[Silencer]

Indeed. The cut-off point for each person is different. And that is grounded in various psychological factors throughout childhood, and potentially even pre-birth.
You cannot, theoretically, take anything to be true. Socrates showed that even the 'wisest' of people (those who both considered themselves and were considered 'wise' in a certain field) were not in fact wise at all - they based their beliefs on certain assumptions, and that certain factors were true. However, one finds oneself in the position of belief in nothing, which as SM says leads simply to madness. Because you can't believe in yourself, as you are merely basing that on what you think, and even your thoughts could be wrong.

Science attempts to avoid this by focusing only on what is measurable. True, they then extrapolate certain things - microscopes are not powerful enough to see atoms, for example. But based on what is observed conclusions are drawn. Sometimes these are false.

It still comes down to, in my opinion, the fact that God has done nothing which can be observed. We have tales, written down by men, that say people performed miracles. These are not necessarily true. Nothing else, save for existence itself, even remotely suggests the existence of a real 'supreme being'. Which is why, while I'm open to the possibility of God, I do not believe. Simple.

[Cold Iron]

This is all fun, but really has no place in this debate. People of a scientific ilk have a tendancy to fall into the trap of debating the merits or validity of science (because that's what they love to do) when really the focus should be on literalism. For unless you agree that the bible is literally true in all places there is really no reason to doubt evolution at all.

[Terez]

Well, we have been telling Gem that for many pages now, and she insists that her questioning of evolution is purely scientific, and has nothing to do with her religious beliefs. Or at least, she was insisting that last I recall.

[stone monkey]

Silencer, on Sep 2 2009, 12:28 AM, said:

It still comes down to, in my opinion, the fact that God has done nothing which can be observed. We have tales, written down by men, that say people performed miracles. These are not necessarily true. Nothing else, save for existence itself, even remotely suggests the existence of a real 'supreme being'. Which is why, while I'm open to the possibility of God, I do not believe. Simple.

*applause*

The nail has been hit squarely on the head.

We and the universe would appear to have gotten here by entirely natural processes. I'm an atheist because there would seem to be no sign of a deity. The phenomena that have been attributed to the deity by the religious have, time and again, been shown to have simpler explanations. Simpler meaning, in this case, explanations based on observable properties of the universe rather than supernatural causation. These explanations, while not in themselves simple, are at least subject to things we can, unlike the ultimately unknowable deity, actually have, as human beings, some understanding of. Like any sane atheist, if the deity showed up tomorrow and explained him/her/it - self, I'd believe in him/her/it.

This has yet to happen.

Apropos of this, I was recently approached on the street by a Christian proselytising-type who attempted to demonstrate, by way of the story of St Thomas, the necessity of faith. My reply to him was that his interpretation of the story was actually completely in opposition to mine; to my mind Thomas was completely right to demand evidence and then change his mind once satisfactory evidence was provided.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 02 September 2009 - 12:50 AM

[Cold Iron]

A dilemma has arisen with the social acceptability of atheism, one can no longer admit to belief in god if it is not the popular definition of god in which he believes. But the popular definition, as you have just demonstrated, is nothing a rational mind could believe in.

God to me is a conglomeration of unknown influences that guide our decisions. Where once we had a thousand gods and all their conflicting influences and paths down which these influences lead, we now have one god, one all encompassing influence of good, one correct path of righteousness, one decision in any given moment that is the correct one.

If one follows this righteous path, this god, one saves oneself from the hell of regret and self doubt. One enters the blissful state, the heavenly state of supreme confidence that prevents intolerable suffering. Even when one falters, as one surely must, one must only remember the death of their innocence, the suffering that led to the revelation of the truth of their lack of control, their submission to the power that holds their destiny, their lord, their father, and know that they are forgiven for this latest regret, this transgression, this sin, as they are forgiven for all their past sins, and that they need only continue to follow the path of god to maintain this forgiveness.

Like any great art the works of religion are relevant to each of us through our own life experience, and the experience of regret is shared by us all. Religion shows us a path out of the despair that can be a product of regret. They call it god. It is a relatively simple metaphor, older than civilisation, but completely butchered by those on both sides who seem insistent on a literal interpretation of scripture. The truth of scripture is not found literally, but metaphorically.

The church can only continue to assert the reality of god and the truth of his word as there is no alternative. Images are the language of emotion, there is no rational access to this realm, you cannot think yourself happy nor explain it. The job becomes difficult when the church finds itself defending a ridiculous position in order to continue to assert this teaching. Biology in truth has nothing to do with religion, nor does cosmology. These are simply angles from which people seek to undermine it. It's best position is to simply not engage itself, but this must be hard when these attempts to undermine it seem to work. Faith is needed. Enough people will see the truth and continue to seek wisdom in religion. But as we replace our pantheon and saints with the stars of Hollywood, it is easy to despair.

[stone monkey]

That's sweet, but I disagree.

I don't need a god or gods to guide my decisions as I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. Regrets, about anything, are simply facts of life one has to live with. And one day, hopefully not soon, I'll be dead and in no position to regret anything. Wisdom can be found in religion, but the same wisdom can be found in all sorts of other things too and one needn't subject oneself to the whims of an irrational and capricious (and probably non-existant) deity to find it there.

There may well be a fundamental lack of control in our lives but the answer, I would think, is not to cede it even more by submission to a hypothetical all-powerful being but to look to see what we can do about it. Yes, there may be some things we can never control but there are plenty of things we can that we'll never attempt should we simply write it off to "God's will" and leave it there.

Self doubt isn't all bad, one must doubt to come out the other side to confidence. One must question in order to understand. One of the scourges of religion is that unshakeable confidence it engenders in its adherents that what they do and think and say must perforce be correct because they have their god on their side, even when they're doing, saying and thinking the most horrible of things.

The shallowness of popular culture has zero to do with the lack of religious belief and can and would not be improved by an upsurge in that belief. It would only replace one shallow distraction with another. People have always looked towards others, be it heroes in stories or celebrities or artists or religious figures or gods or whomever, for things beyond themselves. I would argue that religion only supplies yet another distraction from the everyday business of getting on with our lives and trying to make the best of them, for both ourselves and others.

And yes, religion should have nothing to do with biology, cosmology or any other scientific discipline; not becuase they undermine it, but because it undermines them. The amazing and utterly human achievement of understanding the universe is diminished by such interference. Religion therefore serves to lessen us far beyond even our minuscule importance in the grand scheme of things.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 02 September 2009 - 04:08 PM

[Cougar]

Whilst naturally enough, Cold Iron is entitled to believe what he wishes, I find problems throughout what he says above, although I admire his clarity or opinion and verve in expressing it.

I find nothing problematic in self doubt, in regret, nothing to me is inherently sinful, nor inherently good. Bliss sounds particularly dull too and destiny is something my understanding of time will not allow me to believe in. However, none of that is really relevant to what I want to say.

The route CI presents to understanding his concept of god is the worst kind of reconstructionism, it's not that I necessarily think there is anything particularly abhorent, I find all religions utterly preposterous. What I dislike is it's yet another attempt to reconstruct what god is to confound those who would show the concept is bogus. I don't want to get into a debate about CI's personal beliefs but let me use another example of why I find this so objectionable.

For hundreds, nay thousands, various incarnations of the church want us to take the bible literally, when it becomes obvious it's idiotic they tell us actually it's metaphor, well make your mind up. Is it the word of god or isn't it. Is it blood and thunder, fire and brimstone, sinners burn and non-believers are fucked or in the face of falling attendance and plenty of evidence that contradicts the instruction manual is it gay marriage, and Rowan Williams advocating the adoption of Shariah elements into UK law? It can't be both otherwise it's not religion it's just a farce.

Now it seems that in this time CIs interpretation is pretty on the money and hard to shoot down with science and observable facts, but where will it be in 300 years? Puritans in the 1600s would have thought they were on the cutting edge of religion but they'd be laughed out of town now.

[Silencer]

Bravo, Cougar.
And it is this...ephemeral nature of religion that causes an issue. Has no believer ever considered that the aspect of the religion they have been told is correct is wrong, and therefore the literalistic interpretation of the folks down the road is actually right and so they are not following the word of God at all - and therefore will burn in hell with the rest of the unbelievers? I doubt it.
It's even been pointed out in Malaz - Bonehunters. Something about how a religion that promises salvation only after death, with no proof, will end up most virulent and hard to stamp out, because it has nothing that can be shown to be true. Which leaves it open to interpretation, does it not?

[stone monkey]

Here's a tack to try when someone tries to pull Pascal's Wager on you. "What if you're wrong and when you die you end up in front of God?" they ask... My usual answer to that one is "Then God will have to explain himself to me very carefully." But you can reply "What if you're wrong and when you die you end up in front of Anubis (or Hades or any one of a number of gods you don't believe in)? You'll be in exactly the same boat as all the atheists, won't you?"

That always provides me with some giggles. It really isn't something they've thought about, so certain are they of the rightness of their beliefs.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 03 September 2009 - 12:13 AM

[Mutzy]

Perhaps, I am seeing a trend here? And I notice it in every Evolution versus Creation thread. The atheist wants God, who by definition is a great and all-powerful being and you want God to explain himself/herself to you? I find that extremely arrogant. The only problem I have with Evolution is that they can't say where did the miracle pool of DNA strands come from and what caused the miracle pool to create life? Every action has a reaction and all that.

[Silencer]

And to that I simply say: So where did the miracle being of God come from?
And if you should dare to answer "he's God, he always was", then I present back to you the same answer about the miracle strands of DNA - at least until someone finds some better answer. Which is the difference between science and religion, as has been pointed out many times in this very thread.

One could say that it is arrogant to expect God to 'prove' his existence. One could say that God is arrogant to expect people to believe in him without any proof, too. To temporarily derail the thread, I always find the tales of God in the Bible to be a bit contradictory. The whole seven deadly sins? Well, you'll find God has gone through most of them. Wrath, Pride, Lust, Sloth..I'm still struggling to find a good example of Envy, but I'm sure it's in there. Gluttony is debatable, but he at least encourages it for people who have ascended to heaven (depending on how literally you take certain interpretations of the text).

[HoosierDaddy]

Silencer, on Sep 2 2009, 10:55 PM, said:

And to that I simply say: So where did the miracle being of God come from?
And if you should dare to answer "he's God, he always was", then I present back to you the same answer about the miracle strands of DNA - at least until someone finds some better answer. Which is the difference between science and religion, as has been pointed out many times in this very thread.

One could say that it is arrogant to expect God to 'prove' his existence. One could say that God is arrogant to expect people to believe in him without any proof, too. To temporarily derail the thread, I always find the tales of God in the Bible to be a bit contradictory. The whole seven deadly sins? Well, you'll find God has gone through most of them. Wrath, Pride, Lust, Sloth..I'm still struggling to find a good example of Envy, but I'm sure it's in there. Gluttony is debatable, but he at least encourages it for people who have ascended to heaven (depending on how literally you take certain interpretations of the text).

Envy is born out of jealousy, and thou shall put no other gods before him or make idols.

[Silencer]

Nicely done, Hoosier. I knew I'd missed a bit.

[Mutzy]

I will give an analogy for you, does the author of a book adhere to the rules of the novel he himself put in there? Or is he outside of that book?

This post has been edited by Mutzy: 03 September 2009 - 03:08 AM

[Cold Iron]

Just as this thread isn't about gem, it isn't about me either. SM, coug, you both have good and valid points that I agree with, but would enjoy discussing further. I fear however that a new thread would not gather much momentum so I will quickly respond to some of your points here with perhaps an attempt to stay on topic if I can.

stone monkey, on Sep 3 2009, 02:05 AM, said:

I don't need a god or gods to guide my decisions as I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. Regrets, about anything, are simply facts of life one has to live with. And one day, hopefully not soon, I'll be dead and in no position to regret anything. Wisdom can be found in religion, but the same wisdom can be found in all sorts of other things too and one needn't subject oneself to the whims of an irrational and capricious (and probably non-existant) deity to find it there.

There may well be a fundamental lack of control in our lives but the answer, I would think, is not to cede it even more by submission to a hypothetical all-powerful being but to look to see what we can do about it. Yes, there may be some things we can never control but there are plenty of things we can that we'll never attempt should we simply write it off to "God's will" and leave it there.

Self doubt isn't all bad, one must doubt to come out the other side to confidence. One must question in order to understand. One of the scourges of religion is that unshakeable confidence it engenders in its adherents that what they do and think and say must perforce be correct because they have their god on their side, even when they're doing, saying and thinking the most horrible of things.

The way I see it the ego tends to want to emulate whomever has the most power in any given situation. This can lead to decisions that may not be in our best interests. One way of mitigating this is to attempt to be the dominating presence in every situation, but this is going to become difficult in the event of you either liking someone, or needing someone. Another way of mitigating this is to attempt to follow god above anyone else. Indeed when you say you are capable of guiding your own decisions and you don't need god I counter that by giving yourself to god you actually gain more control as it is not your ego that represents your true desires but god. When you "follow god" you do not subject yourself to the whims of an irrational and capricious deity - rather you gain access to your emotional system, with stronger links to long term memory and thus better ability to foresee long term consequences and make better decisions. In this way you will be able to choose what you know you should do rather than just what you may want to do.

I would also say that when you judge yourself with a harsh sense of responsibility you can end up judging others falsely. When you are faced with only bad decisions, it is easy to simply choose one and forgive yourself for it, but when someone else is faced with the same, is it as easy to forgive them?

stone monkey, on Sep 3 2009, 02:05 AM, said:

The shallowness of popular culture has zero to do with the lack of religious belief and can and would not be improved by an upsurge in that belief. It would only replace one shallow distraction with another. People have always looked towards others, be it heroes in stories or celebrities or artists or religious figures or gods or whomever, for things beyond themselves. I would argue that religion only supplies yet another distraction from the everyday business of getting on with our lives and trying to make the best of them, for both ourselves and others.

A religious icon exists in the past and can impact living people only through their legacy, which can be shaped into a positive one. Icons should be ideal, living icons can't do this.

stone monkey, on Sep 3 2009, 02:05 AM, said:

And yes, religion should have nothing to do with biology, cosmology or any other scientific discipline; not becuase they undermine it, but because it undermines them. The amazing and utterly human achievement of understanding the universe is diminished by such interference. Religion therefore serves to lessen us far beyond even our minuscule importance in the grand scheme of things.

I didn't mean to imply that science actually does undermine religion, but rather is often attempted to be used to. And of course the same is attempted in reverse even though religion can in no way successfully undermine science. Understanding the universe is amazing. Understanding ourselves is equally amazing. We do not need to pick favourites.

Cougar, on Sep 3 2009, 05:29 AM, said:

The route CI presents to understanding his concept of god is the worst kind of reconstructionism, it's not that I necessarily think there is anything particularly abhorent, I find all religions utterly preposterous. What I dislike is it's yet another attempt to reconstruct what god is to confound those who would show the concept is bogus. I don't want to get into a debate about CI's personal beliefs but let me use another example of why I find this so objectionable.

For hundreds, nay thousands, various incarnations of the church want us to take the bible literally, when it becomes obvious it's idiotic they tell us actually it's metaphor, well make your mind up. Is it the word of god or isn't it. Is it blood and thunder, fire and brimstone, sinners burn and non-believers are fucked or in the face of falling attendance and plenty of evidence that contradicts the instruction manual is it gay marriage, and Rowan Williams advocating the adoption of Shariah elements into UK law? It can't be both otherwise it's not religion it's just a farce.

Now it seems that in this time CIs interpretation is pretty on the money and hard to shoot down with science and observable facts, but where will it be in 300 years? Puritans in the 1600s would have thought they were on the cutting edge of religion but they'd be laughed out of town now.

This is a complicated issue that I tried to touch on in the final paragraph of my last post. Teaching a metaphor as truth is insulting but effective. The byproduct is idiots who take it too far. There is no feasible way for the church to officially announce that certain passages are metaphorical, it can only be treated as apparent. And regardless of whether true or not, the stories only have allegorical relevance anyway, so the harm is only in idiots doing things like challenging evolution (and we're back). All we can really do with these people is attack them from both sides.

This post has been edited by Cold Iron: 03 September 2009 - 03:59 AM

[Terez]

HoosierDaddy, on Sep 2 2009, 09:56 PM, said:

Envy is born out of jealousy, and thou shall put no other gods before him or make idols.

That came to mind immediately for me too. I was raised in church, and it's made clear that God is a jealous god - it's even stated in those words, but it's not a bad thing, of course, cause it's God.

[Cougar]

@ CI: I agree there is little point in creating a new thread. This is a pretty free flowing thread about religion and creationism etc, I see no reason why we should bother over modding it when the OP has really been lost anyway.

So long as everyone keeps up the level of respect and civility.

Now to just address CI's final point. The issue I have is not with the current interpretation and mingling of truth and metaphor. I just have a hard time believing the idea that the church or any other religious organisation shied away from trying to teach the true nature of religion through metaphor because they didn't think people would get it. Whilst I fully understand your logic, I can't say it any plainer than: I think you are wrong. It's convenient revisionism and nothing I can think of historically points to an idea that the Bible, Qu'ran or Torah were ever written as anything but the absolute unassailable truth. It's plausible that it was all written as metaphor and over time the idiots and power hungry clergy got it all wrong, I'm just saying I don't believe it.

God isn't jealous in the bible, he can't be jealous of other gods because they do not exist.

[Terez]

Cougar, on Sep 3 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

God isn't jealous in the bible, he can't be jealous of other gods because they do not exist.

Exodus 34:14 (New International Version) said:

Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

Their existence might not be acknowledged, but He is jealous of His people's attention to them. Which, among the Hebrews, applied only to the Hebrews really. Christians generally take it to apply to everyone.

This post has been edited by Terez: 03 September 2009 - 08:38 AM

[Cougar]

Ha ha, this passage makes the big man sound like some psycho ex-girlfriend who gets jealous of you cos a girl fancies you.

I can see him sobbing with moses going:"but there aren't any other gods, why are you so upset"

[Use Of Weapons]

Mutzy, on Sep 3 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

I will give an analogy for you, does the author of a book adhere to the rules of the novel he himself put in there? Or is he outside of that book?

Your concept of space-time is broken if you think that 'outside' has any meaning when talking about the universe.