laws banning religion or anything awful like that, but thinking about it drives her crazy. She's kind of new to atheism, though, it might be one of those things that wears off.

[Entropy]

That is certainly true for me, but I think atheists might be more divided on it. I know at least one who is really bothered by the idea of people believing things for illogical reasons. Like, she wouldn't support laws banning religion or anything awful like that, but thinking about it drives her crazy. She's kind of new to atheism, though, it might be one of those things that wears off.

It does seem odd that some people who think armageddon will come in our lifetime might be pricing life insurance products or something. Not sure how that works. Do wicked people get to pay less premium since they will be "eliminated"?

[Mel-o-rama]

Week 2:

Mel,

I want you to look at the world in my light. Imagine for a moment the creator of the universe is not a being that communicates with individuals. Imagine we legitimately do not know why we are here. We just are. Given we are human beings evolved over millions of years... how do you think humans would explain their existence 4000 years ago? 3000 years ago? Just think for a second about the mountains of evidence we have that humans tend to form religions, especially in ignorance. Ignorance of natural phenomena have always reverted to religious explanations. I posted a link about the cargo cults last week.. I really hope you had a chance to read that. That is a collection of independent examples about how humans interpret purely natural things and can form a religion around it with priests who claim to telepathically speak to a messiah we know is false.

Now, you may say, well I think God has spoken to many cultures, but not all (you will point out Muhammad, and possibly others). What's interesting about this is if you assume that religions are not divinely inspired, and religions prop up all over the place with explanations of the gods and moral truths... there are bound to be popular religions just as there are popular sports teams and popular people. Given the vast number of religions there are some that will be very effective in converting people. Some were smart to teach "virtues" like faith, and to consider anyone who denies God a fool, and blasphemy is the unforgivable sin, or the punishment for apostasy is death, and ban any books that would contradict the word. Some of them that do missionary work (Mormons, Christians).. some of them who don't (Jews). All of these facets properly implemented should help grow your religion. One could argue Christianity has much to owe for being the official religion of the roman empire in 300 ad -- had he chose something different, it may not have survived to be in the position it is today.

I'm getting to my point which is this: even if you were to assume that god did not speak to any individual and make them a prophet, it does not surprise me in the least we have extremely popular religions today. And any popular religion probably has some profound things to say or it would not be very popular. And when you say you think God spoke to Muhammad as well, due to the impact he has had on society and some of the profound things he said as recorded in the Quran, all I see is an extremely popular religion among many. And I see Sharia Law.. and I have to ask whether God is sanctioning any of those awful decrees?

What is so unreasonable about believing we exist and don't know why -- and we have been coming up with these intuitive religious explanations about why since the beginning of time, which happen to be false? I get it, people have intuitively come to the conclusion there is a god. But they also intuitively came to the conclusion that the world was flat, that we were the center of the universe, and that we didn't evolve. It was intuitive to think that if we have babies, and our babies have babies, then we have parents and our parents had parents, and therefore we came from two people. Some people are still intuitively coming to the conclusion that natural disasters are acts of god because we tolerate homosexuals. At what point do we stop to say "intuitive feelings are not sufficient to establish almost anything about our existence in this world?" Is it intuitive to think that there are a trillion times a trillion stars in the universe? Is it intuitive to understand that our brain is parsellated into different pieces of gray matter that when you damage one part of the brain you will cease to be able to perform some functions but not others?

Okay, I'll start with my own personal belief as a backdrop (which as you may guess is consistent with Mormonism).

In the beginning, God created us (Adam and Eve) and told us Truth. That is, he said, "Hi. I'm God. <blah blah blah>" But then as the generations progressed with people who didn't see God directly, the Truth was corrupted. For example, after Cain was cast away, he probably started his own religion in which what he did wasn't so bad. The Bible mentions Baal and those other gods early on. Then Moses saw God and passed on the word to those people and Truth was restored again. Then more corruption. Then Jesus brought Truth. Then more corruption. And so on till Joseph Smith. Even today we see splinter groups from the original Mormon religion.

Apparently, it's a big problem for us who don't see God to believe in him as we're told. It's difficult to know which prophets to follow (if any). And even though God comes out and tells us how it is, we quickly forget. (Just wait - 1000 years down the road, if we don't go back to the moon in the interim, no one would believe that we ever went there.)

With this backdrop, the Cargo cults just follow the same pattern. I agree with Dawkins that it's an interesting case study, but I don't entirely agree with his conclusions.

#1) It appears that these people already had previous (yet limited) knowledge of other religions, including Christianity. The whole John Frum story sounds a lot like the Jesus story. If these religions had truly risen on their own, then I could see Dawkins' arguments. But I still see these as separate cases of corrupting other religions to fit the needs of the community. "I don't want to listen to these missionaries, but this cargo thing speaks to me."

#2) "Witnessing events that appear to trigger certain results, and then emulating those events to try to get the same results without actually understanding what's going on" reminds me of the concept of the Chinese Room (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room). That is, let's say the natives did A, B, and C, and the visitors recognized that as a request for a certain cargo. However, the natives thought they were simply perfroming the same religious ritual they saw the visitors doing. Either way the results are the same even though neither side fully understands what the other side is thinking.

Just thought that was interesting.

#3) The John Frum cult could have easily been started by an actual person by that name who saw an opportunity to corrupt their religion to get gain and glory. That is - another example of someone abusing religion for his own purposes.

#4) There isn't enough information in that article for me to make my predicted statement that God used that cult to speak to these people anyway. :) Though, according to my belief system, God finds different ways to touch everyone's lives, whether or not they are privy to the Truth.

I admit that on the surface, the existence of these cargo cults gives credence to the idea that all religions are bogus. That is, if we were to use the "simple" model to judge each religious claim, we'd have to conclude that all religions are bogus.

But I still don't think it's as simple as that. I think that each religious claim has to be judged on its own merits. Some are easier to debunk that others. For example, we know that the John Frum religion is totally ridiculous. We know that Jedi-ism and FSM-ism are ridiculous. David Koresh is on a slightly higher level of difficulty to debunk. However, Joseph Smith/Moses/Jesus/Mohammed are much more difficult to debunk. (I'd throw in the prominent leaders of the JWs and SDAs as well.)

I'm not saying that everyone needs to search out every single religion that's out there and determine the "one true religion," but I think that anyone who believes in a religion that is internally self-consistent and well tested is doing all right.

[Mel-o-rama]

It does seem odd that some people who think armageddon will come in our lifetime might be pricing life insurance products or something. Not sure how that works. Do wicked people get to pay less premium since they will be "eliminated"?

Rapture Insurance!!! (http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/)

[ditkaworshipper]

That is certainly true for me, but I think atheists might be more divided on it. I know at least one who is really bothered by the idea of people believing things for illogical reasons. Like, she wouldn't support laws banning religion or anything awful like that, but thinking about it drives her crazy. She's kind of new to atheism, though, it might be one of those things that wears off.
I don't know about that. I find my views on religion will still vary somewhat. However, some of the things do get more frustrating over time with repetition for me. Heck, yesterday at mother's day lunch I just about blew up over something pretty small in retrospect (I'm the only heathen in my family).

My main issue with society in general is tribalism, and religion is a pretty big offender, so this could just be a personal thing.

[JohnLocke]

Rapture Insurance!!! (http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/)

I almost bought that because I thought it said "raptor" insurance

[HuskerCAS]

Why does it have to be black and white?

Why can't you reject modern faith as 'tribalism' (great word choice ditka) but still find spirituality in the world?

Math and music are two areas of study that have a lot of 'simple truths' that seem ridiculous on the surface. The fact that e exists isn't that big of a deal (some number needed to be it), but why does it show up in nature? Why does a perfectly in tune chord produce sub harmonics at various mathematical ratios, but dissonance sounds like crap specifically because its 'out of balance'?

For further review, study up on equal temperament and how that compares to say a trombone or string instrument.

Euler's formula - I've derived it as part of my math degree, but the 'perfect formula' is still amazing in its simplicity and that all the important numbers show up. Two irrational numbers and a made up number produce 1 and 0 - the roots of our entire mathematic system.

Golden Ratio's are another example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Architecture

Basically - A lot of math is dripping in spirituality, because it's already at the root and there are all these 'coincidences' that have had profound impact on how everything works.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Why does it have to be black and white?

Why can't you reject modern faith as 'tribalism' (great word choice ditka) but still find spirituality in the world?

Math and music are two areas of study that have a lot of 'simple truths' that seem ridiculous on the surface. The fact that e exists isn't that big of a deal (some number needed to be it), but why does it show up in nature? Why does a perfectly in tune chord produce sub harmonics at various mathematical ratios, but dissonance sounds like crap specifically because its 'out of balance'?

For further review, study up on equal temperament and how that compares to say a trombone or string instrument.

Euler's formula - I've derived it as part of my math degree, but the 'perfect formula' is still amazing in its simplicity and that all the important numbers show up. Two irrational numbers and a made up number produce 1 and 0 - the roots of our entire mathematic system.

Golden Ratio's are another example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Architecture

Basically - A lot of math is dripping in spirituality, because it's already at the root and there are all these 'coincidences' that have had profound impact on how everything works.

many of these numbers are found in nature because it is the most efficient number. Take phi for example, it maximizes sunlight and nutrition distribution. So most of the leaves/seeds grow in a spiral that angle at a proportion of phi.
Here's a better description: http://www.natures-word.com/sacred-geometry/phi-the-golden-proportion/phi-the-golden-proportion-in-nature

I think it's an eventual find that many of these numbers that we find in nature will boil down to a similar explanation through evolutionary advantages.
Nothing magical to say the least.

[gosuruss]

Two quick things:
1) do you not believe in evolution?

2) do you not think similar myths surrounded the area Jesus lived in? Just because the cargo cults were influenced in accepting the very notion of a messiah by christianity does not really mean anything. People have been predicting the end of times since the beginning of time.

[Atheist Man]

It's one thing to say "I believe God doesn't exist," and to make such a bold statement (as Sagan says), you must have impossibly perfect knowledge of the universe. Without such knowledge, one must rely on intuition to make that last leap of faith.
In order to say "God doesn't exist," one must first define what we mean by "God." So many people have wildly different ideas about what God is. Russell himself talks about this in one of his essays. It used to be that when one called oneself an "atheist" it just meant that you were rejecting the specific God who is worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church. That was the only God, and if you didn't believe in Him, you didn't believe in God. This is the sense in which C.S. Lewis considered himself an "atheist" although he never really gave up believing that there was a personal creator of the universe.

I think there's a decent chance that there's some sort of being or force somewhere that exists on some plane somewhere which has one or two properties in common with what most people think of as "God". We have the same chance of understanding this being in any way which could provide us useful insight as an ant has to understand calculus.

The offer's still on.

[TheGillotine]

So do you think that a parent should do everything for his child? For example where would you draw the line. Should the parent fight every fight for his child? Maybe when the child is old enough to get a job - should he go with him on the interview? (if he didn't get the job could he blame his parent for not going with him?) Once he gets a job and there are conflicts at work - should the parent go and intervene for his child. (Should the child blame the parent if the conflict is not resolved?)

On the other hand if the parent did everything for his child - could the child one day blame him for not permitting him to do things on his own?

What makes the example you used fairly weak - is that Jehovah allowed Job to go through the suffering for a purpose. And, he was able to correct everything for him. And as for his children that died, Both Job and all of his children will be resurrected on earth in the future (after Armageddon) and they will be able to resume their lives in happiness - with a fresh start. Most parents can't do that for their children.

Revelation 21:3,4.
With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his peoples. And God himself will be with them. 4 And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.”

All of the pain that Satan caused Job and his children will be forgotton. It will be as if he completely wipes the memory of this from them.


...We're not talking about going to a job interview, we're talking about being magically attacked by a supernatural being against which you have no defense.
Why does it have to be black and white?

Why can't you reject modern faith as 'tribalism' (great word choice ditka) but still find spirituality in the world?

Math and music are two areas of study that have a lot of 'simple truths' that seem ridiculous on the surface. The fact that e exists isn't that big of a deal (some number needed to be it), but why does it show up in nature? Why does a perfectly in tune chord produce sub harmonics at various mathematical ratios, but dissonance sounds like crap specifically because its 'out of balance'?

For further review, study up on equal temperament and how that compares to say a trombone or string instrument.

Euler's formula - I've derived it as part of my math degree, but the 'perfect formula' is still amazing in its simplicity and that all the important numbers show up. Two irrational numbers and a made up number produce 1 and 0 - the roots of our entire mathematic system.

Golden Ratio's are another example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio#Architecture

Basically - A lot of math is dripping in spirituality, because it's already at the root and there are all these 'coincidences' that have had profound impact on how everything works.

What does math have to do with spirits?!?

(still a theist)

[Buck]

One statement often heard from theists:

There is a higher power out there.

Let's decompose the statement and think about it: (A). There is a power out there; (B). A power is higher than others. For (A), of course there is a power out there (dark matters, dark energy ...), what exactly are we talking about it? For (B), if one ranks all "powers" out there, some are higher than others, some are lower than others. Again, what exactly are we talking about it?

[TheGillotine]

One statement often heard from theists:



Let's decompose the statement and think about it: (A). There is a power out there; (B). A power is higher than others. For (A), of course there is a power out there (dark matters, dark energy ...), what exactly are we talking about it? For (B), if one ranks all "powers" out there, some are higher than others, some are lower than others. Again, what exactly are we talking about it?

When we say "a higher power" we're referring to something that is more powerful than Chuck Norris.

[HuskerCAS]

...We're not talking about going to a job interview, we're talking about being magically attacked by a supernatural being against which you have no defense.


What does math have to do with spirits?!?

(still a theist)

Eh, you're way to judgmental to actually have this discussion. I'm looking for someone - less douchey?

I'm agnostic - don't really care - I just don't presume to have the answers. I'm content with "I don't know, and that's okay.'

[Buck]

Also, religious logic got problem: if there is a higher power, how does it imply paying church fees and accepting religious responsibilities (such as observe absurd religious code)? Insurance policy? Having faith can insure you?

[Klaymen]

I don't go near the term "higher power". That term sounds like it's for someone referring to a supposed deity to which they have no real connection. It would be like referring to your mom as "maternal human".

[Klaymen]

Also, religious logic got problem: if there is a higher power, how does it imply paying church fees and accepting religious responsibilities (such as observe absurd religious code)? Insurance policy? Having faith can insure you?

Religious logic? What are we vulcans? Church fees? Insurance?

The only problem I have is figuring out what you're going on about.

[Buck]

Religious logic? What are we vulcans? Church fees? Insurance?

The only problem I have is figuring out what you're going on about.

What I'm getting at is Christian theology. The central foundation of it is coercive lies like "sins" and "hell", which only works on the dumbest of the dumbest faithfuls who think they bought "insurance policy" by playing Pascal's Wager.

[Mel-o-rama]

Two quick things:
1) do you not believe in evolution?
Quick answer: yes, I believe in evolution to a degree.

2) do you not think similar myths surrounded the area Jesus lived in? Just because the cargo cults were influenced in accepting the very notion of a messiah by christianity does not really mean anything. People have been predicting the end of times since the beginning of time.
Actually, the Jews in Jesus's area already had their Messianic prophecies. Jesus just happened to match up with those prophecies (or so say the Christians :))

I'm curious, is the "end of times" something that only exists in Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Islam), or do other religions also exhibit this idea? I'm not familiar with Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. enough to know if they have "end of times" scenarios, but from what I know about those religions, it plays nowhere as large a role as it does with the Abrahamic ones.

[Anitha Desai]

Quick answer: yes, I believe in evolution to a degree.


Actually, the Jews in Jesus's area already had their Messianic prophecies. Jesus just happened to match up with those prophecies (or so say the Christians :))

I'm curious, is the "end of times" something that only exists in Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Islam), or do other religions also exhibit this idea? I'm not familiar with Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. enough to know if they have "end of times" scenarios, but from what I know about those religions, it plays nowhere as large a role as it does with the Abrahamic ones.

Hinduism does have the concept. But the entire universe is in cyclical mode according to Hinduism. Each cycle consists of the universe being created, life evolving, humans becoming depraved and immoral, and then the universe is destroyed. There are several yugas or eons in each of these steps, with specific prophecies being completed in each one. The earlier yugas are where people are purer and more moral and god-loving. The later yugas bring out the darker side of humans. After the universe is destroyed, there is nothingness for the same length of time as it took for the whole create and destroy cycle, and a new universe is created again.

It's a very brief and probably incomplete summary. But that's what I know of Hindiusm's creation myth/story.

ETA: What I find fascinating is that the prophecies or stories of the avatars that the supreme Lord takes to bring ordere periodically to the universe are in (sort of) evolutionary order:

Fish, amphibian, mammal, halfman-half beast, dwarf, hunter/warrior, good/ideal man, smart and savvy man, enlightened man, and the savior.

[Mel-o-rama]

In order to say "God doesn't exist," one must first define what we mean by "God." So many people have wildly different ideas about what God is. Russell himself talks about this in one of his essays. It used to be that when one called oneself an "atheist" it just meant that you were rejecting the specific God who is worshipped by the Roman Catholic Church. That was the only God, and if you didn't believe in Him, you didn't believe in God. This is the sense in which C.S. Lewis considered himself an "atheist" although he never really gave up believing that there was a personal creator of the universe.

I think there's a decent chance that there's some sort of being or force somewhere that exists on some plane somewhere which has one or two properties in common with what most people think of as "God". We have the same chance of understanding this being in any way which could provide us useful insight as an ant has to understand calculus.

The offer's still on.

I'm looking forward to it!

[Mel-o-rama]

Hinduism does have the concept. But the entire universe is in cyclical mode according to Hinduism. Each cycle consists of the universe being created, life evolving, humans becoming depraved and immoral, and then the universe is destroyed. There are several yugas or eons in each of these steps, with specific prophecies being completed in each one. The earlier yugas are where people are purer and more moral and god-loving. The later yugas bring out the darker side of humans. After the universe is destroyed, there is nothingness for the same length of time as it took for the whole create and destroy cycle, and a new universe is created again.

It's a very brief and probably incomplete summary. But that's what I know of Hindiusm's creation myth/story.

ETA: What I find fascinating is that the prophecies or stories of the avatars that the supreme Lord takes to bring ordere periodically to the universe are in (sort of) evolutionary order:

Fish, amphibian, mammal, halfman-half beast, dwarf, hunter/warrior, good/ideal man, smart and savvy man, enlightened man, and the savior.
Interesting - I see some parallels. Christianity says the general public will get more and more rotten before Jesus comes and does his stuff. Also, it's strangely compatible with the Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Bang / Big Crunch theory.

[gosuruss]

Quick answer: yes, I believe in evolution to a degree.


Actually, the Jews in Jesus's area already had their Messianic prophecies. Jesus just happened to match up with those prophecies (or so say the Christians :))

I'm curious, is the "end of times" something that only exists in Abrahamic religions (Jews, Christians, Islam), or do other religions also exhibit this idea? I'm not familiar with Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc. enough to know if they have "end of times" scenarios, but from what I know about those religions, it plays nowhere as large a role as it does with the Abrahamic ones.

You need to expand upon your first answer. When you say you believe in adam and eve, do you believe in a literal adam and eve? Do you believe humans evolved from monkeys? (THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!!!)

Do you believe god created human beings rather than evolved them from single celled organisms over billions of years?

explain when the degree you choose to accept the facts of evolution please if you get a chance.. i feel like this could be a breakthrough

[actuary_pilot]

Of course Satan has some responsibility for what he did, but God has almost as much for giving him permission to do so.
1) Job had no control over what was being done to him and was powerless to stop it... like a child would be against a rapist.
2) Doesn't really matter if you do the crime or if one of your cronies does it.
3) But that he could torture him.
4) Jehovah could have stopped any harm from coming onto Job's children. No, he didn't mind Satan killing the children.

Another analogy. Your 5-year old son is playing out in the front yard. You have with you a rabid dog straining on its leash to go attack your son. You let go of the leash and the dog mauls your son. Are you at all responsible for this?

You're going to have to face the fact that God is ultimately responsible for everything that happens.

1) Still Job wasn't raped. he lost his wealth, he was stricke by Satan with a disease - but he wasn't raped.
2) Satan isn't a crony of Jehovah - but his arch enemy.
3) Jehovah allowed Satan to afflict Job with the disease - but the main source of anguish was Job's three "friends". Most of the book deals with the accusations they make against Job and Jehovah.
4) Sometimes you need to allow some harm to come to your children - if it is for a good purpose. Allowing a rapist to rape your children or a rabid pitbull to maul your child has no good purpose. On the other hand you may allow a doctor to take a knife and cut out cancer from the child. From the child's stand point that would be very painful, needles, kninves and stiches - but it is for a good purpose. (note I'm not saying that this is an example comparable to Job's case - but just to illustrate that allowing your children to go through pain for a good reason is sometimes necessary).

Consider the Issues Satan raised (in the old testament):
a) he called God a liar in the Garden of Eden
b) he said that God does not have the right to rule over mankind and make rules for them
c) he said that God was withholding something good from Adam and Eve (when he said by eating the fruit they would become like God)
d) now in the book of Job - he is accusing Job of only serving God for selfish reasons - God's allowing this to happen gave Job the ability to prove the slander against Job was false. Another illustration - Suppose a man's ex girlfried goes to his wife and tells her that he really doesn't love her - that she could get him to divorce her. Unless she tempted him to be unfaithful - the question of his love for his wife would always remain.
e) in addition to this he is making a claim similar to ones I have heard in this thread - that God made a mistake in his creation - in other words -his creation was faulty - Adam and Eve turned against God. And When God showed that Job was the most faithful in the Earth - Satan challanged that he could get him to turn against God too. So
f) Many of the claims of Jobs false friends are also charges against God - Eliphaz basicaly said that when bad things happen to people it is Gods punishment against them. Bildad and Zophar said that man is too unclean to be considered by God. at Job 42:7 it said: "And it came about after Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, that Jehovah proceeded to say to El´i·phaz the Te´man·ite: “My anger has grown hot against you and your two companions, for YOU men have not spoken concerning me what is truthful as has my servant Job." showing that these thoughts were not true.

God was able to correct the badness that happened to Job. He restored double of his wealth, gave him ten more children. Did Job feel that God made up for it? Job 42:16, 17 - "And Job continued living after this a hundred and forty years and came to see his sons and his grandsons—four generations. And gradually Job died, old and satisfied with days."
And in the ressurection after Armageddon - Job will be able to resume his life with all of his children - so even that will be double the amount.

[Noddy]

Interesting - I see some parallels. Christianity says the general public will get more and more rotten before Jesus comes and does his stuff. Also, it's strangely compatible with the Big Bang / Big Crunch / Big Bang / Big Crunch theory.

Are they compatible with the big rip?

How 'bout heat death?

Our current understanding is that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Gravity will not pull everything back to a big crunch. Dark matter is pushing our universe apart.

[Mel-o-rama]

You need to expand upon your first answer. When you say you believe in adam and eve, do you believe in a literal adam and eve? Do you believe humans evolved from monkeys? (THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!!!)

Do you believe god created human beings rather than evolved them from single celled organisms over billions of years?

explain when the degree you choose to accept the facts of evolution please if you get a chance.. i feel like this could be a breakthrough

Okay - I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and that they were "human." I also believe God created all life, including humans. What I don't know is whether God did it "on the spot" or through (directed) evolution from a single celled organism. Either way is the same to me. The Bible says, "from the dust" which could be interpreted both ways, and neither way really changes anything else in my religion.

(About monkeys - I don't think anyone believes we came from monkeys. I did say "common ancestors.")

[Mel-o-rama]

Are they compatible with the big rip?

How 'bout heat death?

Our current understanding is that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Gravity will not pull everything back to a big crunch. Dark matter is pushing our universe apart.

Haven't heard about the first two concepts you mention, but last I heard, the overall geometry of our universe still hasn't been decided yet. (big crunch vs. eternal expansion) Either way, I was just pointing out similarities, and not necessarily saying that's the way things really are.

[ORLYLOL]

You need to expand upon your first answer. When you say you believe in adam and eve, do you believe in a literal adam and eve? Do you believe humans evolved from monkeys? (THEN WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS!!!)


Who believes this? Humans are not members of the same family as monkeys...

[gosuruss]

Okay - I do believe in a literal Adam and Eve, and that they were "human." I also believe God created all life, including humans. What I don't know is whether God did it "on the spot" or through (directed) evolution from a single celled organism. Either way is the same to me. The Bible says, "from the dust" which could be interpreted both ways, and neither way really changes anything else in my religion.

(About monkeys - I don't think anyone believes we came from monkeys. I did say "common ancestors.")

So literally you flip in your mind two scenarios:

1) god just made Adam and Eve magically appear 10-100K years ago
2) we evolved slowly out over the course of billions of years

So wait... you can't really believe in a literal Adam and Eve if you believe in evolution, unless god chose two random humans out of the tons that existed, because, they wouldn't be the only two humans and they wouldn't be the first two humans..

how do you make sense of this? why not relegate adam and eve to "allegorical" status? It just makes jumping through the hoops a hell of a lot easier.

How do you not think this matters? If 1 were true, it would be great evidence of a creator. If 2 were true, it relegates genesis to being historically false.. That has to mean something

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

So literally you flip in your mind two scenarios:

1) god just made Adam and Eve magically appear 10-100K years ago
2) we evolved slowly out over the course of billions of years

So wait... you can't really believe in a literal Adam and Eve if you believe in evolution, unless god chose two random humans out of the tons that existed, because, they wouldn't be the only two humans and they wouldn't be the first two humans..

how do you make sense of this? why not relegate adam and eve to "allegorical" status? It just makes jumping through the hoops a hell of a lot easier.

How do you not think this matters? If 1 were true, it would be great evidence of a creator. If 2 were true, it relegates genesis to being historically false.. That has to mean something

Joseph Smith saw Adam in a vision and he also knew exactly where the Garden of Eden was. It's not that easy for Mormons to get that story allegoried.

[Uncle Ted]

Our current understanding is that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. Gravity will not pull everything back to a big crunch. Dark matter is pushing our universe apart.Sounds decisive!

[Mel-o-rama]

So literally you flip in your mind two scenarios:

1) god just made Adam and Eve magically appear 10-100K years ago
2) we evolved slowly out over the course of billions of years

So wait... you can't really believe in a literal Adam and Eve if you believe in evolution, unless god chose two random humans out of the tons that existed, because, they wouldn't be the only two humans and they wouldn't be the first two humans..

how do you make sense of this? why not relegate adam and eve to "allegorical" status? It just makes jumping through the hoops a hell of a lot easier.

How do you not think this matters? If 1 were true, it would be great evidence of a creator. If 2 were true, it relegates genesis to being historically false.. That has to mean something
I don't agree with your last statement. #2 doesn't disprove Genesis.

Under a "directed" evolution, God could have taken Species #8472 and applied a mutation to create Adam and Eve.

OR he could have collected some dust together and created their bodies on the spot.

Either way, Adam and Eve are the first humans, and everything progresses as spelled out in Genesis.

I've always struggled with the concept of "gradual" evolution over billions of years (where several different members spontaneously undergo the same mutation independently). Wouldn't any mutation come from some "patient zero"? There is always that one first "different" virus that replicates and creates a whole colony of stronger viruses.

And wouldn't "gradual" evolution imply that some humans are more advanced than others?

[MyWifeThinksImGoodLooking]

I don't agree with your last statement. #2 doesn't disprove Genesis.

Under a "directed" evolution, God could have taken Species #8472 and applied a mutation to create Adam and Eve.

OR he could have collected some dust together and created their bodies on the spot.

Either way, Adam and Eve are the first humans, and everything progresses as spelled out in Genesis.

I've always struggled with the concept of "gradual" evolution over billions of years (where several different members spontaneously undergo the same mutation independently). Wouldn't any mutation come from some "patient zero"? There is always that one first "different" virus that replicates and creates a whole colony of stronger viruses.

And wouldn't "gradual" evolution imply that some humans are more advanced than others?

I don't understand what you are saying about "gradual" evolution. What do you mean by "several different members spontaneously undergo the same mutation independently"? I have never heard this. Where have you heard this? What do you mean by more advanced humans? Some people are taller than others. Some people are faster than others. Some groups have, on average, lighter hair color than other groups. I don't know what you mean by more advanced though.

[gosuruss]

I don't agree with your last statement. #2 doesn't disprove Genesis.

Under a "directed" evolution, God could have taken Species #8472 and applied a mutation to create Adam and Eve.

OR he could have collected some dust together and created their bodies on the spot.

Either way, Adam and Eve are the first humans, and everything progresses as spelled out in Genesis.

I've always struggled with the concept of "gradual" evolution over billions of years (where several different members spontaneously undergo the same mutation independently). Wouldn't any mutation come from some "patient zero"? There is always that one first "different" virus that replicates and creates a whole colony of stronger viruses.

And wouldn't "gradual" evolution imply that some humans are more advanced than others?

I would really challenge you to spend 20 minutes doing two things: reading wikipedia page on evolution, and googling "evidence for evolution." Might be the best spent 20 minutes of your week.

i will be happy to spend 20 minutes googling whatever you would like me to.

[Noddy]

Haven't heard about the first two concepts you mention, but last I heard, the overall geometry of our universe still hasn't been decided yet. (big crunch vs. eternal expansion) Either way, I was just pointing out similarities, and not necessarily saying that's the way things really are.

The 'overall geometry' has been determined. The following lecture will get you up to speed as regards the state of the art.
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

As regards your last point - what was the point?

[Uncle Ted]

I can't believe I ate watched the whole thing!

Interesting note I hadn't heard before. Apparently the implication of the flat universe is that galaxies will eventually be moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light, meaning (way) future generations, presumably on other planets in our galaxy, will not be able to see anything outside of their (our) galaxy, and will not know of the existence of the big bang, other galaxies etc., as no evidence of such things will be observable.

I wonder what implications that has for what we currently observe, and what possibilities exist for the existence of things we have written off because of lack of support or proof, which is a direct result of the result being unobservable. Basically we know that future species will develop incorrect scientific theories on the nature of the universe, because of the nature of the universe itself.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I can't believe I ate watched the whole thing!

Interesting note I hadn't heard before. Apparently the implication of the flat universe is that galaxies will eventually be moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light, meaning (way) future generations, presumably on other planets in our galaxy, will not be able to see anything outside of their (our) galaxy, and will not know of the existence of the big bang, other galaxies etc., as no evidence of such things will be observable.

I wonder what implications that has for what we currently observe, and what possibilities exist for the existence of things we have written off because of lack of support or proof, which is a direct result of the result being unobservable. Basically we know that future species will develop incorrect scientific theories on the nature of the universe, because of the nature of the universe itself.

well, we can't see anything outside of the observable universe. for all we know there could be dancing dragons out there.

[Uncle Ted]

well, we can't see anything outside of the observable universe. for all we know there could be dancing dragons out there.Not as interested in theories about outside the universe as inside. These future generations will be able to "prove" that their galaxy is the entire universe...maybe? I dunno, will they be able to figure out that other galaxies are moving away from them, without being able to observe them?

Assuming they can't, will they come up with different properties to define what they observe within their galaxy than the properties that we have for our (the same) galaxy?

[Klaymen]

What I'm getting at is Christian theology. The central foundation of it is coercive lies like "sins" and "hell", which only works on the dumbest of the dumbest faithfuls who think they bought "insurance policy" by playing Pascal's Wager.

Except you have no proof they are lies, so I maintain they are truths and that those who are faithful will one day be proven very smart.

[Klaymen]

So literally you flip in your mind two scenarios:

you can't really believe in a literal Adam and Eve if you believe in evolution, unless god chose two random humans out of the tons that existed, because, they wouldn't be the only two humans and they wouldn't be the first two humans..


Huh?

[TheGillotine]

1) Still Job wasn't raped. he lost his wealth, he was stricke by Satan with a disease - but he wasn't raped. The difference is not so significant. If it makes you feel better, replace "raped" with "Held down and stabbed with a diseased needle"
2) Satan isn't a crony of Jehovah - but his arch enemy. Is Satan outside Jehovah's power? If not, then everything he does is with Jehovah's permission. And would you turn your children over to your arch enemy?
3) Jehovah allowed Satan to afflict Job with the disease - but the main source of anguish was Job's three "friends". Most of the book deals with the accusations they make against Job and Jehovah. His friends say that God is just - that Job must have done something to deserve this punishment. God later says that Job's friends were wrong - that God did what he did because he could.
4) Sometimes you need to allow some harm to come to your children - if it is for a good purpose. Allowing a rapist to rape your children or a rabid pitbull to maul your child has no good purpose. On the other hand you may allow a doctor to take a knife and cut out cancer from the child. From the child's stand point that would be very painful, needles, kninves and stiches - but it is for a good purpose. (note I'm not saying that this is an example comparable to Job's case - but just to illustrate that allowing your children to go through pain for a good reason is sometimes necessary). The purpose of Job's suffering was because Jehovah entered into a wager with Satan, the trickster god, tricked Jehovah into doing this by playing against Jehovah's pride.

Consider the Issues Satan raised (in the old testament):
a) he called God a liar in the Garden of Eden And rightly so. Eating the fruit of the knowledge of Good and Evil doesn't cause them to die
b) he said that God does not have the right to rule over mankind and make rules for them So do I. No one has the right to rule over another. Satan is for self-government? Sounds like America is the most Satanic country in the world, according to you.
c) he said that God was withholding something good from Adam and Eve (when he said by eating the fruit they would become like God) God was withholding something from Adam and Eve, namely knowledge.
d) now in the book of Job - he is accusing Job of only serving God for selfish reasons - God's allowing this to happen gave Job the ability to prove the slander against Job was false. Another illustration - Suppose a man's ex girlfried goes to his wife and tells her that he really doesn't love her - that she could get him to divorce her. Unless she tempted him to be unfaithful - the question of his love for his wife would always remain. Better analogy. Suppose a woman's ex-boyfriend goes to her husband and tells him that she doesn't really love her - that she only loves him because he is nice to her: That if he beat her regularly and locked her in the basement she would stop loving him. Now suppose the husband says "That's not true, I'll beat her and lock her in the basement and she'll still love me". Then he does that and she starts to question why she loves him and thinks he's a jerk. Then he gets angry and says that he has the right to do what he did to her because he's her husband and she can't stop him.

Now, tell me, do you have respect for the husband? Did he win anything there?

e) in addition to this he is making a claim similar to ones I have heard in this thread - that God made a mistake in his creation - in other words -his creation was faulty - Adam and Eve turned against God. And When God showed that Job was the most faithful in the Earth - Satan challanged that he could get him to turn against God too. God felt the need to "restart" the world by killing nearly everyone with a flood. Doesn't that mean he screwed up the first time around?
f) Many of the claims of Jobs false friends are also charges against God - Eliphaz basicaly said that when bad things happen to people it is Gods punishment against them. Bildad and Zophar said that man is too unclean to be considered by God. at Job 42:7 it said: "And it came about after Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, that Jehovah proceeded to say to El´i·phaz the Te´man·ite: “My anger has grown hot against you and your two companions, for YOU men have not spoken concerning me what is truthful as has my servant Job." showing that these thoughts were not true. Yes. What Job said about Jehovah was truthful. What did Job say?
"When he passes me, I cannot see him;
when he goes by, I cannot perceive him.
12 If he snatches away, who can stop him?
Who can say to him, ‘What are you doing?’
13 God does not restrain his anger;
even the cohorts of Rahab cowered at his feet.

14 “How then can I dispute with him?
How can I find words to argue with him?
15 Though I were innocent, I could not answer him;
I could only plead with my Judge for mercy.
16 Even if I summoned him and he responded,
I do not believe he would give me a hearing.
17 He would crush me with a storm
and multiply my wounds for no reason.
18 He would not let me catch my breath
but would overwhelm me with misery.
19 If it is a matter of strength, he is mighty!
And if it is a matter of justice, who can challenge him?
[B]20 Even if I were innocent, my mouth would condemn me;
if I were blameless, it would pronounce me guilty.

Job is saying that it isn't about right and wrong, it's about power. And Jehovah confirms this. *That* is the message of the Book of Job - that we are at the mercy of God (the Universe), and God (the Universe) does not care about our well-being. Notice that at this point, Satan is completely out of the picture.
God was able to correct the badness that happened to Job. He restored double of his wealth, gave him ten more children. Did Job feel that God made up for it? Job 42:16, 17 - "And Job continued living after this a hundred and forty years and came to see his sons and his grandsons—four generations. And gradually Job died, old and satisfied with days."
And in the ressurection after Armageddon - Job will be able to resume his life with all of his children - so even that will be double the amount.

Responses in red. You're starting to make my points for me.

[gosuruss]

Huh?

What?

[Uncle Ted]

well, we can't see anything outside of the observable universe. for all we know there could be dancing dragons out there.Don't mean to double respond but my mind's racing a bit here, I'm supposed to be working. Might help me focus.

So these future generations will discover; heliocentricism, gravity, various theories on energy etc. But they won't be able to discover the big bang because they won't be able to observe galaxies moving away from each other. So does that mean they will discover quantum mechanics but not the theory of relativity?

Basically will they be able to "prove" that relativity is incorrect based on their observations of there not being any galaxies outside their own?

I dunno haven't thought about this long enough nor do I know enough about physics but seems very interesting. Bascailly how the universe can play tricks on you like that.

Also not sure I understand how galaxies can movie away from each other at greater than the speed of light...

[Uncle Ted]

Responses in red. You're starting to make my points for me.You're really not good at this theist for a month thing.

You don't even make sense any more, bouncing all over the place, theist atheist back and forth. Really, it was just a month...sad attempt.

[TheGillotine]

You're really not good at this theist for a month thing.

You don't even make sense any more, bouncing all over the place, theist atheist back and forth. Really, it was just a month...sad attempt.

I'm a theist. I'm attempting to show the flaws in these superstitious depictions of God. If someone was going around saying God was Batman, I'd expect you to join me in demonstrating the problem.

I think it is an insult to the character of God to say She would be fooled by some trickster god into allowing the torture of someone.

Why do I have to stay strictly within your beliefs to be considered a theist? Why do I have to ignore incorrect things or poor arguments said by other theists? I think that you cause people to start thinking like atheists when you denounce them as such for ever criticizing theists or theistic beliefs.

[Uncle Ted]

I'm a theist. I'm attempting to show the flaws in these superstitious depictions of God. If someone was going around saying God was Batman, I'd expect you to join me in demonstrating the problem.

I think it is an insult to the character of God to say She would be fooled by some trickster god into allowing the torture of someone.Oh, ok. I didn't even read your response, it was too long. But you have been going back and forth. Anyway, I don't too often get involved in someone saying God is Batman. I find discussions with atheists are more interesting. With other theists it's just rehearsed apologetics, rarely hear anything new. But every now and again I succumb. I don't believe the story of Job actually occured in history, just meant to show an example of explory faith and how pleasing it is to God.

Anyway, carry on.

[V1per41]

Don't mean to double respond but my mind's racing a bit here, I'm supposed to be working. Might help me focus.

So these future generations will discover; heliocentricism, gravity, various theories on energy etc. But they won't be able to discover the big bang because they won't be able to observe galaxies moving away from each other. So does that mean they will discover quantum mechanics but not the theory of relativity?

Basically will they be able to "prove" that relativity is incorrect based on their observations of there not being any galaxies outside their own?

I dunno haven't thought about this long enough nor do I know enough about physics but seems very interesting. Bascailly how the universe can play tricks on you like that.

Also not sure I understand how galaxies can movie away from each other at greater than the speed of light...

It's not that the galaxies are moving away faster then the speed of light as it is the universe itself that it expanding so fast that light won't be able to make up for it. Relativity is a very difficult thing to grasp and even harder to explain, best to look elsewhere on the interwebs for answers to some of those questions.

I would imagine that a sufficiently advanced civilization would be able to come up with things like the theory of relativity without being able to see other galaxies.

It is a very interesting line of conversation and investigation, but think it's probably outside the scope of this thread.

[TheGillotine]

Oh, ok. I didn't even read your response, it was too long. But you have been going back and forth. Anyway, I don't too often get involved in someone saying God is Batman. I find discussions with atheists are more interesting. With other theists it's just rehearsed apologetics, rarely hear anything new. But every now and again I succumb. I don't believe the story of Job actually occured in history, just meant to show an example of explory faith and how pleasing it is to God.

Anyway, carry on.

This is harder than it looks. I'm trying to recapture what it was like to argue from the theistic position, not just rehearse common theistic arguments. I think I've about gotten to the mindset where I can suppose God exists without feeling ridiculous.

[Noddy]

I can't believe I ate watched the whole thing!

Interesting note I hadn't heard before. Apparently the implication of the flat universe is that galaxies will eventually be moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light, meaning (way) future generations, presumably on other planets in our galaxy, will not be able to see anything outside of their (our) galaxy, and will not know of the existence of the big bang, other galaxies etc., as no evidence of such things will be observable.
I found that fascinating


I wonder what implications that has for what we currently observe, and what possibilities exist for the existence of things we have written off because of lack of support or proof, which is a direct result of the result being unobservable. Basically we know that future species will develop incorrect scientific theories on the nature of the universe, because of the nature of the universe itself.

Yip, Lawrence Krauss said just as much.

Fascinating.

[Noddy]

Sounds decisive!

Well pi isn't 3 if that's what you're driving at.

I'm glad you watched the science thingy I posted.

[Noddy]

I'm a theist. I'm attempting to show the flaws in these superstitious depictions of God. If someone was going around saying God was Batman, I'd expect you to join me in demonstrating the problem.

I think it is an insult to the character of God to say She would be fooled by some trickster god into allowing the torture of someone.

Why do I have to stay strictly within your beliefs to be considered a theist? Why do I have to ignore incorrect things or poor arguments said by other theists? I think that you cause people to start thinking like atheists when you denounce them as such for ever criticizing theists or theistic beliefs.

it's the invisible pink unicorn isn't it?


I believe that 'she' is actually a 'he'

[Noddy]

Ftr I much prefer you strictly atheist.

I've been scrolling past a lot of your posts lately

That's not like me.

[Baby, ByeBye]

Don't mean to double respond but my mind's racing a bit here, I'm supposed to be working. Might help me focus.

So these future generations will discover; heliocentricism, gravity, various theories on energy etc. But they won't be able to discover the big bang because they won't be able to observe galaxies moving away from each other. So does that mean they will discover quantum mechanics but not the theory of relativity?

Basically will they be able to "prove" that relativity is incorrect based on their observations of there not being any galaxies outside their own?

I dunno haven't thought about this long enough nor do I know enough about physics but seems very interesting. Bascailly how the universe can play tricks on you like that.

Also not sure I understand how galaxies can movie away from each other at greater than the speed of light...

they aren't moving at greater than the speed of light. it just appears to us that way because the universe is expanding. and the universe isn't expanding at the speed of light. but if every space between you and this other place is expanding, the farther away something is, the more "expansion" you'd experience.

[Uncle Ted]

they aren't moving at greater than the speed of light. it just appears to us that way because the universe is expanding. and the universe isn't expanding at the speed of light. but if every space between you and this other place is expanding, the farther away something is, the more "expansion" you'd experience.I take it you didn't watch the video.

[Baby, ByeBye]

I take it you didn't watch the video.

? I did. Several times actually. It's a pretty famous video.
He did a pretty nice example with the dots and stuff. Did you miss that part.

[TheGillotine]

it's the invisible pink unicorn isn't it?


I believe that 'she' is actually a 'he'

Nope, I think God is female.

Ftr I much prefer you strictly atheist.

I've been scrolling past a lot of your posts lately

That's not like me.

Is that because you no longer agree with me, or because my theistic arguments suck? I'm trying to keep them as original as possible (keeping in mind apologetics have been going on for mellinia without much success).

Of course, I've been vaguely skirting around on the edges of the conversation, sniping points on either side. And that's easy and boring. Allow me then to put forth my own vision of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's define God as "A personal being existing independently of our universe, who created our universe and who has complete control of our universe and access to any information about our universe."

So I'm going to put forward the simulation argument (I made a thread about this recently). One of the following situations will unfold in the relatively near future.

1) Human civilization will cease to exist or will not progress technologically at nearly the rate it currently is.
2) Future human civilizations will not be interested in creating lifelike simulations of the history of the human species.
3) We are almost certainly living within one such simulation.

Expounding on point 3. If the human species continues to progress technologically at its current rate, its computing power will advance to the point where they can simulate a universe as realistic as the actual universe, or at least appearing very realistic to the simulated beings inside. Human-like consciousness, being the product of the natural and material human brain, could conceivably be simulated in such an environment. We don't know at what point these sorts of achievements will be made, but I think within 100,000 years is a conservative estimate. From here on out, I'll refer to simulations that are indistinguishable from reality as "realistic simulations".

So, let's suppose that these realistic simulations can be created in the future (which I think is almost certain given human survival). Such simulations would be made by various interested parties to research human ancestry, economics, evolutionary biology, and a host of other areas of scientific research. Perhaps they'll also be made for entertainment purposes, a la "Sim Universe 37". So, given that millions of such simulations could, and would, be run across the world(s), we're faced with a situation: that there are millions of universes that appear to be the real universe to those inside, and only one of them *is* the real, or original, universe.

So, if human civilization does not cease and progresses at or above its current rate, and future human civilizations are interested in running simulations of their past, then we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. If this is the case, then our universe was created by a personal being who exists independently of our universe and who has control over our universe and access to any information about our universe (as a person would with regard to a simulation they were running). As defined above, this would mean that God exists.

While it's not proof, exactly, I think it is a very reasonable position to believe that human civilization will survive and continue to advance technologically, and will be interested in studying its past through simulations, and that we are probably living within one of those simulations. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alright. Atheists, traditional theists, have at it.

[Noddy]

Nope, I think God is female.


aw, too bad,

your 'theist' posts might've been marginally more interesting to me if I thought you were defending the existance of the invisible pink unicorn. marginally.



Is that because you no longer agree with me, or because my theistic arguments suck?

neither


Allow me then to put forth my own vision of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's define God as "A personal being existing independently of our universe,

out

[Mel-o-rama]

The 'overall geometry' has been determined. The following lecture will get you up to speed as regards the state of the art.
'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

As regards your last point - what was the point?

Hmmm ... a 65-minute video with sound? It'll have to wait till later. You don't happen to have a transcript, do you?

From what I can gather from the web, the main purpose of the video seems to be debunking the existence of God. So, I'd be a little hesistant to use this source to conclude that "the 'overall geometry' has been determined." I'd prefer to use sources that stick to strictly science and not bring religion into it.

When I browse through the wiki pages, the answer looks to be far from decided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

But now I can see better, that if you're so quick to decide this matter for yourself, how it is that you're so quick to decide that God doesn't exist. And neither topic is up for debate.

[V1per41]

Hmmm ... a 65-minute video with sound? It'll have to wait till later. You don't happen to have a transcript, do you?

From what I can gather from the web, the main purpose of the video seems to be debunking the existence of God. So, I'd be a little hesistant to use this source to conclude that "the 'overall geometry' has been determined." I'd prefer to use sources that stick to strictly science and not bring religion into it.

When I browse through the wiki pages, the answer looks to be far from decided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

But now I can see better, that if you're so quick to decide this matter for yourself, how it is that you're so quick to decide that God doesn't exist. And neither topic is up for debate.

I watched the video a few months ago, so don't remember it exactly, but from what I remember, the main purpose of the video is far from "debunking the existence of God"

Does it dismantle a popular argument for the existence of a deity? Yes, but the same could be said for virtually any video covering a scientific topic. In this case, the argument that the universe couldn't possibly have come from nothing.

The main point that I got from the video is that the universe was most certainly created from nothing and the current evidence supports that hypothesis. Krauss wrote a book on the same topic which I look forward to reading when I find the time.

Is it possible that a deity created the universe? Sure. There just isn't any scientific basis to hold such a view, and there is a scientific basis to hold the view that the universe was created from nothing via natural causes.

[Mel-o-rama]

I watched the video a few months ago, so don't remember it exactly, but from what I remember, the main purpose of the video is far from "debunking the existence of God"

Does it dismantle a popular argument for the existence of a deity? Yes, but the same could be said for virtually any video covering a scientific topic. In this case, the argument that the universe couldn't possibly have come from nothing.

The main point that I got from the video is that the universe was most certainly created from nothing and the current evidence supports that hypothesis. Krauss wrote a book on the same topic which I look forward to reading when I find the time.

Is it possible that a deity created the universe? Sure. There just isn't any scientific basis to hold such a view, and there is a scientific basis to hold the view that the universe was created from nothing via natural causes.

Hmmm ... then all those links I saw on Google were probably people using the video to debunk the existence of a god. I'll have to watch the video when I get home. Does it have lots of cool graphics? Or is it just that dude lecturing in front of a pulpit. If the latter, I'd prefer to read a transcript.

But jumping off of what you just wrote, there is a noticeable difference on this subject between Mormon doctrine and most Christian churches. The way I understand it, most Christians believe in a God that did indeed create our world out of nothing. (Then is Krauss actually providing a scientific argument as to how God could have accomplished this?)

Mormon scripture, on the other hand, heavily implies that the matter already existed and God organized it to create our world. This seems more consistent with the "local" scientific explanation of the creation of our solar system. Matter collected into a star and planets. But I don't know of any Mormon scripture that speaks to the creation of the whole universe (though it implies that the creation of our world did not happen at the same time as the creation of all the other worlds).

[V1per41]

Hmmm ... then all those links I saw on Google were probably people using the video to debunk the existence of a god. I'll have to watch the video when I get home. Does it have lots of cool graphics? Or is it just that dude lecturing in front of a pulpit. If the latter, I'd prefer to read a transcript.

It's a video purely on a scientific topic, but is heavily used in religious discussions as the "The universe can't create itself from nothing" is a very popular pro-deity argument.

It's a presentation with slides that are shown, but mostly lecture format. I don't know of where you can find the transcript, but like I said this speech revolves around the book he wrote on the same subject, so if you would rather learn more and go more in depth, I would check that out.

But jumping off of what you just wrote, there is a noticeable difference on this subject between Mormon doctrine and most Christian churches. The way I understand it, most Christians believe in a God that did indeed create our world out of nothing. (Then is Krauss actually providing a scientific argument as to how God could have accomplished this?)

Again, it's been a while, but I don't think he mentions any gods in the video, or how they could have created the universe. The super-high-level explanation is that there really isn't any such thing as nothing, that there are always small quantum fluctuations, and given enough time, these fluctuations could result in a setup that would initiate the big bang. So sure, a deity could have created the universe in this matter, but there is no need for one. If the universe could have come about via completely natural causes, then why postulate the existence of a deity where one isn't needed?


Mormon scripture, on the other hand, heavily implies that the matter already existed and God organized it to create our world. This seems more consistent with the "local" scientific explanation of the creation of our solar system. Matter collected into a star and planets. But I don't know of any Mormon scripture that speaks to the creation of the whole universe (though it implies that the creation of our world did not happen at the same time as the creation of all the other worlds).

I had never heard that about the Mormon scriptures.

[Noddy]

Hmmm ... a 65-minute video with sound? It'll have to wait till later. You don't happen to have a transcript, do you?


no


From what I can gather from the web, the main purpose of the video seems to be debunking the existence of God.

not at all


So, I'd be a little hesistant to use this source to conclude that "the 'overall geometry' has been determined." I'd prefer to use sources that stick to strictly science and not bring religion into it.

or the BoM - isnt that right?





But now I can see better, that if you're so quick to decide this matter for yourself, how it is that you're so quick to decide that God doesn't exist. And neither topic is up for debate.

I'm not quick to decide the matter for myself. I'm deferring to the experts who have dedicated their careers to understanding the universe. I can check their calculations if I have reason to suspect that there is something fishy going on.

I'm almost 100% certain that there are no gods. The topic is most certainly up for debate.

[V1per41]

Decided to re-listen to the video and it is a speech given at the Atheist Alliance International meeting, and there are some science vs religion undertones.

The main crux of the presentation is on the science though, so try not to get too hung up on the religion stuff.

[Mel-o-rama]

Let's define God as "A personal being existing independently of our universe, who created our universe and who has complete control of our universe and access to any information about our universe."

So I'm going to put forward the simulation argument (I made a thread about this recently). One of the following situations will unfold in the relatively near future.

1) Human civilization will cease to exist or will not progress technologically at nearly the rate it currently is.
2) Future human civilizations will not be interested in creating lifelike simulations of the history of the human species.
3) We are almost certainly living within one such simulation.

Expounding on point 3. If the human species continues to progress technologically at its current rate, its computing power will advance to the point where they can simulate a universe as realistic as the actual universe, or at least appearing very realistic to the simulated beings inside. Human-like consciousness, being the product of the natural and material human brain, could conceivably be simulated in such an environment. We don't know at what point these sorts of achievements will be made, but I think within 100,000 years is a conservative estimate. From here on out, I'll refer to simulations that are indistinguishable from reality as "realistic simulations".

So, let's suppose that these realistic simulations can be created in the future (which I think is almost certain given human survival). Such simulations would be made by various interested parties to research human ancestry, economics, evolutionary biology, and a host of other areas of scientific research. Perhaps they'll also be made for entertainment purposes, a la "Sim Universe 37". So, given that millions of such simulations could, and would, be run across the world(s), we're faced with a situation: that there are millions of universes that appear to be the real universe to those inside, and only one of them *is* the real, or original, universe.

So, if human civilization does not cease and progresses at or above its current rate, and future human civilizations are interested in running simulations of their past, then we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. If this is the case, then our universe was created by a personal being who exists independently of our universe and who has control over our universe and access to any information about our universe (as a person would with regard to a simulation they were running). As defined above, this would mean that God exists.

While it's not proof, exactly, I think it is a very reasonable position to believe that human civilization will survive and continue to advance technologically, and will be interested in studying its past through simulations, and that we are probably living within one of those simulations. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

I'll get my pithy comments out of the way and answer more seriously later today.

If we were inside a simulation, wouldn't there be glitches in the system. Oh, wait! Now I understand how Microsoft got to be so popular. There's the glitch!

This is all intriguing stuff. One should make a movie about it.

If you make a simulation inside of a simulation, does it become simulception?

If I were in charge of one of these simulations, I'd be so tempted to have so much fun with the people...

Okay - I'll be back later on this. :)

[Mel-o-rama]

It's a video purely on a scientific topic, but is heavily used in religious discussions as the "The universe can't create itself from nothing" is a very popular pro-deity argument.
Oh, I missed that part. It's not that an entity created the universe from nothing, but rather that the universe created itself out of nothing (thus no need of God). Gotcha.

[ORLYLOL]

I belive Spinoza has a point about this...

[Mel-o-rama]

or the BoM - isnt that right?
Not sure what you're getting at here. The BoM is silent on the shape/fate of the universe. What started all this was because I made an "that's interesting" comment comparing what I had just learned about the Hindu religion with a currently proposed scientific theory. I'm not sure why you're attacking the said scientific theory. I'm tempted to say that your interest in doing so is almost "religious." That is, you're saying, "My theory on the fate of the universe is better than that crappy theory." (And to be honest, I'm not sure why I'm so interested in pointing this out. :))

I'm not quick to decide the matter for myself. I'm deferring to the experts who have dedicated their careers to understanding the universe. I can check their calculations if I have reason to suspect that there is something fishy going on.
Yes, but you seem to be picking and choosing the expert(s). Stephen Hawking appears to still hold to his "no boundary condition" universe, which requires the eventual collapse of the universe.

So it appears that different experts still believe different theories. Who are we to say which one of them is right? :)

[Mel-o-rama]

Okay - some more serious thought on the Matrix post:

First off, I wish I had read this book, which I was supposed to have read, but I never got around to it:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Spiritual-Machines-Intelligence/dp/0140282025/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1337188103&sr=8-3

But one thought is that if we ever do get to a point where we're so technologically advanced that we can create perfect simulations of our universe, then we would also likely to have surpassed the Technological Singularity, which means that we would no longer be in control. Thus the machines would be the ones creating these simulations. But why would they?

Many people prefer to avoid discussing this subject because with science, you can only prove things according to what you observe. Since we would be unable to see outside of the simulation, we wouldn't be able to prove anything outside of the simulation exists. Thus, the simulation is our reality and it doesn't matter what's on the outside.

Though I like the idea that we might not actually be living mortal beings, but rather pieces of code running through a supercomputer's memory banks.

Hmmm ... you have a link to your other thread? I may need to check it out...

[TheGillotine]

aw, too bad,

your 'theist' posts might've been marginally more interesting to me if I thought you were defending the existance of the invisible pink unicorn. marginally.




neither


out

So you'll argue ad nauseum with the same group of theists over the same tired points, but when someone comes along with something new and different you're not interested? You've got a weird way of looking at things.


If we were inside a simulation, wouldn't there be glitches in the system. Oh, wait! Now I understand how Microsoft got to be so popular. There's the glitch!


There probably wouldn't be significant glitches, and if there were glitches that were consistent, they'd be hard or impossible to discern from intended qualities of the universe. On the other hand, I don't know of any better way to explain Buck.

[TheGillotine]

Okay - some more serious thought on the Matrix post:

First off, I wish I had read this book, which I was supposed to have read, but I never got around to it:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Age-Spiritual-Machines-Intelligence/dp/0140282025/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1337188103&sr=8-3

But one thought is that if we ever do get to a point where we're so technologically advanced that we can create perfect simulations of our universe, then we would also likely to have surpassed the Technological Singularity, which means that we would no longer be in control. Thus the machines would be the ones creating these simulations. But why would they?

Many people prefer to avoid discussing this subject because with science, you can only prove things according to what you observe. Since we would be unable to see outside of the simulation, we wouldn't be able to prove anything outside of the simulation exists. Thus, the simulation is our reality and it doesn't matter what's on the outside.

Though I like the idea that we might not actually be living mortal beings, but rather pieces of code running through a supercomputer's memory banks.

Hmmm ... you have a link to your other thread? I may need to check it out...

That's an interesting point and I'd have to read the book because it doesn't seem obvious to me that machines would be in control. And if they were, then wouldn't they be of human-like intelligence and still likely interested in history?

Link to earlier thread (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=239548&highlight=simulation)

Link to original Simulation Argument (http://www.simulation-argument.com/) originally put forward by Oxford Philosophy Professor Nick Bostrom.

[TheGillotine]

I'm almost 100% certain that there are no gods. The topic is most certainly up for debate.

Since you ignored my argument, I don't think it is up for debate.

[gosuruss]

Since you ignored my argument, I don't think it is up for debate.

It's very simple -- The level of technology and computing power needed to simulate the earth and all of its inhabitants and the trillions of neurons in each of our heads is so flat out ridiculous that we will have destroyed ourselves by then. You have to ask yourself, given how much of a feat it would be to simulate this, is it more likely that we blow ourselves up by then? I think so. There will be nuclear weapons that would destroy the earth with ease by then. All it takes is one religious nut (plenty of them out there), and kaboom.

All religions predict the end of the world and con.....

[TheGillotine]

It's very simple -- The level of technology and computing power needed to simulate the earth and all of its inhabitants and the trillions of neurons in each of our heads is so flat out ridiculous that we will have destroyed ourselves by then. You have to ask yourself, given how much of a feat it would be to simulate this, is it more likely that we blow ourselves up by then? I think so. There will be nuclear weapons that would destroy the earth with ease by then. All it takes is one religious nut (plenty of them out there), and kaboom.

All religions predict the end of the world and con.....

You don't need to replicate every atom of every neuron of every person, you only need to simulate it to a realistic approximation. And considering that the quantum revolution in physics happened only about a century ago, I think it's hard to say what the limits of our potential are even for the next century, not to mention the next 100,000 years.

But the possibility of human destruction is very real. But I think it's peaking in the modern era. But is it unreasonable to believe that we'll make it? I don't think so. I think that it's a very reasonable, albeit optimistic, position to take.

[Noddy]

So you'll argue ad nauseum with the same group of theists over the same tired points, but when someone comes along with something new and different you're not interested?

Yes, I very much enjoy engaging in counter-apologetics with the regular theists and the new ones that come along. I've mentioned this before but I am also conscious of the silent 3rd parties, especially the unsures, the misinformed and the undecideds.

I rail against irrational superstition which I consider to be one of the greatest threats to our/humanities continued survival.

I want to debate sincere, bonafide, dyed in the wool godbots. I'm not interested in debating every hairbrained scenario that people can imagine. Hey have you ever considered that ghosts might actually be time travelers (whoa, dude)

[Noddy]

Since you ignored my argument, I don't think it is up for debate.

lol

[TheGillotine]

Yes, I very much enjoy engaging in counter-apologetics with the regular theists and the new ones that come along. I've mentioned this before but I am also conscious of the silent 3rd parties, especially the unsures, the misinformed and the undecideds.

I rail against irrational superstition which I consider to be one of the greatest threats to our/humanities continued survival.

I want to debate sincere, bonafide, dyed in the wool godbots. I'm not interested in debating every hairbrained scenario that people can imagine. Hey have you ever considered that ghosts might actually be time travelers (whoa, dude)

Okay, so you can say "irrational superstition is irrational", but you can't say "Believing that God exists is irrational" until you address my argument.

[Buck]

To sum it up:

- Religion explains things for the reason to maintain the religion. There is no truth searching initiative in religion, such as research. Instead, religion explains all unknowns with a single generic answer, "God did it", and only does so to address faith in the religion.

- Religious followers believe in God out of their faith, despite remarkable lack of evidence supports to such faith.

- Most religious people are under coercive force from religion. They think faith in their religion will provide themselves better outcomes from "religious uncertainties". The "religious uncertainties" such as "heaven and hell" were created by religion itself.

- Most religious people do not really think their god actually exists. However, they rather believe it. For example, most religious people do not look forward to their own death despite the possibility of meeting with their own god as they claimed.

[Noddy]

Okay, so you can say "irrational superstition is irrational", but you can't say "Believing that God exists is irrational" until you address my argument.

lol
No need to address your non argument - watch

"Believing that God exists is irrational" - Noddy

[Uncle Ted]

So wait, Noddy is even obnoxious to other atheists when they just pretend to be theist for kicks?

lol man, that's gotta make at least one person start believing in God....even if just for spite.

Come on, anyone tempted to change their mind about this whole thing? Be honest....it's for prosterity.

[Uncle Ted]

And Bucks posted right above him!!! Someone please, we must have gotten one conversion from that back-to-back atheist all-star action there....

JUST ONNNNNEEEE!!!!

[phoebe]

It's very simple -- The level of technology and computing power needed to simulate the earth and all of its inhabitants and the trillions of neurons in each of our heads is so flat out ridiculous that we will have destroyed ourselves by then. You have to ask yourself, given how much of a feat it would be to simulate this, is it more likely that we blow ourselves up by then? I think so. There will be nuclear weapons that would destroy the earth with ease by then. All it takes is one religious nut (plenty of them out there), and kaboom.

All religions predict the end of the world and con.....

Read "wang's carpet", by greg egan.

[Noddy]

So wait, Noddy is even obnoxious to other atheists when they just pretend to be theist for kicks?

lol man, that's gotta make at least one person start believing in God....even if just for spite.

Come on, anyone tempted to change their mind about this whole thing? Be honest....it's for prosterity.

not surprisingly you didn't comprehend the reasons

Mine and TheGillotines posts are approximately equally obnoxious no?

[Klaymen]

To sum it up:

Where "it" is Buck's delusion.

[oirg]

So wait, Noddy is even obnoxious to other atheists when they just pretend to be theist for kicks?

lol man, that's gotta make at least one person start believing in God....even if just for spite.

Come on, anyone tempted to change their mind about this whole thing? Be honest....it's for prosterity.

DanJew did change his mind.

[IMP]

Flying Spaghetti Monster:tup: was gonna post that. :D

[Mel-o-rama]

- Most religious people do not really think their god actually exists. However, they rather believe it. For example, most religious people do not look forward to their own death despite the possibility of meeting with their own god as they claimed.
:lol: And there's that silly argument again. This is what usually happens next:

Theist: But Buck, God says if you kill yourself you go to hell.

Buck: <Ignore ... ignore ... on to something else ... bring up same argument again later in a different thread ... and so on>

[Mel-o-rama]

Oh yeah - I forgot to post this in regards to the Technological Singularity:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/skynet.png

[Anthemyst]

:lol: And there's that silly argument again. This is what usually happens next:

Theist: But Buck, God says if you kill yourself you go to hell.

Buck: <Ignore ... ignore ... on to something else ... bring up same argument again later in a different thread ... and so on>

To be fair, looking forward to one's death isn't the same thing as seeking it. And logically, if you believe that the afterlife is full of bliss, you should probably be looking forward to that, which is why I always assumed there was a no suicide rule in the first place. But, yeah, my nana's 95, widowed and outlived most of her friends, and I get the distinct impression she's getting a little impatient for her eternal reward in Heaven, but she's certainly not suicidal.

[TheGillotine]

lol
No need to address your non argument - watch

"Believing that God exists is irrational" - Noddy

So you're going with the "There are no transitional fossils" strategy of ignoring your opponent and repeating a mantra despite the fact that it's been debunked? Gotta say you're doing a good job of making me look at this debate as a "two sides of the same coin" sort of deal.

So wait, Noddy is even obnoxious to other atheists when they just pretend to be theist for kicks?

lol man, that's gotta make at least one person start believing in God....even if just for spite.

Come on, anyone tempted to change their mind about this whole thing? Be honest....it's for prosterity.

Not going to start believing in God... but I might just start calling myself agnostic and start sniping both sides.

To sum it up:

- Religion explains things for the reason to maintain the religion. There is no truth searching initiative in religion, such as research. Instead, religion explains all unknowns with a single generic answer, "God did it", and only does so to address faith in the religion.

- Religious followers believe in God out of their faith, despite remarkable lack of evidence supports to such faith.

- Most religious people are under coercive force from religion. They think faith in their religion will provide themselves better outcomes from "religious uncertainties". The "religious uncertainties" such as "heaven and hell" were created by religion itself.

- Most religious people do not really think their god actually exists. However, they rather believe it. For example, most religious people do not look forward to their own death despite the possibility of meeting with their own god as they claimed.

- Wrong, there is personal discovery and inquiry in religion.

- That's what faith is. However, most theists can point to evidence in their own lives

- Many religious people don't believe in Hell. And if they did, saying that religions use "coercive force" would be like saying hospitals use "coercive force" because if people don't use them they can get killed by disease/injury.

- Doubt is an integral part of faith.

For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely,
The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all

[gosuruss]

Many religious people don't believe in Hell. And if they did, saying that religions use "coercive force" would be like saying hospitals use "coercive force" because if people don't use them they can get killed by disease/injury.


Really?? REALLY?? No, it's not at all the same. And pointing out that many religious people don't believe in hell is irrelevant. Many churches teach it or something like it.

You can gain a confession by asking questions or you can gain a coerced confession with force. Just because some confessions without force does not excuse your behaviors of confessions extracted with force.

Furthermore, the coerciveness of religion is not limited to idea of hell. It's heaven as well. People who believe in heaven think they will be in paradise forever with their friends and family, and if you are not in heaven you will cease to exist as the party goes on. That is coercive in itself.

[TheGillotine]

Really?? REALLY?? No, it's not at all the same. And pointing out that many religious people don't believe in hell is irrelevant. Many churches teach it or something like it.

You can gain a confession by asking questions or you can gain a coerced confession with force. Just because some confessions without force does not excuse your behaviors of confessions extracted with force.

Furthermore, the coerciveness of religion is not limited to idea of hell. It's heaven as well. People who believe in heaven think they will be in paradise forever with their friends and family, and if you are not in heaven you will cease to exist as the party goes on. That is coercive in itself.

Is it coercive to only invite members of your bowling team to a party? Is that coercing people to join your bowling team?

[QMO]

Really?? REALLY?? No, it's not at all the same. And pointing out that many religious people don't believe in hell is irrelevant. Many churches teach it or something like it.

You can gain a confession by asking questions or you can gain a coerced confession with force. Just because some confessions without force does not excuse your behaviors of confessions extracted with force.

Furthermore, the coerciveness of religion is not limited to idea of hell. It's heaven as well. People who believe in heaven think they will be in paradise forever with their friends and family, and if you are not in heaven you will cease to exist as the party goes on. That is coercive in itself.If you believed in heaven and hell, then telling someone else about them and how you think they might arrive at one or the other is not, in and of itself, any more coercive than teaching someone* about the effects of gravity is coercive.

*Said someone may be, for example, about to make themselves into a Failblog video with a bicycle from the roof of their house.

[Mel-o-rama]

For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes Calamity of so long life:
For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time,
The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely,
The pangs of despised Love, the Law’s delay,
The insolence of Office, and the Spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his Quietus make
With a bare Bodkin? Who would Fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn
No Traveller returns, Puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have,
Than fly to others that we know not of.
Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all

Sounds much better in the original Klingon.

[Anthemyst]

Sounds much better in the original Klingon.

:tup:

[Paul Brand]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let's define God as "A personal being existing independently of our universe, who created our universe and who has complete control of our universe and access to any information about our universe."

So I'm going to put forward the simulation argument (I made a thread about this recently). One of the following situations will unfold in the relatively near future.

1) Human civilization will cease to exist or will not progress technologically at nearly the rate it currently is.
2) Future human civilizations will not be interested in creating lifelike simulations of the history of the human species.
3) We are almost certainly living within one such simulation.

Expounding on point 3. If the human species continues to progress technologically at its current rate, its computing power will advance to the point where they can simulate a universe as realistic as the actual universe, or at least appearing very realistic to the simulated beings inside. Human-like consciousness, being the product of the natural and material human brain, could conceivably be simulated in such an environment. We don't know at what point these sorts of achievements will be made, but I think within 100,000 years is a conservative estimate. From here on out, I'll refer to simulations that are indistinguishable from reality as "realistic simulations".

So, let's suppose that these realistic simulations can be created in the future (which I think is almost certain given human survival). Such simulations would be made by various interested parties to research human ancestry, economics, evolutionary biology, and a host of other areas of scientific research. Perhaps they'll also be made for entertainment purposes, a la "Sim Universe 37". So, given that millions of such simulations could, and would, be run across the world(s), we're faced with a situation: that there are millions of universes that appear to be the real universe to those inside, and only one of them *is* the real, or original, universe.

So, if human civilization does not cease and progresses at or above its current rate, and future human civilizations are interested in running simulations of their past, then we are almost certainly living in a simulated reality. If this is the case, then our universe was created by a personal being who exists independently of our universe and who has control over our universe and access to any information about our universe (as a person would with regard to a simulation they were running). As defined above, this would mean that God exists.

While it's not proof, exactly, I think it is a very reasonable position to believe that human civilization will survive and continue to advance technologically, and will be interested in studying its past through simulations, and that we are probably living within one of those simulations. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alright. Atheists, traditional theists, have at it.

I've heard a similar argument in Paul Davies' book 'Cosmic Jackpot'. I don't know how to categorize Davies. Some kind of teleological atheist. (Without conscious observers, the universe might not exist).

I'm not saying that this is an argument that Davies necessarily agrees with, but he threw it out there. I think it was in context of the multi-verse. Given enough universes, there should be one where someone has the technological know-how to create endless simulations, giving the impression that if the multi-verse has merit, chances are the universe we are living in is a fake universe.

However, I think Davies is skeptical of the multiverse.

[Uncle Ted]

not surprisingly you didn't comprehend the reasons

Mine and TheGillotines posts are approximately equally obnoxious no?
I didn't read his, too long. Didn't read most of yours either just the last one.

[Buck]

If you believed in heaven and hell, then telling someone else about them and how you think they might arrive at one or the other is not, in and of itself, any more coercive than teaching someone* about the effects of gravity is coercive.

*Said someone may be, for example, about to make themselves into a Failblog video with a bicycle from the roof of their house.

Heaven and hell is something "taught"; gravity is not something "taught".
Heaven and hell is faith-based; gravity is not faith-based.
Heaven and hell is coercive; gravity is real.

A religiously delusional brain will fail to understand the difference.

[TheGillotine]

I didn't read his, too long. Didn't read most of yours either just the last one.

Heaven and hell is something "taught"; gravity is not something "taught".
Heaven and hell is faith-based; gravity is not faith-based.
Heaven and hell is coercive; gravity is real.

A religiously delusional brain will fail to understand the difference.

"Coercive" and "real" aren't mutually exclusive.

[Noddy]

I didn't read his, too long. Didn't read most of yours either just the last one.

Don't let that stop you passing judgement

[Noddy]

So you're going with the "There are no transitional fossils" strategy of ignoring your opponent and repeating a mantra despite the fact that it's been debunked? Gotta say you're doing a good job of making me look at this debate as a "two sides of the same coin" sort of deal.


I accept that there is the possibility of the god you imagine sitting behind the keyboard of his simulation; ditto the xtian gods. And the mormon ones and the islamist ones.

How will my acceptance of the possibility of yours ( would have preferred the invisible pink unicorn but alas c’est la vie ) affect my day-to-day life?

Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism


Also, how many people are killing and oppressing in the name of your computer programmer god? or rather as a result of the dogma of your computer programmer god?



I really do think I made my point rather well in this post

Yes, I very much enjoy engaging in counter-apologetics with the regular theists and the new ones that come along. I've mentioned this before but I am also conscious of the silent 3rd parties, especially the unsures, the misinformed and the undecideds.

I rail against irrational superstition which I consider to be one of the greatest threats to our/humanities continued survival.

I want to debate sincere, bonafide, dyed in the wool godbots. I'm not interested in debating every hairbrained scenario that people can imagine. Hey have you ever considered that ghosts might actually be time travelers (whoa, dude)

especially the last bit

Finally, believing that god exists (on zero evidence) is irrational.

[TheGillotine]

Don't let that stop you passing judgement

Didn't stop you. ;)

I accept that there is the possibility of the god you imagine sitting behind the keyboard of his simulation; ditto the xtian gods. And the mormon ones and the islamist ones.

How will my acceptance of the possibility of yours ( would have preferred the invisible pink unicorn but alas c’est la vie ) affect my day-to-day life?

Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism


Also, how many people are killing and oppressing in the name of your computer programmer god? or rather as a result of the dogma of your computer programmer god?



I really do think I made my point rather well in this post



especially the last bit

Finally, believing that god exists (on zero evidence) is irrational.

You're going to have to actually read the argument I presented. It's not that it's possible that we are in a simulation, it's that it's likely. And that may affect the way we should consider our universe and how we should live our lives.

By all means, criticize dogma, religious persecution, and religious wars. But until you refute the argument I presented and arguments like it, you'd do better not to aim your criticism at theism itself.

[Noddy]

Didn't stop you. ;)

:link:?


You're going to have to actually read the argument I presented. It's not that it's possible that we are in a simulation, it's that it's likely. And that may affect the way we should consider our universe and how we should live our lives.

By all means, criticize dogma, religious persecution, and religious wars. But until you refute the argument I presented and arguments like it, you'd do better not to aim your criticism at theism itself.

There's absolutely no need for me to even consider the argument you have presented let alone refute it in order to criticize theists and theism.

ur funny

[TheGillotine]

:link:?


You haven't read the argument I presented.


There's absolutely no need for me to even consider the argument you have presented let alone refute it in order to criticize theists and theism.

ur funny

There's absolutely no need for me to even consider the argument you have presented let alone refute it in order to criticize atheism and evolution.

~Young-Earth Creationist

[Noddy]

You haven't read the argument I presented.



There's absolutely no need for me to even consider the argument you have presented let alone refute it in order to criticize atheism and evolution.

~Young-Earth Creationist

umm..., take a bow?

[TheGillotine]

umm..., take a bow?

A http://www.scottishmist.com/assets/weapons/Bow_Arrow.jpg?

A http://www.harvestimport.com/assets/Image/Product/detailsbig/bow262-12.gif?
A http://lh3.ggpht.com/_DawJTCHuL3c/SwCD4u6UBXI/AAAAAAAABXU/yTthPLl3qyw/Bowing%5B3%5D.jpg?

[lovmath]

I am so happy to see so many actuaries having selected Christianity as their regligion.

[working girl]

Don't you know Christians don't consider Catholics Christian, and I certainly don't identify myself as one of those freaky Christians either, even though I'm Catholic.

[lovmath]

Don't you know Christians don't consider Catholics Christian, and I certainly don't identify myself as one of those freaky Christians either, even though I'm Catholic.


Oh please, that is so so so theoritical