Ableton Forum

2000years of jew islam christian thinking +male fascho rule and idiology brang the planet in this terrible state......

pilcrow wrote:OK, so the Genome guy doesn’t come up to snuff for you. I’ve not read his book. The point I was after was that there are scientists who are also religious. i.e., not every scientist has a problem with religion. I suppose that makes them all dolts in your eyes, but they’d probably disagree, and they’d probably be able to make their case for you better than I can in their stead.

I don’t have the kind of evidentiary proof for the existence of God that would satisfy you; it’s pointless to try. I believe that God is outside—over and beyond—the laws of nature. That’s kind of the crux of this whole argument, isn’t it? Where is your evidentiary proof for the “fact” that reality consists of only those things that science can prove?

I disagree with all the hand-wringing rhetoric about religion suddenly being the most dangerous affliction our planet’s ever seen. That’s reductionist and absurd.

Indeed, we been through all the argument about who's caused most suffering religion or atheism. I think what he's getting at, is what exactly makes YOU believe in God. I was trying to ask people this question many pages back, but didn't get much response. I don't think edge is out to ridicule anyone.

[edit: I disagree with that as well. I also disagree that religion is taught as fact by schools and religious leaders.]

This thread makes me laugh!

"You believe in your religion because you were raised that way" Ok, you are an atheist because we live in a society that is largely obsessed with individualism, psuedo-intellectualism, and relativism. How about that? Theism is under attack every single day from innumerable angles, but you probably would only see that if you were outside of the mainstream of thought. Most people would act offended at Dawkins' remarks about religion, but the truth is that most people live their lives much closer to the moral consequences of Dawkins' thought than JC's.

Name a war or brutality that was specifically atheist? Hmm, well, give it some time. How about looking at the great people of humanity and consider their religious beliefs? I'm thinking of JC, Ghandi, King, Luther, etc....people whose moral triumphs were DIRECTLY connected to their beliefs in a higher power. Yes, nearly all major atrocities have been connected in one way or another to some religious belief, but then again 99% of the people that have existed were religious, so that makes sense. If you think all of those atrocities "in the name of religion" were because of religion, then I'd say you're being awfully naive. The thing is that nearly all religions hold love, justice, and truth to be the highest ideals, so given that, I think that people who commit such atrocities are in direct opposition to their religion. People kill people in the name of religion for the sake of power, not to convert people, despite how convenient an argument it makes for an atheist.

Cheers to a pointless argument!

pilcrow wrote:OK, so the Genome guy doesn’t come up to snuff for you. I’ve not read his book. The point I was after was that there are scientists who are also religious. i.e., not every scientist has a problem with religion. I suppose that makes them all dolts in your eyes, but they’d probably disagree, and they’d probably be able to make their case for you better than I can in their stead.

Nope, not dolts. Blaise Pascal wasn't a dolt. But he did devise what is now known as "Pascal's Wager", which is the most backwards, ridiculous logic for belief in god I've ever heard. Even brilliant minds are falliable to religion, such is its pull.

To be fair here, I should say that I don't have an issue with people thinking 'outside the box'. In 1905, Einstein was a patent clerk, working in total isolation, and proposing ideas that were totally at odds with what Newton, Maxwell, and (most famously) Michaelson and Morley were proposing about the nature of light and motion. But his ideas were, at their most basic, firmly rooted in evidence; they proposed a system that was consistent with what was observed (i.e. there is no luminiferous ether).

pilcrow wrote:I don’t have the kind of evidentiary proof for the existence of God that would satisfy you; it’s pointless to try. I believe that God is outside—over and beyond—the laws of nature. That’s kind of the crux of this whole argument, isn’t it? Where is your evidentiary proof for the “fact” that reality consists of only those things that science can prove?

I'm not naive enough to think you would. Nothing against you, but in two thousand years, not a single person has offered up a single scrap of independently verifiable evidence in favour of the existence of a personal god.

What I do expect is a reasonable definition of god, so that we know what we're talking about. Your posts seem to oscillate between the idea of a personal god, and the idea of god as a "force", which is unquantifiable. It would be appropriate, I think, to offer a firm definition.

The question isn't whether science can prove all things. There are some questions which our current tools cannot answer, such as "Does god exist?" but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer to that question. It is a binary proposition; god exists, or god doesn't exist. It is, in theory, answerable by the scientific method. Of course, if you're looking for evidence against the existence of a personal god (though not necessarily that of a god force), I offer this:

http://tinyurl.com/3dtcc3

There may be a force out there that science can't detect. I can accept that. Of course, by the same token, neither can you. And making foreign and domestic policy decisions, or even deciding what day of the week you can or cannot go outside, based on something we don't know (in fact, based on something for which we have precisely no evidence for), isn't acceptable.

pilcrow wrote:I disagree with all the hand-wringing rhetoric about religion suddenly being the most dangerous affliction our planet’s ever seen. That’s reductionist and absurd.

Can you imagine a time in the future in which the United States (I'm Canadian, BTW) enters into a 'cold war' with Islamic 'fundamentalists'? Of course not. 'Mutually-Assured Destruction' works when you're dealing with an 'enemy' that doesn't want to be destroyed, but not when destruction comes from serving an invisible god, who wants nothing more (and has written extensively, both directly and through his people, on the subject) than to see non-believers and apostates visciously tortured, maimed and killed? In that sense, religion really is the biggest threat we face.

The ONLY solution to this that I can see is that we begin to talk openly and honestly about WHY we believe what we believe, and begin to base our actions on what we really KNOW, and that which is relevant to THIS world.

Religious moderates only make the situation worse by refusing to allow religion to be discussed openly, this forum notwithstanding. As long as you meet the basic requirements (over 35, born in the US, etc), a belief in Yahweh is the ONLY thing you NEED to become President of the United States. As long as this is the case, religion really is the biggest threat we face. It isn't the only threat, and people do bad things for other reasons, but it's right up there.

We need to have open, honest discussions about what we know vs. what we believe, and we need to ensure that our actions are based only on what we know.

" I still see more facts in the Bible than science has given on the topics of evolution and creation"


>choke splutter<!!!!

ethios4 wrote:This thread makes me laugh!

"You believe in your religion because you were raised that way" Ok, you are an atheist because we live in a society that is largely obsessed with individualism, psuedo-intellectualism, and relativism. How about that? Theism is under attack every single day from innumerable angles, but you probably would only see that if you were outside of the mainstream of thought. Most people would act offended at Dawkins' remarks about religion, but the truth is that most people live their lives much closer to the moral consequences of Dawkins' thought than JC's.

I am an atheist because I HAVE looked at the available evidence for the existence of a personal god. It didn't take very long. Theology teaches us nothing because it brings no facts to the table (religious history, for this purpose, is not considered theology).

Can even ONE religious person tell me they looked at the same evidence, and came to the opposite conclusion? In fact, what most likely happened, was that they were raised in a specific religion, and told that what they were learning was absolute fact. And then, despite learning to apply evidentiary standards to everything else, neglect to do so in this one area of discourse. I would like to know why that is. Why is religion privleged in this way?

ethios4 wrote:Name a war or brutality that was specifically atheist? Hmm, well, give it some time.

I've been through this two pages ago. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, the three greatest murderers of all time, were atheists. I grant you that.

THAT is missing the larger point, though. They were also history's great proponents of dogmatism; the blind 'faith' in a specific way of thinking, to the exclusion of all else, despite the available evidence. THAT is the problem, and religion is but a subsection of dogmatism.

ethios4 wrote:How about looking at the great people of humanity and consider their religious beliefs? I'm thinking of JC, Ghandi, King, Luther, etc....people whose moral triumphs were DIRECTLY connected to their beliefs in a higher power

Ok, lets do that. Let's assume that MLK's non-violence and obvious high moral standard (this is NOT in dispute) were directly the result of his Christianity (they VERY CLEARLY were NOT...he learned non-violence from Gandhi, but that's another point). Let's assume all this. Let's assume that religion is the best path to a good life. Let's go one step farther an agree that Christianity is the best way to promote good morals and live a long, healthy, happy life.

Ok...ready.

How does this provide one shred of evidence that Jesus Christ was the son of god, was born of a virgin, was crucified and ascended into heaven on the third day, where he now sits at the right hand of the father?

Serious question.

ethios4 wrote:Yes, nearly all major atrocities have been connected in one way or another to some religious belief, but then again 99% of the people that have existed were religious, so that makes sense. If you think all of those atrocities "in the name of religion" were because of religion, then I'd say you're being awfully naive.

I've already touched on the big three atrocity people (Hitler, Stalin, Mao), but if you want, we can look at basically any one else and see clear links to precise religious or dogmatic teaching (incidentally, I'm not changing my tune...my first post on this contained my feelings that dogma is the real problem, and that religion is a problem because it is a form of dogma).

I DON'T want this to turn into a political discussion, but let's look at the current state of the world, and specifically of the middle east, and specifically about Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/etc. Is the issue poverty, or repression at the hands of western powers? Is THAT why 19 people flew planes into buildings and blew people up in the London subways? If that were true, if repression were the evil it appears to be, then Tibetan Buddhists would be blowing themselves up everyday in the streets of Beijing and Shanghai; they've suffered some of the worst repression ever documented.

Which leads me to the response to your next point...

ethios4 wrote:The thing is that nearly all religions hold love, justice, and truth to be the highest ideals, so given that, I think that people who commit such atrocities are in direct opposition to their religion. People kill people in the name of religion for the sake of power, not to convert people, despite how convenient an argument it makes for an atheist.

Cheers to a pointless argument!

I'm sorry, but an HONEST reading of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qu'ran, and the Hadith does not support the "peacefulness" of these religions.

You have to remember that there are people who acutally believe the literal truth of their holy books. The fact that you have chosen to ignore the horrors of Leviticus (if you indeed have) doesn't make the bible it any less violent.

xrayfish wrote:" I still see more facts in the Bible than science has given on the topics of evolution and creation"


>choke splutter<!!!!

The irony here is, of course, that the TRULY pious person wouldn't be looking for facts at all. Their peity is, after all, based on faith, not fact. Perhaps the reason I'm not getting any response to my evidence challenge is that looking for fact weakens the faith???

edge100 wrote:

xrayfish wrote:" I still see more facts in the Bible than science has given on the topics of evolution and creation"


>choke splutter<!!!!

The irony here is, of course, that the TRULY pious person wouldn't be looking for facts at all. Their peity is, after all, based on faith, not fact. Perhaps the reason I'm not getting any response to my evidence challenge is that looking for fact weakens the faith???

Yes, and that for the pious, the facts simply don't matter. Which is why religious debates often deteriorate to this point. "but look at the facts!" "It's not about the facts, it's about faith" "But.... ARGH!"

A (Atheist)

Machinate wrote: Yes, and that for the pious, the facts simply don't matter. Which is why religious debates often deteriorate to this point. "but look at the facts!" "It's not about the facts, it's about faith" "But.... ARGH!"

A (Atheist)

It can be about faith, that's fine with me. But I won't sit back and let the tangible, 'real' world be dictated by those who make decisions based on premises that have no evidentiary basis. Beliefs are just actions waiting to happen. As such, the battleground for this issue (which, I think, isn't as academic as some like to think) is belief.

There are more atheists in the United States than there are Jews. Now compare the relative size of the political influence of these two groups of people.

As Dawkins says, we need to achieve a critical mass of atheists, who are willing to speak up and exert their influence. These discussions, though they often end up in the same place, are of great utility in stirring the emotions, not of the faithful, but of other atheists.

edge100 wrote:Perhaps the reason I'm not getting any response to my evidence challenge is that looking for fact weakens the faith???

perhaps it is exactly as Martin Luther said,

'Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason.'

makes me glad i wasnt born a few generations earlier as my maternal ancestors are lutherans.

Good questions edge! Thats what I'm talking about!

edge100 wrote:Can even ONE religious person tell me they looked at the same evidence, and came to the opposite conclusion?

Yes! I was an atheist from about 11 years old. I studied math and sciences heavily throughout school, believed religion was the source of most of the major problems in the world, and basically could not conceive that a belief in a higher power was rational or reasonable in any way. Around the time I was 23 I realized that I was attacking a straw-man version of the religions I detested, and so I set out to learn them from the inside so that I could more effectively tear them apart. Basically i confronted my own intellectual hypocrisy, and in doing so I realized there was a whole lot of truth in the religions I had hated - truth that hit deeper and more completely than pure rationalism. My change of heart was not purely an intellectual exercise, though, as it involved every aspect of my experience as a human being.

edge100 wrote:I've been through this two pages ago. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, the three greatest murderers of all time, were atheists. I grant you that.
THAT is missing the larger point, though. They were also history's great proponents of dogmatism; the blind 'faith' in a specific way of thinking, to the exclusion of all else, despite the available evidence. THAT is the problem, and religion is but a subsection of dogmatism.

I think a good point was made earlier that the 3 you have mentioned were not on an atheist mission to destroy. Those guys were atheists, and that definitely informed their moral code, but they were not destroying because of atheism in the same sense that people blame the world's horrors on religion. Incidentally, I detest dogmatism too, although for the purposes of this thread I am supporting religion because it is simpler than trying to explain what I truly believe, which is not dogmatism or religion in the sense that I am talking about a relationship with God (and yes, I mean that in a specific sense), not a human institution. I don't think that distinction would be very clear here however. Dogmatism is the problem indeed....anytime someone puts anything above compassion, truth, justice, love they have lost the plot, IMO.

edge100 wrote: Let's assume that MLK's non-violence and obvious high moral standard (this is NOT in dispute) were directly the result of his Christianity (they VERY CLEARLY were NOT...he learned non-violence from Gandhi, but that's another point).

King was directly influenced by Ghandi, but drew his moral strength and inspiration from JC, according to King. Ghandi's basis in non-violence was indeed Jainism, but he held JC up as the highest example of the non-violent way, and that JC sowed the seed of non-violence. Incidentally, Ghandi held some pretty extreme views on women and sexuality that were based on Hindi dualism.

edge100 wrote:How does this provide one shred of evidence that Jesus Christ was the son of god, was born of a virgin, was crucified and ascended into heaven on the third day, where he now sits at the right hand of the father?

It does not. The point of Christ was not primarily for us to become a better person, but rather to stand in our place in the eyes of God the Father, so that we are absolved of our sin and guilt if we believe in him, which is where faith=action comes into play. We become better people by acting in faith in him, but that is not the point. The evidence is primarily found in the heart of the person asking the question, but is backed up by fulfilled prophecies, his character, historical evidence, honest examination, etc.

edge100 wrote:I'm sorry, but an HONEST reading of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qu'ran, and the Hadith does not support the "peacefulness" of these religions.
You have to remember that there are people who acutally believe the literal truth of their holy books. The fact that you have chosen to ignore the horrors of Leviticus (if you indeed have) doesn't make the bible it any less violent.

Yes, history has been violent. Humans are violent by nature. You have to read the bible in its entire context to understand something like Leviticus.....anyone who reads that and takes it as a command to hurt anyone is a fucking idiot and has completely missed the point. The entire point of the Old Testament was to set the stage for JC. The coming of Christ fulfilled all prophecies and released us from the hold of the Law, which was replaced by two rules : Love God, and love your neighbor.

I gotta get back to work....

ethios4 wrote:...

I won't quote everything, for the sake of space.

I will say that you raise some excellent points that deserve more discussion than we can give here.

Re: dogmatism, it seems we are in agreement.

Re: Gandhi, JC, and MLK, there's no denying the positive influence JC has had on many people, some of whom have gone on to do great things. The problem arises when one claims to KNOW that JC is the only or the true path to goodness, a view that I expressly cannot be at peace with. And as you agree, the relative goodness of JC does nothing to affirm his divinity.

Re: evidence for JC in fulfilled prophecies etc...this is, with all due respect (and I mean that...your post was great to read...you are obviously a learned individual who has pondered this honestly), the weakest part of your post. Fulfillment of prophecy has occured with basically every religion that has ever existed; it is not unique to Christianity. The fact that the NT was written by folks who had a vested interest in seeing the prophecies fullfilled, while not invalidating the 'evidence' out of hand, does produce a certain cynicism in me, that might be reserved for, say, a tobacco company producing a report that suggests that cigarettes are not harmful.

Historical evidence is not evidence, really, in this case. JC (and I don't doubt he did exist...historical EVIDENCE suggests he did) may have believed that he truly was the son of god, but was simply mistaken.

Honest examination of every religion leads to the same conlcusion: each religion is as likely as the next to be literally true, which is to say not very.

I think you have a great outlook (not that my opinion really matters, but in threads like this, flaming is often the norm...so here I am saying I respect your opinion). Your feelings on respect, morality, and love appear to jive nicely with mine. And I suspect your feeling represent those of the vast majority of religious people.

And I defend your right to believe whatever you want. BUT, we simply cannot have our lives governed based on stories with no evidence. If JC's love fills your heart and inspires you (or MLK, or whoever) to greatness, all the better for the world. But you must accept that you do not truly KNOW that JC is the son of god, in the same way you know that running a balance on your credit card is bad finance, or that jumping off a 20 story building will get you killed. You KNOW those things because the data you have supports very specific theories about compound interest and the effect of hitting the pavement at terminal velocity.

Thanks again for adding some great insights to a fascinating discussion.

edge100 wrote:There are more atheists in the United States than there are Jews. Now compare the relative size of the political influence of these two groups of people.

As Dawkins says, we need to achieve a critical mass of atheists, who are willing to speak up and exert their influence. These discussions, though they often end up in the same place, are of great utility in stirring the emotions, not of the faithful, but of other atheists.

OK this is where it gets tricky IMO. I don't think atheists should form groups and force our will on the masses. I don't think anybody should. Sure, we should make sure that politics isn't out of our reach etc. and it is sad to think that in modern time Thomas Jefferson would not make it in politics. Imagine a modern US president saying something like, "if people knew what I truly believed I would be strung up in the middle of town." I don't think however that organized atheism would do any good. The problem to me is holding belief systems up as having any credibility at all is ridiculous in terms of politics, and whether somebody has ethics etc. A muslim neighbor might be a better person than an atheist or jew, or christian. The simple fact is most people hand pick their level of belief. Most christians in America are not much more religious than I am, they merely say they are!
Basically to me the only problem with Dawkins coming up with all these writing on the falacy of religion is it once again separates people into groups etc. which IMO, is the major problem with religion. Would I appreciate it if the extremist fundamentalist religious were gone? of course, but let's face it, something else would come up as dividing force to take religions place.

edge > word. Good to know we can have a real discussion here! Respect to you for being respectful and thoughtful!

I was getting looks at work for typing all that out, so I cut corners towards the end, but you're right...prophecy and such is the hardest part of all that to understand. In fact, your "tobacco company" argument is one of the most powerful, IMO. A book, written by humans, all about the fallibilty of humans, that humans claim is perfect and inspired. Hard to swallow, even for a believer like me. Its hard to get real deep into these type of topics here....all I can say is that each element is a part of the puzzle...prophecy, logic, history, theology, metaphysics, heart-power, deeper understanding of human nature, etc. Many religions/worldviews have some part of the puzzle. The question is whether any religion/worldview provides the full picture.

As for Jesus really being the son of God or not....there is the old argument that he was either a liar, a lunatic, or really the son of God. Being a liar would entirely contradict his impeccable moral reputation, as he staked everything on that claim, and his being a lunatic would contradict the sanity of his words and moral reputation.

But you're right...you cannot KNOW these things in the same sense that you know that jumping off a 10-story building would kill you. It always comes back to FAITH, and if you accept all sides of the debate as at least possibly valid, it is clear that an atheistic worldview is also faith-based, in the sense that absolute faith is being put in pure empiricism and rationality.

To me the problem is that religions get into areas that are not empirical, such as intimately personal experiences that are the product of a singular moment in a person's life. Those experiences are key to a person's deep motivations, and yet are totally off-limits to scientific inquiry. A metaphor that I hold dear is that if you look at a human from the outside, you might think the heart was symettrically aligned in the center of the chest, but the truth is that it is offset to the left. In my experience, Christ knows exactly where the heart is, despite its irrational placement.

The movie Contact describes both sides of the debate so freaking beautifully....."Did you love your father?" "Prove it" etc etc...

Sorry for writing so much again, and much props for the respect, edge.

Machinesworking wrote: Most christians in America are not much more religious than I am, they merely say they are!
Basically to me the only problem with Dawkins coming up with all these writing on the falacy of religion is it once again separates people into groups etc. which IMO, is the major problem with religion.

I think you are so right. Most Christians in America are full of shit. To me, bringing people together in peace is more important than being "right" about beliefs. Love must always come first.