Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining

[Spot the Fed]

Finally a voice of reason..

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may/17/opinion/oe-allen17?pg=2





Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining
Superstar atheists are motivated by anger -- and boohoo victimhood.
By Charlotte Allen
May 17, 2009

Ican't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

First off, there's atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists' failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.

In his online "Atheist Manifesto," Harris writes that "no person, whatever his or her qualifications, can seek public office in the United States without pretending to be certain that ... God exists." The evidence? Antique clauses in the constitutions of six -- count 'em -- states barring atheists from office.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled such provisions unenforceable nearly 50 years ago, but that doesn't stop atheists from bewailing that they have to hide their Godlessness from friends, relatives, employers and potential dates. One representative of the pity-poor-me school of atheism, Kathleen Goodman, writing in January for the Chronicle of Higher Education, went so far as to promote affirmative action for atheists on college campuses: specially designated, college-subsidized "safe spaces" for them to express their views.

Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!

Dennett likes to call atheists "the Brights," in contrast to everybody else, who obviously aren't so bright. In a 2006 essay describing his brush with death after a heart operation, Dennett wrote these thoughts about his religious friends who told him they were praying for his recovery: "Thanks, I appreciate it, but did you also sacrifice a goat?" With friends like Daniel Dennett, you don't need enemies.

Then there's P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota's Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers' field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as "idiots," "morons," "loony" or "imbecilic" in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers' blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage ("I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk -- or something.

Myers' blog exemplifies atheists' frenzied fascination with Christianity and the Bible. Atheist website after atheist website insists that Jesus either didn't exist or "was a jerk" (in the words of one blogger) because he didn't eliminate smallpox or world poverty. At the American Atheists website, a writer complains that God "set up" Adam and Eve, knowing in advance that they would eat the forbidden fruit. A blogger on A Is for Atheist has been going through the Bible chapter by chapter and verse by verse in order to prove its "insanity" (he or she had gotten up to the Book of Joshua when I last looked).

Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, but haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold? Furthermore, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of lucky adaptations, how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?

And then there's the question of why atheists are so intent on trying to prove that God not only doesn't exist but is evil to boot. Dawkins, writing in "The God Delusion," accuses the deity of being a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak" as well as a "misogynistic, homophobic, racist ... bully." If there is no God -- and you'd be way beyond stupid to think differently -- why does it matter whether he's good or evil?

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

What primarily seems to motivate atheists isn't rationalism but anger -- anger that the world isn't perfect, that someone forced them to go to church as children, that the Bible contains apparent contradictions, that human beings can be hypocrites and commit crimes in the name of faith. The vitriol is extraordinary. Hitchens thinks that "religion spoils everything." Dawkins contends that raising one's offspring in one's religion constitutes child abuse. Harris argues that it "may be ethical to kill people" on the basis of their beliefs. The perennial atheist litigant Michael Newdow sued (unsuccessfully) to bar President Obama from uttering the words "so help me God" when he took his oath of office.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

Charlotte Allen is the author of "The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus" and a contributing editor to the Minding the Campus website of the Manhattan Institute.

[PaulaGem]

Perhaps if more Christians patterned their lives after the Master rather than their religion some of those atheists would start to understand that there is a metaphysical reality.

Perhaps it isn't the atheists who are missing the boat....

[sevin]

I live in the Bible Belt and I can tell you that it was very hard to "come out" to my family and tell them I didn't believe in god. And once everyone knows you don't, you tend to be the butt of jokes whenever religious or ethical issues come up in conversation. People assume you don't believe in morality, that you're probably into drugs, that you sleep around, etc. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "persecuted," but it does suck sometimes. I agree that some atheists whine way too much, but it's no wonder they do.

I'm not the type of person to go around and call theists stupid. I used to be one, and I love and respect my family. But when the author of this article complains that atheists won't have a proper theological debate with him, consider this: If someone came to you and talked about the Sun God and why we should worship it, would you waste your time getting into a theological debate with him?

[Spot the Fed]

I live in the Bible Belt and I can tell you that it was very hard to "come out" to my family and tell them I didn't believe in god. And once everyone knows you don't, you tend to be the butt of jokes whenever religious or ethical issues come up in conversation. People assume you don't believe in morality, that you're probably into drugs, that you sleep around, etc. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "persecuted," but it does suck sometimes. I agree that some atheists whine way too much, but it's no wonder they do.

I'm not the type of person to go around and call theists stupid. I used to be one, and I love and respect my family. But when the author of this article complains that atheists won't have a proper theological debate with him, consider this: If someone came to you and talked about the Sun God and why we should worship it, would you waste your time getting into a theological debate with him?

Considering that a great deal of the imagery used by the early church was a direct attempt to equate JC with Apollo, the sun god, and much early church imagery and religious dogma evolved from various pagan beliefs, yeah, I would.

The problem with atheists is that 1. they assume everyone else is an idiot, 2. they wont shut up, and 3. they fail to realize that they also have a 'faith'.

There are really only two intellectually honest positions in the god/no god debate.

1. I BELIEVE x, y, z, etc..
2. I dont know.

[Bruno]

Considering that a great deal of the imagery used by the early church was a direct attempt to equate JC with Apollo, the sun god, and much early church imagery and religious dogma evolved from various pagan beliefs, yeah, I would.

The problem with atheists is that 1. they assume everyone else is an idiot, 2. they wont shut up, and 3. they fail to realize that they also have a 'faith'.

There are really only two intellectually honest positions in the god/no god debate.

1. I BELIEVE x, y, z, etc..
2. I dont know.

believers haven't shut up for 2000 years and have had a much larger inpact than non-believers on society.

[sevin]

The problem with atheists is that 1. they assume everyone else is an idiot, 2. they wont shut up, and 3. they fail to realize that they also have a 'faith'.

What's funny to me about this is that from my perspective, the problem with theists is that 1. they assume they are always right, 2. they won't shut up (as an example, just flip through the dial on your radio and you'll christian radio stations, preachers, etc.), and 3. they fail to realize that the definition of 'faith' is "belief that is not based on proof." To clarify, I don't have faith that there is not a god, I just have no reason to believe it.



There are really only two intellectually honest positions in the god/no god debate.

1. I BELIEVE x, y, z, etc..
2. I dont know.

I think this could be an issue of semantics. When I say I don't believe in god, I'm not saying that I know for a fact that there is not a god, I'm just saying I don't believe it because there is no reason to believe it.

To say that those are the only two options creates a lot of confusion.

[TortoiseDream]

I live in the Bible Belt and I can tell you that it was very hard to "come out" to my family and tell them I didn't believe in god. And once everyone knows you don't, you tend to be the butt of jokes whenever religious or ethical issues come up in conversation. People assume you don't believe in morality, that you're probably into drugs, that you sleep around, etc. I wouldn't go so far as to use the word "persecuted," but it does suck sometimes. I agree that some atheists whine way too much, but it's no wonder they do.

I'm not the type of person to go around and call theists stupid. I used to be one, and I love and respect my family. But when the author of this article complains that atheists won't have a proper theological debate with him, consider this: If someone came to you and talked about the Sun God and why we should worship it, would you waste your time getting into a theological debate with him?

I think worshiping the sun is actually a very logical practice; you know it's there; it is the source of our creation, having physically given us all life; it continues to give us life; it allows us to see. Life is an amazing thing, when you think about it, and realizing that it all came from a giant fireball is equally amazing. Would I pray to the sun? No. Would I give human sacrifice to the sun? No, of course not. But is the sun, in all it's glory, a symbol of a universal cosmic force that permeates all? I think so. Might we just call it "God" instead, for practicality?

I think the article is just a big whine itself.


What's funny to me about this is that from my perspective, the problem with theists is that 1. they assume they are always right, 2. they won't shut up (as an example, just flip through the dial on your radio and you'll christian radio stations, preachers, etc.), and 3. they fail to realize that the definition of 'faith' is "belief that is not based on proof." To clarify, I don't have faith that there is not a god, I just have no reason to believe it.

But you do have faith in reason itself.

[TGGRV]

Atheists don't claim that they know God doesn't exist. What's so wrong with grasping that notion?


YouTube - Irrefutable Proof of Evolution- Part 1 (mtDNA, ERVs, Fusion) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0)
YouTube - Proof of Evolution - Part 2 (Summation) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CvX_mD5weM)
[/url]

indoctrination = teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically
As you see in those videos, evolution, for example, it is accepted CRITICALLY. The only people who get into circular arguments and just use a book with no proof to justify themselves are religious people and this is why religion has no place in schools and just in the church.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphna9UTCk]YouTube - Why Teaching Creationism is a Horrible Idea (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbI2diGTJFw)


Here are my questions for religious people.
1. Would you be able to enjoy Heaven knowing that people you love are tormented in Hell?

2. . How come so many times the all-knowing God doesn't seem to have a clue whats gonna happen and has to double check things?

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

4. What will happen in the Afterlife to the people who never heard about your religion?

5. How do you justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Especially from a loving God.

6. How can you have free will if God is omniscient? This means that he knows the decisions you will make, hence you don't really have free will.

7. How come you consider people to have free will considering some decisions lead to eternal torture? It's like saying you have the right to free speech, but if you say X, you will get your hand cut off. Sure, you have the right to free speech, right?

Actually if religion would be subject to the same proof standard as science, it would have been proven as false hence the Sun was "created" before the Earth and the Earth isn't the center of the universe.

[Todd]

In my experience atheists simply find something other than deity to worship as a god. See Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer".

[ClayTrainor]

In my experience atheists simply find something other than deity to worship as a god. See Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer".

perhaps...

I personally worship the concept of "Love". Although, i've never called myself an atheist.

[The Dan]

Personally, I've lost all patience for the god debate entirely because neither side can prove their cause and both sides are arrogant enough that even if it was proven they were wrong, they would never admit it, not even for the simple sake of maintaining peace. They will fight a losing battle to the death and feel a justified martyr for the cause in doing so.

I'm a devout agnostic and nobody can prove me wrong.

[ClayTrainor]

I'm a devout agnostic and nobody can prove me wrong.

Eat some magic mushrooms and look through a telescope, for a couple hours. You'll see. ;)

[Bruno]

Eat some magic mushrooms and look through a telescope, for a couple hours. You'll see. ;)


What did you see? :)

[ClayTrainor]

What did you see? :)

Well, honestly, i'm not even sure "see" would be the appropriate word. It was pretty surreal, and honestly, the most "spiritual" experience i've ever had, for lack of a better word. Words will not describe this experience properly, you must consider experiencing it for yourself sometime. :)

I started off my looking at the telescope in a normal state of mind, while eating the mushrooms. As i was exploring the vastness of our universe, I began to enter a state of mind where i truly felt that all of my senses had been wound into 1 supersense, and i could detect everything that existed, in all dimensions, at all times.

I would program the telescope to a star (it's remote controlled), and as i would look at it, i could hear it, feel it, smell it and sense it in other ways i can't even describe. This star was life, it was as at least as important as my own existence. I could literally feel, and sense every component that made up that star, as if it too was living, breathing and thinking, and analyzing me at the same time. I also got this very strong sensation that these stars are creating life. The pulsation of light, is more important and crucial to our existence than we can imagine.

I explored many astral objects, but as i pulled away and started to gaze at mother earth (my backyard), i realized that everything i was just looking at through the telescop, also exists right here, right now with me. The light from the stars, all over the universe are bouncing off the earth, and my body at all times. The light from our star, fuels all life on earth. The earth is made up of the same core elements that make up the stars. When i blow with my mouth, the wind patterns of this planet are changed forever. My existence, and the elements that allow for my existence are as crucial to the exitence of the universe, as any star, universe or Atom.

So basically, what i learned was that we are insignificant, but we are as significant everything else in this universe. There is a higher power, and we are all a part of it. The higher power, is everything, all the time.

Did that make any sense? :)

[Original_Intent]

Well, honestly, i'm not even sure "see" would be the appropriate word. It was pretty surreal, and honestly, the most "spiritual" experience i've ever had, for lack of a better word. Words will not describe this experience properly, you must consider experiencing it for yourself sometime. :)

I started off my looking at the telescope in a normal state of mind, while eating the mushrooms. As i was exploring the vastness of our universe, I began to enter a state of mind where i truly felt that all of my senses had been wound into 1 supersense, and i could detect everything that existed, in all dimensions, at all times.

I would program the telescope to a star (it's remote controlled), and as i would look at it, i could hear it, feel it, smell it and sense it in other ways i can't even describe. This star was life, it was as at least as important as my own existence. I could literally feel, and sense every component that made up that star, as if it too was living, breathing and pulsating. I also got this very strong sensation that these stars are creating life. The pulsation of light, is more important and crucial to our existence than we can imagine.

I explored many astral objects, but as i pulled away and started to gaze at mother earth (my backyard), i realized that everything i was just looking at through the telescop, also exists right here, right now with me. The light from the stars, all over the universe are bouncing off the earth, at all times. The light from our star, fuels all life on earth. The earth is made up of the same core elements that make up the stars. When i blow with my mouth, the wind patterns of this planet are changed forever. My existence, and the elements that allow for my existence are as crucial to the exitence of the universe, as any star, universe or Atom.

We are insignificant, but we are as significant everything else in this universe. There is a higher power, and we are all a part of it. The higher power, is everything, all the time.

Did that make any sense? :)

Sounds like Babylon 5 theology. I'm not mocking you, I think it is probably closer to the truth than many organized religions.

[ClayTrainor]

Sounds like Babylon 5 theology. I'm not mocking you, I think it is probably closer to the truth than many organized religions.
:)

Are you referring to Babylon 5, The tv show?

[Icymudpuppy]

Well, honestly, i'm not even sure "see" would be the appropriate word. It was pretty surreal, and honestly, the most "spiritual" experience i've ever had, for lack of a better word. Words will not describe this experience properly, you must consider experiencing it for yourself sometime. :)

I started off my looking at the telescope in a normal state of mind, while eating the mushrooms. As i was exploring the vastness of our universe, I began to enter a state of mind where i truly felt that all of my senses had been wound into 1 supersense, and i could detect everything that existed, in all dimensions, at all times.

I would program the telescope to a star (it's remote controlled), and as i would look at it, i could hear it, feel it, smell it and sense it in other ways i can't even describe. This star was life, it was as at least as important as my own existence. I could literally feel, and sense every component that made up that star, as if it too was living, breathing and thinking, and analyzing me at the same time. I also got this very strong sensation that these stars are creating life. The pulsation of light, is more important and crucial to our existence than we can imagine.

I explored many astral objects, but as i pulled away and started to gaze at mother earth (my backyard), i realized that everything i was just looking at through the telescop, also exists right here, right now with me. The light from the stars, all over the universe are bouncing off the earth, and my body at all times. The light from our star, fuels all life on earth. The earth is made up of the same core elements that make up the stars. When i blow with my mouth, the wind patterns of this planet are changed forever. My existence, and the elements that allow for my existence are as crucial to the exitence of the universe, as any star, universe or Atom.

So basically, what i learned was that we are insignificant, but we are as significant everything else in this universe. There is a higher power, and we are all a part of it. The higher power, is everything, all the time.

Did that make any sense? :)

This is similar to what I've come up with by reason and logic. Also similar to George Lucas's Jedi Force, and also similar to Siddhartha's teachings of the Universal Life and Nirvana.

[Todd]

perhaps...

I personally worship the concept of "Love". Although, i've never called myself an atheist.

Some people believe God is love and vice versa...

I'd say believing in the concept of Love is pretty noble thing.

Hoffer doesn't leave the religious out of his belief, but I think we fill the void with something. Sometimes it going to reflect something positive for humanity and sometimes not.

[TGGRV]

Personally, I've lost all patience for the god debate entirely because neither side can prove their cause and both sides are arrogant enough that even if it was proven they were wrong, they would never admit it, not even for the simple sake of maintaining peace. They will fight a losing battle to the death and feel a justified martyr for the cause in doing so.

I'm a devout agnostic and nobody can prove me wrong.
Well, yes, nobody can prove agnostics wrong. Atheists can't prove there's no god and they can't claim to know that. They just don't believe in one. But most religions have been proven wrong - my problems is spreading fallacies and lies around, not believing in a deity. As an agnostic, you can't be proven wrong, I agree with that.

[Andrew-Austin]

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.


I got bored with this article after reading one sentence.



In my experience atheists simply find something other than deity to worship as a god. See Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer".

I've read it. And plenty of atheists like myself don't. You fail.

[coyote_sprit]

Without religion people would fight over what to call atheism...
http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/1012/Go-God-Go!.html

[Bruno]

Well, honestly, i'm not even sure "see" would be the appropriate word. It was pretty surreal, and honestly, the most "spiritual" experience i've ever had, for lack of a better word. Words will not describe this experience properly, you must consider experiencing it for yourself sometime. :)

I started off my looking at the telescope in a normal state of mind, while eating the mushrooms. As i was exploring the vastness of our universe, I began to enter a state of mind where i truly felt that all of my senses had been wound into 1 supersense, and i could detect everything that existed, in all dimensions, at all times.

I would program the telescope to a star (it's remote controlled), and as i would look at it, i could hear it, feel it, smell it and sense it in other ways i can't even describe. This star was life, it was as at least as important as my own existence. I could literally feel, and sense every component that made up that star, as if it too was living, breathing and thinking, and analyzing me at the same time. I also got this very strong sensation that these stars are creating life. The pulsation of light, is more important and crucial to our existence than we can imagine.

I explored many astral objects, but as i pulled away and started to gaze at mother earth (my backyard), i realized that everything i was just looking at through the telescop, also exists right here, right now with me. The light from the stars, all over the universe are bouncing off the earth, and my body at all times. The light from our star, fuels all life on earth. The earth is made up of the same core elements that make up the stars. When i blow with my mouth, the wind patterns of this planet are changed forever. My existence, and the elements that allow for my existence are as crucial to the exitence of the universe, as any star, universe or Atom.

So basically, what i learned was that we are insignificant, but we are as significant everything else in this universe. There is a higher power, and we are all a part of it. The higher power, is everything, all the time.

Did that make any sense? :)


That's a pretty powerful experience, thank you for sharing it with us. I have had my own experiences with mushrooms, and it can indeed expand your mind in ways not capable without it.

A study a few years ago with adults that had never experienced mushrooms before resulted in the majority saying it was the most incredible experience they had had in their lives.

[ClayTrainor]

That's a pretty powerful experience, thank you for sharing it with us. I have had my own experiences with mushrooms, and it can indeed expand your mind in ways not capable without it.

Glad you enjoyed it, it's always hard to put into words :o



A study a few years ago with adults that had never experienced mushrooms before resulted in the majority saying it was the most incredible experience they had had in their lives.

Yea man. I think most people who do mushrooms for the first time, start seeing the whole world in a more positive way. CNN did a story on their long lasting positive effects.

YouTube - Magic mushrooms on CNN - Long lasting postive effects .. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7yKpvBQhTw)

Here is a quote from this next video.

"Of the volunteers who were given this, about 60% said that this would be within one of the top 5 experiences of their entire lives."

YouTube - Mushrooms and Spirituality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LT-M5Iu5FpY)

It's amazing how something completely natural that could improve the lives of so many people, can remain illegal and largely demonized.

[ARealConservative]

what collectivist drivel.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Personally, I've lost all patience for the god debate entirely because neither side can prove their cause and both sides are arrogant enough that even if it was proven they were wrong, they would never admit it, not even for the simple sake of maintaining peace. They will fight a losing battle to the death and feel a justified martyr for the cause in doing so.

I'm a devout agnostic and nobody can prove me wrong.

This kind of logic make me want to drive a power drill through my head. How the hell are you a "devout agnostic"? By being devout in your belief that knowledge of God is unknowable, arnt you being just as dogmatic as the theists and atheists you are trying to avoid being lumped in with?

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Nobody ever proved Zeus wrong. So where did he go? Maybe he just never existed to begin with.

[sevin]

But you do have faith in reason itself.

Again, there seems to be a lot of confusion among theists about what faith is. They throw this word around all the time, and I think it's because of what they hear in church (preachers saying things like, "You have to have faith in a chair before you sit it in, right?")

Faith is believing something even though there is no proof.

Reason does not require faith. Logic is axiomatic.

[TortoiseDream]

Faith is believing something even though there is no proof.

Sure I agree with that, and it follows that you have faith in reason.

Simply: You believe reason is correct, yet you have no proof that this is so. By definition this is faith in reason.

If I were to ask you to prove that reason is correct, I would be asking a false question. For I'm asking you to supply a reason that reason is correct, and there's fallacy written all over this. There is no "why" you believe in reason, you simply do because you simply have faith.


Reason does not require faith. Logic is axiomatic.

But axioms, by definition, are stated without proof. And so by definition again, we take axioms on faith. Thus faith is above reason.

[Bman]

believers haven't shut up for 2000 years and have had a much larger inpact than non-believers on society.

Shhhhh!!! People are trying to ignore this type of information.

[TGGRV]

If you don't think reason is correct and faith is, why don't you go to a shaman and go to a doctor when you are sick? QED.

If you have to do a risky thing, do you consult an astrologist or the Bible or do you consult your insurance broker? Thought so.

[sevin]

But axioms, by definition, are stated without proof. And so by definition again, we take axioms on faith. Thus faith is above reason.

Axioms don't need proof. They are the proof. You cannot prove them, and you cannot do without them. They are self-evident. This is the foundation of all logic.

Unfortunately, people spend a lot more time in church than they do studying logic or philosophy. I think it's part of the reason it's so difficult to reason with people these days.

[TortoiseDream]

If you don't think reason is correct and faith is, why don't you go to a shaman and go to a doctor when you are sick? QED.

If you have to do a risky thing, do you consult an astrologist or the Bible or do you consult your insurance broker? Thought so.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying (if it is me you are addressing). One believes reason is correct because they have faith; effectively, then, he or she would adhere to both. In contrast you're saying that one can adhere to only one or the other.

Simply, there is no reason to believe reason is correct (you contradict yourself if you think you do), but nonetheless most people do believe it is - thus they have faith in reason, belief without proof.

So to put your example in perspective: I go to a modern doctor rather than a shaman because I believe in science, based on reason, and I myself have faith in reason.


Axioms don't need proof. They are the proof. You cannot prove them, and you cannot do without them. They are self-evident. This is the foundation of all logic.

Axioms are not proven statements (by definition), rather they are assumptions. We don't know if they are true or not because we have no proof that they are. Despite this, we carry out our lives based on them. Again, we're believing in something without reason - thus we have faith in the axioms.


Unfortunately, people spend a lot more time in church than they do studying logic or philosophy. I think it's part of the reason it's so difficult to reason with people these days.

Well I agree that there are many people who are closed minded to other ideas, and don't examine their beliefs with a critical eye. But...

In principle, that's no different than a Muslim not being able to understand a Christian, for example. Each one has faith in a different thing, and neither one understands the others faith. In your case, one who has faith in God (a religious fellow) cannot understand why you'd put your faith only in reason, and vice versa.

I'm really just beating the same drum as in this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=195994

This is actually one of the only things I agree with Theocrat on. He is right to point out that an atheist, who might say that he believes in reason and doesn't have faith in anything like a "God", is actually being hypocritical. For he has faith in reason, just as the religious one has faith in God. In both cases morality et al. is derived from this faith, whatever it may be in.

The biggest question is, what should you put faith in? But it's a false question itself, because we're not allowed to use reason (faith is above reason, assuming you agree now). So there's no "reason" to put your faith in one thing over another. Ultimately a debate between any two persons on any subject can be reduced to that question; why put faith in A over B? And the debate simply cannot be resolved because no one can answer that question.

It is the dilemma of human life.

"When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you." - Nietzsche

[TGGRV]

Actually we know axioms are true because they are self-evident and if they would be false, everything that relies on them would lead to aberrant conclusions. Funny enough, it doesn't.

It's the same with religion - just that it is not self-evident and it does lead to aberrant conclusions. Like that the Earth is older than the Sun, the Earth is flat... Want me to go on?

And please drop the garbage relativism. Things are not relative, no matter how much you'd wish they were.

axiom - (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident

It isn't an assumption. Can't you people frigging read the definitions of the terms you're using? Same stupidity is found in those who think theory is an assumption or to observe means to actually see it happen. If we go by your road, the sky isn't blue, we have faith that it is blue. And Ron Paul might be a socialist, we just have faith that he's not. Give me a break.

[sevin]

If we go by your road, the sky isn't blue, we have faith that it is blue. And Ron Paul might be a socialist, we just have faith that he's not. Give me a break.

Very true.


Axioms are not proven statements (by definition), rather they are assumptions. We don't know if they are true or not because we have no proof that they are.

I didn't say they were proven statements. How can I have faith in something that is self-evident?

There are only a few axioms. If you say to yourself, "Something exists," that is an axiom. You don't assume that something exists. You know it. No proof is required, and no faith is required.



This is actually one of the only things I agree with Theocrat on. He is right to point out that an atheist, who might say that he believes in reason and doesn't have faith in anything like a "God", is actually being hypocritical. For he has faith in reason, just as the religious one has faith in God. In both cases morality et al. is derived from this faith, whatever it may be in.


I guess we could go around and around with this argument. But I'll try again and put it this way: You know that you exist. That is where reason begins. But you only believe that God exists. That is where faith begins.

[TGGRV]

sevin, creationists love circular arguments. That's because they'd lose any kind of debate. lol

[TortoiseDream]

Actually we know axioms are true because they are self-evident and if they would be false, everything that relies on them would lead to aberrant conclusions. Funny enough, it doesn't.

You've contradicted yourself.

There is this system called logic, and in this system we prove theorems by manipulating axioms according to certain, well-defined rules. An axiom is nothing but a starting point, and it cannot be derived from another axiom (axioms are independent from each other). One might ask, are the axioms true? Here you've provided two reasons why you think the axioms are true:

1. They are self-evident.
2. Without them, we would get contradictions.

But this defeats the purpose of the axioms in the first place! If you have to justify that an axiom is true, then you are saying axioms are derived from theorems. But we started by saying that theorems are derived from axioms. Which is it?

It doesn't make sense to justify axioms, that's why we assume them. I agree with sevin's definition of faith, belief without reason. Thus axioms are taken on faith, we believe them but we don't have a reason to believe them (otherwise they wouldn't be axioms!).


And please drop the garbage relativism. Things are not relative, no matter how much you'd wish they were.

Great argument.

Next you said (or quoted)


axiom - (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident.

Then you said.


It isn't an assumption.

If you're not going to be consistent with your own quotes, then you won't be very convincing.


If we go by your road, the sky isn't blue, we have faith that it is blue. And Ron Paul might be a socialist, we just have faith that he's not. Give me a break.

I think that's essentially true. Care to convince me otherwise? Or is that another one of your great, clever arguments.



I didn't say they were proven statements. How can I have faith in something that is self-evident?

There are only a few axioms. If you say to yourself, "Something exists," that is an axiom. You don't assume that something exists. You know it. No proof is required, and no faith is required.

You don't have the spirit of doubt, do you? See my comments above for TGGRV similar remarks. Ultimately you cannot justify why you believe in the axioms, otherwise you're trying to provide a proof for them, thus defeating the point of the axioms in the first place. Is it true that if something is self evident then it's true? Prove it! Or is it an axiom? But if it's an axiom, then we're back to where we started.

What is more, different people adhere to different axioms! Even if it were true, somehow, that all things self evident are true, not everyone thinks the same things are self evident! In fact, it has been said by formalists that mathematics (of which logic is a branch) is nothing but the exploration of axiom sets. In other words, people do different mathematics with different axioms! Logic, let alone human logic, doesn't make anything true. It's just a game with marks and rules, and that's the extent of it.


I guess we could go around and around with this argument. But I'll try again and put it this way: You know that you exist.

Actually I do not, and neither do you. I don't even know what it means to exist! I have my speculations, and I'm sure you do to. But it's all based on faith, and for that reason some doubt remains. Descartes' famous saying assumes reason is correct, so Descartes' has taken reason on faith.


That is where reason begins. But you only believe that God exists. That is where faith begins.

Having faith does not necessary mean faith in God, I think this is one erasno we disagree.

[TGGRV]

Well, start learning the way scientists use words because there are a lot of differences.

And the fact that there are no contradictions in science is a consequence of axioms being true, not a reason for it. Axioms being true is just as self-evident as the sky being blue. If you don't see the abysmal stupidity of your point about why axioms are true, you can't say that the sky is blue either or that the grass is green. Actually, you couldn't even say that the letter A isn't letter B. The fact that we can communicate isn't a cause of letter A being letter A, but a consequence.

If you believe the sky is blue and that Ron Paul isn't a socialist, but you don't believe in axioms, you're a moronic idiot. And if you judge by relativity, here's some relativity for you. Show me progress created by religious thinking and I will show you progress created by scientific thinking based on axioms. We can make a scales thing and put on a side what are the benefits of each system of thinking. It will show you the utter failure of the former and the success of the latter.

And the proof for axioms is logic101. False premises lead to false conclusions. The false premises in the Bible lead to things like everything was created by a God as there are now, the Earth is older than the Sun, the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. All were proven false. On the other hand, axioms lead to the picture below.

http://www.religiouspeoplearefunny.com/image.axd?picture=2009%2F2%2FMotivational+Poster.j pg
This image is funny only because it is true. Oh, and another thing. Look at societies that still have religious thinking - Muslim fundamentalists. They're still in the dark ages. Only 3 Muslims won Nobel prizes on anything except peace(which are made up anyway... there are instances of a Nobel for peace laureate having buds who were committing mass genocide - and you can't really subject this award to the scientific method).

[TortoiseDream]

Well, start learning the way scientists use words because there are a lot of differences.

I'm a pure mathematician, I think I know precise definitions in logic.


And the fact that there are no contradictions in science is a consequence of axioms being true, not a reason for it.

No! Wrong! We actually have had to CHANGE the axioms MANY times BECAUSE we found contradictions. If you can show that a contradiction follows from a valid manipulation of axioms, then you are logically able to prove anything as a consequence. It's a rule. This has happened many times in mathematics, and mathematicians have had to revise the axioms to make sure that contradiction cannot come up. We keep plugging along until another contradiction comes up, then we revise the axioms some more. This makes is pretty obvious that the axioms have nothing to do with truth.


Axioms being true is just as self-evident as the sky being blue. If you don't see the abysmal stupidity of your point about why axioms are true, you can't say that the sky is blue either or that the grass is green. Actually, you couldn't even say that the letter A isn't letter B. The fact that we can communicate isn't a cause of letter A being letter A, but a consequence.

We can't say that the sky is blue, or that the grass is green! These things are based on sensory perception, and surely you're not one to trust fully in your senses, believing them to be always correct. If you do, prove it, otherwise you have faith in the senses (which I think you do). The Matrix illustrates this. In fact, you're speaking just like Theocrat when you say this because you're demonstrating your faith in the senses as he demonstrates his faith in God. God is so "obvious" to him, just as the senses are so "obvious" to you.

In other words you've tried making the argument that my points lead to absurdities, namely that the grass may not be green etc. I've argued that what you've said is not absurd, and doubt is in it's proper domain here. And so the proper response you should give me is why these things are absurd, rather than simply stating they are and calling me an idiot.



If you believe the sky is blue and that Ron Paul isn't a socialist, but you don't believe in axioms, you're a moronic idiot.

I never said I don't believe in the axioms, I do. But my belief in the axioms follows from my faith in them. And so do yours. You cannot justify believing in the axioms because you'd be defending logic with logic itself!!! They must be taken on faith! What don't you understand!


And if you judge by relativity, here's some relativity for you. Show me progress created by religious thinking and I will show you progress created by scientific thinking based on axioms. We can make a scales thing and put on a side what are the benefits of each system of thinking. It will show you the utter failure of the former and the success of the latter.

Well that depends a lot on what you mean by progress or success. If by progress you mean scientific achievement, which I think you do, then you're stating the blatant obvious - namely that science makes progress in science more than anything else. If you think success is modern sky-scrapers and technology, then yes science trumps religion. But science wins by definition, it's corollary from the essence of science. So you're not really saying anything.

If progress is spiritual progress, or individual, or personal self-reflection, then religion trumps science any day.


And the proof for axioms is logic101. False premises lead to false conclusions. The false premises in the Bible lead to things like everything was created by a God as there are now, the Earth is older than the Sun, the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. All were proven false. On the other hand, axioms lead to the picture below.

You've killed yourself. There are NO proofs for the axioms, even sevin agrees with that. If you have to prove the axioms, then they AREN'T axioms! How can you prove the fundamentals of logic with the inferior parts of it, the theorems? I don't know how many times I can reiterate this.

In fact there is a mathematical proof that proves that logic is an incomplete theory, and that any theory will always be incomplete. There is no incomplete system, and so ultimately we must adhere to one by faith. In this way math is a religion, and Christianity is a science.

[sevin]

Is it true that if something is self evident then it's true? Prove it!

Something self-evident by definition is true. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You may as well ask, "How do you know things that are true are true?"


Actually I do not, and neither do you. I don't even know what it means to exist! I have my speculations, and I'm sure you do to. But it's all based on faith, and for that reason some doubt remains. Descartes' famous saying assumes reason is correct, so Descartes' has taken reason on faith.

You don't know that you exist? lol. You couldn't be making these arguments if you didn't exist, so obviously you do.

It's clear to me now that this argument is a waste of time. If you decided that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't think anyone would ever convince you otherwise.

[TGGRV]

If you're a mathematician, then why do you use proof as a scientific word outside of mathematics? Because proof is limited to math.

TD, that's the magic of the scientific method. When something is proven wrong, it is revised and when something new is proposed, the job of the other scientists is to take it apart - I have first knowledge of this since my mother is a scientist and works in research. Isn't it a natural process? Just like people before assumed the world is flat. If axioms wouldn't have anything with them being true, why revise those that lead to contradictions? This is the difference in between science and religion. When science is proven wrong, it is revised and improved. When religion is proven wrong... Do I have to get into it? lol

And let's assume you are right. I can't say that the grass is green or sky is blue. What has my way of thinking led to and what did his lead to? Scroll up a bit and look at the picture.

And in terms of self-reflection, religion is philosophy's retarded little cousin. It is deeply amusing to me that self-reflection is illogical by definition to you. And religion is a narrow minded way of seeing self-reflection because you have to be confined by the beliefs of your religion.

And I didn't say there are proofs of axioms(I know the definition of them). I just said that most religions and their way of thinking was proven erroneous. It's like saying that if someone was shot and you proved that X didn't do it, the dude wasn't shot.

If A implies B, this doesn't mean that A implies C.

A science is something subject to the scientific method. When religion will be, it will be a science.

[TGGRV]

Oh, and another thing, if you discount religion as having nothing to do with logic, then religion is false by definition because our language system is based on logic.

[georgiaboy]

impressive, TD.

[TortoiseDream]

Something self-evident by definition is true. I don't know how else to explain that to you. You may as well ask, "How do you know things that are true are true?"

Ah, here is the critical point of our disagreement, I'm glad you brought it up.

We disagree because you define truth as the set of self evident things. But this is a poor way to define truth because it leads to infinite regression. I could ask you, how do you know this is true? And your reply would be, of course, "It's self evident." But then I could ask you how that is self evident, and we'd be going in circles. Eventually at the nth iteration of this useless back-and-forth, you'll have to concede that we'll just "assume" it's true. Thus you're taking this on faith because you cannot justify it with reason.


You don't know that you exist? lol. You couldn't be making these arguments if you didn't exist, so obviously you do.

I don't know what it means to exist, how can I know if I am doing it?

And your argument follows from reasoning, which now we see is faith based. So your conclusion is contingent on the above assumption, and you can't be certain in it.


It's clear to me now that this argument is a waste of time. If you decided that 2 + 2 = 5, I don't think anyone would ever convince you otherwise.

It depends on which axioms we start from, and what kinds of marks we use. In a mathematical system of different axioms, 2+2 does equal 5. And these axioms are taken on faith, so I don't know either way whether 2+2=4 or 5.

But essentially mathematical language has no connection to reality. It's just a symbol manipulation game. The number 2 does not exist.


If axioms wouldn't have anything with them being true, why revise those that lead to contradictions?

We revise them because we don't want the rules of logic to be broken. Why don't we want the rules to be broken? I think you're right, it's a natural process; we as human beings simply like consistency and order, but that's not a rule itself. Of course one could invent a logical system that allows the rules to be broken! This is possible in principle, but just very rarely done because of our nature.


This is the difference in between science and religion. When science is proven wrong, it is revised and improved. When religion is proven wrong... Do I have to get into it? lol

This is nothing more than a clash of two faiths. You have faith in reason, thus you will use reason to "prove" certain conclusions that contradict a given religion. Others have faith in the religion, and so they will find some of their beliefs, namely the "word of God" contradict reason. You think they are foolish because you so obviously "proved" them wrong. However, they think you are so foolish because you think your human logic is superior to the "word of God". Do you see what's going on? You have faith in the axioms of standard logic; they have faith in the axiom called God; and you derive contradictions between them. How to know which is right and which is wrong? You cannot provide a logical argument because that's the subject of the debate! And the religious fellow cannot cite a verse from his holy text for the same reason! :eek:


And let's assume you are right. I can't say that the grass is green or sky is blue. What has my way of thinking led to and what did his lead to? Scroll up a bit and look at the picture.

Just because you don't know for sure that the grass is green or the sky is blue doesn't prevent me nor you from having faith that they are. The reason that you see that trend in your picture is because of faith, namely faith in empirical evidence (the senses) and reason (logic). And again, your graph is very discriminatory towards what one might call progress or success.


And in terms of self-reflection, religion is philosophy's retarded little cousin. It is deeply amusing to me that self-reflection is illogical by definition to you.

Philosophy is a religion unto itself. The atheist's "God" is reason, it's equally as romantic. Plato's "God" was the Forms.


And religion is a narrow minded way of seeing self-reflection because you have to be confined by the beliefs of your religion.

That's true for your religion as well, the religion of reason and logic. I think at the same time, however, those limitations provide for infinite self-reflection. After all, religion is self reflection.


And I didn't say there are proofs of axioms(I know the definition of them). I just said that most religions and their way of thinking was proven erroneous. It's like saying that if someone was shot and you proved that X didn't do it, the dude wasn't shot.

See the 2nd block of text I wrote to you in the message.


If A implies B, this doesn't mean that A implies C.

Haha, well if those are the only pieces of info you're giving me, that's just blatantly wrong. Let me fill in the blanks for you to see:

1. If running implies exercise, this doesn't mean that running implies movement.
2. If water implies wet, this doesn't mean that water implies H20.
3. If grass implies plants, this doesn't mean that grass implies life.


A science is something subject to the scientific method. When religion will be, it will be a science.


In fact there is a mathematical proof that proves that logic is an incomplete theory, and that any theory will always be incomplete. There is no incomplete system, and so ultimately we must adhere to one by faith. In this way [science] is a religion, and [religion] is a science.

Science adhere's to the scientific method because it is logical. Thus scientists have faith in reason.


Oh, and another thing, if you discount religion as having nothing to do with logic, then religion is false by definition because our language system is based on logic.

Well first of all this is nothing but semantics; it depends on how you define true and false, and it looks like you're defining it with some logic.

But more to the point, I think religion is very logical and logic is very religious (like I've been saying).

[TGGRV]

First of all, the word of God was written by humans for humans. So give me a break with the word of God being separate from reason and logic. Language functions on the same reason and logic we use in science. If that logic is false, the word of God is false because it uses the same premises and reasoning in it's expression.

Another thing, religion is a type of philosophy, not the other way around. By the way, to cut this bullshit short because I am pissed off right now. Compare the results of each type of thinking. One lead to things that are constantly evolving and improving, leading to progress and advancement, one lead to constant falsities that were disproved over and over again and that lead to stagnation.

Anyway, we can agree on this. The two systems are mutually exclusive. Go ahead and believe the Earth is the center of the universe, that it was created before the Sun, that seeds were planted before there was light, that we were created as such and that the Earth is flat. You can't use the two systems of thinking in the same time. By the way, my post is the word of God and isn't subject to your understanding. You have to accept it as such and read it each time before bed.

[TortoiseDream]

First of all, the word of God was written by humans for humans. So give me a break with the word of God being separate from reason and logic. Language functions on the same reason and logic we use in science. If that logic is false, the word of God is false because it uses the same premises and reasoning in it's expression.

Well I personally share your opinion, but my point was that a religious person could claim that the word of God is divine, not human. He might also claim (as Theocrat has) that God, in being omni-potent, can circumvent the problems you've named. I don't buy it, but that's what one might say.


Another thing, religion is a type of philosophy, not the other way around.

This is just more semantics. They are quite interrelated, for sure, but for now who cares what they precisely could be. We can debate the differences later.


By the way, to cut this bullshit short because I am pissed off right now. Compare the results of each type of thinking. One lead to things that are constantly evolving and improving, leading to progress and advancement, one lead to constant falsities that were disproved over and over again and that lead to stagnation.

You don't like to read my posts, do you? What is improvement? What is progress? What is advancement? I personally think technology is something that has robbed man of the richness of life, for example. If you try to measure science by science, it will always defeat religion (in the practical sense of the word). But equally if you measure religion with religion, it will always defeat science.


Anyway, we can agree on this. The two systems are mutually exclusive. Go ahead and believe the Earth is the center of the universe, that it was created before the Sun, that seeds were planted before there was light, that we were created as such and that the Earth is flat. You can't use the two systems of thinking in the same time.

Two systems are mutually exclusive if their intersection is null. Thus religion and reason are mutually exclusive if their axiom sets don't contain anything in common. Although they are quite different when it comes to conclusions, I think you can find some things in common between both.

Another thing to consider is that everyone has their own unique religion, no two are the same.


By the way, my post is the word of God and isn't subject to your understanding. You have to accept it as such and read it each time before bed.

I'm not a logical recipient of this remark, I don't do anything of the kind.

[sevin]

Ah, here is the critical point of our disagreement, I'm glad you brought it up.

We disagree because you define truth as the set of self evident things. But this is a poor way to define truth because it leads to infinite regression. I could ask you, how do you know this is true? And your reply would be, of course, "It's self evident." But then I could ask you how that is self evident, and we'd be going in circles. Eventually at the nth iteration of this useless back-and-forth, you'll have to concede that we'll just "assume" it's true. Thus you're taking this on faith because you cannot justify it with reason.

That's the trouble with circular logic. It doesn't make sense to you because you've trapped yourself in a vicious cycle. Tell me, if a barber only shaves men who don't shave themselves, does he shave himself?



I don't know what it means to exist, how can I know if I am doing it?

And your argument follows from reasoning, which now we see is faith based. So your conclusion is contingent on the above assumption, and you can't be certain in it.

If you don't know what existence means, you should look it up in the dictionary.


It depends on which axioms we start from, and what kinds of marks we use. In a mathematical system of different axioms, 2+2 does equal 5. And these axioms are taken on faith, so I don't know either way whether 2+2=4 or 5.

Yes, yes, and maybe blue is actually green. Maybe up is really down. These are the kind of "ideas" stoners come up with.

[Sheepdog11]

This is nothing more than a clash of two faiths. You have faith in reason, thus you will use reason to "prove" certain conclusions that contradict a given religion. Others have faith in the religion, and so they will find some of their beliefs, namely the "word of God" contradict reason. You think they are foolish because you so obviously "proved" them wrong. However, they think you are so foolish because you think your human logic is superior to the "word of God". Do you see what's going on? You have faith in the axioms of standard logic; they have faith in the axiom called God; and you derive contradictions between them. How to know which is right and which is wrong? You cannot provide a logical argument because that's the subject of the debate! And the religious fellow cannot cite a verse from his holy text for the same reason! :eek:

Assuming that God exists already assumes other axioms: an existence outside of oneself, a state of identity, non-contradiction, etc. Thus, both groups are assuming axioms of logic, but one group is taking it a step further and also assuming God on top of that.

Just thought I'd chime in.

[Ian A.]

If you try to measure science by science, it will always defeat religion (in the practical sense of the word). But equally if you measure religion with religion, it will always defeat science.

This isn't necessarily true. Science cannot always measure itself, and science cannot account for everything:

YouTube - Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco)

YouTube - Is Nature all There is?: Craig vs Shook (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwkuE_1r6qQ&feature=channel_page)

[TortoiseDream]

That's the trouble with circular logic. It doesn't make sense to you because you've trapped yourself in a vicious cycle. Tell me, if a barber only shaves men who don't shave themselves, does he shave himself?

The circle is unavoidable, what makes you think you can break it without assumption? In order to break out, you must assume something, thereby taking faith.


If you don't know what existence means, you should look it up in the dictionary.

Come on man, that's such a cop out answer. Is the dictionary the answer to all of our problems? The dictionary is a man made thing; what is more, different dictionaries can define the same words differently, albeit usually with subtle differences. The dictionary is almost like a axiom set for language, and all words must be taken on faith.


Yes, yes, and maybe blue is actually green. Maybe up is really down. These are the kind of "ideas" stoners come up with.

So in other words you have no rebuttal. Okay.



Assuming that God exists already assumes other axioms: an existence outside of oneself, a state of identity, non-contradiction, etc. Thus, both groups are assuming axioms of logic, but one group is taking it a step further and also assuming God on top of that.

Just thought I'd chime in.

I suppose that's true, but nonetheless you'd agree that both groups must start assuming things somewhere; the starting points (the axioms) may be different, but the fact remains that it is all faith based.


This isn't necessarily true. Science cannot always measure itself, and science cannot account for everything

No no, I'm in total agreement with you there. I was trying to say that if you define progress as strict, scientific progress (as TGGRV has), then science will always win that contest (by definition, in fact). I think physicalism is quite shallow.

[Ian A.]

I think physicalism is quite shallow.

An academic question: is there a difference between physicalism and naturalism?

[TortoiseDream]

An academic question: is there a difference between physicalism and naturalism?

I really don't know, honestly. Maybe you can explain to me?

[Ian A.]

Maybe you can explain to me?

I had never heard the word "physicalism" before actually. :D Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing beyond nature, and there is nothing supernatural. Which pretty much refutes itself.

[TortoiseDream]

I had never heard the word "physicalism" before actually. :D Naturalism is the belief that there is nothing beyond nature, and there is nothing supernatural. Which pretty much refutes itself.

How so? I think physicalism is quite similar, it just asserts that anything and everything can be completely described in terms of its physical nature, i.e. physics.

[Ian A.]

Basically, naturalism believes there is NOTHING beyond what can be measured by science, reason, and experience. Since we ultimately don't know if there is anything beyond nature, and we have no way of testing such an assertion based on those three criteria, then naturalism can't be proven by natural means.

When you assert that anything can be described in physical terms, what you really mean is everything that you know about can be explained in physical terms. Everything unknown is open to question.

Seriously, watch the vid of Craig and Shook I posted.

[sevin]

So in other words you have no rebuttal. Okay.

Nope. I can't reason with someone who doesn't use reason. I'm done.

[TGGRV]

Two systems are mutually exclusive if their intersection is null. Thus religion and reason are mutually exclusive if their axiom sets don't contain anything in common. Although they are quite different when it comes to conclusions, I think you can find some things in common between both.
I actually like debating people who know how do it. So no, I don't mind reading your posts. I was pissed off last night. Anyway, you can't have the same premises and reach two different conclusions - the whole point of them being mutually exclusive.

And the dictionary, just like the Bible/Torah/Quran are man made things. :P

[thevinci]

First of all, a very civilised debate, and secondly TD thank you for writing in such a way that even a layperson such as myself is able to grasp your points.

Since I start from a traditional faith position i'm already part of the choir, nonetheless you make some very convincing points that in effect we all start from a faith position.

At least that seems to be my understanding.

[constituent]

If you don't think reason is correct and faith is, why don't you go to a shaman and go to a doctor when you are sick? QED.

If you have to do a risky thing, do you consult an astrologist or the Bible or do you consult your insurance broker? Thought so.

Logic can be correct or not (as in "true" or "false" "1" or "0"). I'm not so sure that "reason" can be "correct."

I might be wrong, if so, hopefully someone will explain it better.

[constituent]

he dictionary is a man made thing; what is more, different dictionaries can define the same words differently, albeit usually with subtle differences. The dictionary is almost like a axiom set for language, and all words must be taken on faith.

Agreed. That's why I start w/ the OED, even though it is entirely too anglo-centric to consistently reflect reality (sorry OED, not EVERY word in English began as English). At the very least it attempts to explore the etymology of all its entries.

[TGGRV]

Logic can be correct or not (as in "true" or "false" "1" or "0"). I'm not so sure that "reason" can be "correct."

I might be wrong, if so, hopefully someone will explain it better.

reason=think logically; "The children must learn to reason"

[pacelli]

Did that make any sense? :)

It sure did.

[pacelli]

This kind of logic make me want to drive a power drill through my head. How the hell are you a "devout agnostic"?

LOL. Saying you are a "devout agnostic" is kind of like saying you are a "sovereign citizen" or "virgin whore". It is a figure of speech but is actually an oxymoron.

[constituent]

reason=think logically; "The children must learn to reason"

"logic" is the method by which one discovers "proof." (the part of your post I initially responded to.)

"proof (s)" is the foundation of reason.

this entry from wiki adequately sums up the difference


Reason compared to logic, cause and effect thinking, and symbolic thinking

Main articles: Logic, Cause and effect, and Symbols
In modern times, there is an increasing tendency to use the terms "logic" and "reason" interchangeably in philosophical discussion, or to see logic as the most pure or the defining form of reason.
Reason and logic can be thought of as distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. Reason is a type of thought. The word Logic involves the attempt to describe rules by which reason operates, so that orderly reasoning can be taught.

...

Another way to consider the confusion between logic and reason is that computers and animals sometimes perform actions which are apparently logical: from a complex set of data, conclusions are achieved which are "logical". Being a cause of something which humans find logical does not necessarily mean that computers or animals have reason, or even logic in the strict sense.




Recommended Reading:

http://www.librarything.com/work/8223109



....



Anyway, just some food for thought. Have a good weekend!

[TortoiseDream]

Nope. I can't reason with someone who doesn't use reason. I'm done.

I, as a human being, am limited to reason, it's all I have and all I've been using to respond to you. If you think my points have flaws, then point them out. Why are you certain that the sky is blue and not green? If you have nothing to say, then are we finished?


I actually like debating people who know how do it. So no, I don't mind reading your posts. I was pissed off last night. Anyway, you can't have the same premises and reach two different conclusions - the whole point of them being mutually exclusive.

I didn't say the pure reason camp and the religious camp had the same premises, I said they had some in common. I agree with your point - different premises reach different conclusions - and in my case, the axioms for pure reason taken as a whole are different than the axioms of religion.


And the dictionary, just like the Bible/Torah/Quran are man made things. :P

Yes I understand that, and I make that point when criticizing holy scripture myself. But the point is that other people may not agree with us (naively in our opinion) and hold the "word of God" to be correct, regardless of what human reason might say.


First of all, a very civilised debate, and secondly TD thank you for writing in such a way that even a layperson such as myself is able to grasp your points.

Since I start from a traditional faith position i'm already part of the choir, nonetheless you make some very convincing points that in effect we all start from a faith position.

At least that seems to be my understanding.

Mine too.

[TheEvilDetector]

If you don't like people who choose not to have imaginary friends floating in the sky, that's your business.

:)

[TortoiseDream]

If you don't like people who choose not to have imaginary friends floating in the sky, that's your business.

:)

Perhaps the imagination is real?

[TGGRV]

Perhaps the imagination is real?

I imagined I could fly out of my window... What if... Nevermind, I won't try that one.

[Dr.3D]

I imagined I could fly out of my window... What if... Nevermind, I won't try that one.

Yeah, I'm with you on that one.

I've often thought about faith and perhaps how the lack of it might keep something from happening that I supposedly had faith would happen.

In my mind, I thought about it being pitch dark in the middle of the night and I'm walking across my yard while having faith there is going to be solid ground under my feet. Now while I'm walking, if I happen to step into the in-ground swimming pool, will my faith that there is going be solid ground under my feet keep me from sinking in the pool?

[TheEvilDetector]

Yeah, I'm with you on that one.

I've often thought about faith and perhaps how the lack of it might keep something from happening that I supposedly had faith would happen.

In my mind, I thought about it being pitch dark in the middle of the night and I'm walking across my yard while having faith there is going to be solid ground under my feet. Now while I'm walking, if I happen to step into the in-ground swimming pool, will my faith that there is going be solid ground under my feet keep me from sinking in the pool?

If you really really believe it.

I don't mean just believe it.

I mean really really really really really really really believe it, with a cherry on top and angels and fairies.

[TortoiseDream]

I imagined I could fly out of my window... What if... Nevermind, I won't try that one.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, what's really different about a dream and "real" life?

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying, what's really different about a dream and "real" life?

Chatter is initially bright and light-hearted
But it’s not long before Storm gets started:
“You can’t know anything,
Knowledge is merely opinion”
She opines, over her Cabernet Sauvignon
Vis-à-vis,
Some un-hippily
Empirical comment by me

“Not a good start” I think
We’re only on pre-dinner drinks
And across the room, my wife
Widens her eyes
Silently begs me, Be Nice
A matrimonial warning
Not worth ignoring
So I resist the urge to ask Storm
Whether knowledge is so loose-weave
Of a morning
When deciding whether to leave
Her apartment by the front door
Or a window on the second floor.

[Original_Intent]

Here are my questions for religious people.
1. Would you be able to enjoy Heaven knowing that people you love are tormented in Hell?

2. . How come so many times the all-knowing God doesn't seem to have a clue whats gonna happen and has to double check things?

3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

4. What will happen in the Afterlife to the people who never heard about your religion?

5. How do you justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Especially from a loving God.

6. How can you have free will if God is omniscient? This means that he knows the decisions you will make, hence you don't really have free will.

7. How come you consider people to have free will considering some decisions lead to eternal torture? It's like saying you have the right to free speech, but if you say X, you will get your hand cut off. Sure, you have the right to free speech, right?


1. I don't believe in the type of Hell you are referring to. C.S. Lewsis said that ultimately there are two types of people; Those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "Thy will be done." People who are in hell are there because they set the wisdom of God at naught and followed thir own counsel. My religion believes that people go to one of three kingdoms after judgement - even the lowest of which is vastly superior to the earth that we live on (which is actually subject to Satan in other words yes we are currently in Hell.)

There are actually a very few that will go to a place worse than here - those with a full knowledge that Jesus is Christ and deny it. In other words, very few people are ever even capable of committing this sin.

Anyway the short answer is there will be no reason to mourn those not where I am because they will be living in exactly the place and condition that they are happiest in. They will not be with God because they don't WANT to be with God they want...well obviously it varies from person to person.

2. I'd need an example, I would likely say I do not believe the scripture you quote to be the infallible word of God.

3. Although Adam and Eve did not know good from evil, they did understand obedience/disobedience and consequences. Also, punish may not really be the right word as again I think that consequence is more accurate. If you tell a child not to cross the road, are you then punishing the child when they are hit by a car?

4. My religion believes in baptism in behalf of the dead. We believe that those who had no opportunity to hear the gospel in this life will have that opportunity presented to them in the afterlife. If they accept the gospel, then the proxy baptism done in their behalf is in effect. After Jesus' resurrection, He said that He had been preaching to the spirits in prison.

5. We believe that the words Infinite and Eternal are names of God. Thus infinite and eternal punishment means, in this case, God's punishment, not unending punishment. Likewise we believe the gift of eternallife means the gift of living the same type of life that God lives (which in this case IS also unending as God's life is unending.)

6. God's omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive. yes God knows in advance every choice that we will make. But that does not mean that God imposes His will upon us to make those decisions, only that He knows us so intimately that He knows the choice in advance. C.S. Lewsi was once asked that if that were the case, what is the point of life, why did God not just sort us out according to all of the choices that we WOULD make and punish/reward us accordingly? C.S. Lewis responded that knowing that putting dough in an oven at such and such a temperature would make bread did not remove the necessity of putting the dough in the oven if you wanted bread made. In other words, something is done in the process of making these choices, something that God would not do just by "waving His magic wand". So yes He knows already where we will all end up, but we still have to walk the path to get there. And I am sure that I didn;t word it as well as C.S. Lewis, I will try to find the book and anecdote and include it later.

7. I think your analogy is off. I think the truth is saying you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but if you exercise your freedom of speech by walking up to a 250 lb. drunk bodybuilder and telling him he is ugly and his mom is good in bed you will be punished with a bloody nose or worse.

A quote that comes to mind is that we are not so much punished for our sins as we are by our sins. For instance take a child molester...imagine what it would be like to live for eternity knowing what you had done? That is hell. It is not the devil sticking at you with a pitchfork it is an awareness of the consequences of your actions with a fully awakened sense of conscience.

I also believe that people are only punished (or suffer guilt for) things that they were aware were wrong. I believe that an atheist who honestly has sought to find out if there is a God and for whatever reason has not been given a witness - well I would say in his case that if he was trying to dissuade a believer from believing because he thought they had been deceived - and thus was doing him a favor - I cannot imagine that he would be punished for that. However, i don't think that is true for someone who refuses to believe because he knows the changes that would require him or her to make in their own lives. I think many of these people either know better or at one point did know better and talked themselves out of believing. I do believe that these people will be held responsible for any that they lead away from belief. That's one of those situations that "only they and god know what is in ther heart", and I am sure there are as many shades of grey as their are people.

Sorry this is kind of laymanish. It's what I believe, and I jsut felt like answering because as I read your questions I felt like I could answer them. I am sure many of them fall short of satisfying you, but as I said they are sufficient for myself.

[thevinci]

TD - I'm not a pure mathematician or an expert logician and this seems to be an area you are particularly adept at..I, perhaps erroneously (due to my lack of complete understanding) suggested in a debate your postulation that both religious and mathematical standpoints are faith-based and received the following response...and require your help....sorry for hijacking this thread :o


Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."

Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

[pacelli]

Here are my questions for religious people.

I don't consider myself to be religious, but I'll bite anyways.



1. Would you be able to enjoy Heaven knowing that people you love are tormented in Hell?

I can enjoy my life now knowing that some people I love are in hell at the moment, rotting away in their graves. As for those people that are cast into the lake of fire, it was their choice in life.



2. . How come so many times the all-knowing God doesn't seem to have a clue whats gonna happen and has to double check things?

Has God spoken to you and told you that he doesn't know what in the hell is going on?



3. How do you justify God punishing Adam and Eve for something the did before having any knowledge about good and evil?

Basically God gave them a single law to follow. They broke the law. Punishment followed.



4. What will happen in the Afterlife to the people who never heard about your religion?

I don't have a religion. If someone lived their life following or violating God's legal statutes without ever hearing about them or reading them, the end result will be the same.


5. How do you justify an infinite punishment for a finite crime? Especially from a loving God.

I didn't realize God prescribed infinite punishments. Even the death penalty is a finite punishment.



6. How can you have free will if God is omniscient? This means that he knows the decisions you will make, hence you don't really have free will.

God doesn't control my behavior, and God doesn't tell me what I can and cannot do. God did hire some secretaries to write all of his legal statutes in a number of books over the years, and I have the free will to ignore those books. God has never talked to me or interfered with my decisions. Free will means that I play my game, God plays his.



7. How come you consider people to have free will considering some decisions lead to eternal torture? It's like saying you have the right to free speech, but if you say X, you will get your hand cut off. Sure, you have the right to free speech, right?

Having free will doesn't mean that consequences don't happen. Good and bad consequences happen all of the time. Personal responsibility is a part of freedom. If I make a decision to engage in a behavior that violates a legal statute, then I am going to experience the penalty whether I believe in it or not.

[Theocrat]

If "atheism" is true, then there is no reason why we should believe "atheism" is true. In their worldview, we just live in a corrupt and suffering world for a few years, and then we die into nonexistence.

[Natalie]

I don't have a problem with atheism. I could not care less if someone is an atheist. Or any religion for that matter. The only thing that bothers me is when atheists preach atheism and bash all religions. They take on that holier-than-thou-I'm right-you're wrong attitude. It happens on RPF all the time. And they ruin perfectly good threads that have nothing to do with religion at all. I'm not talking about all atheists, so don't get offended if you don't do this.

Everyone should just keep their religious (or lack of) beliefs to themselves, IMO.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The only thing that bothers me is when atheists preach atheism and bash all religions. They take on that holier-than-thou-I'm right-you're wrong attitude.

I would have to agree that I do this. I do this whenever I encounter someone who believes something I think is a fantasy. I take the same stance against 911 truthers, and chemtrailers.

[Feenix566]

There's at least one thing more annoying than atheists complaining about religion, and that's religious people complaining about atheists complaining about religion.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

There's at least one thing more annoying than atheists complaining about religion, and that's religious people complaining about atheists complaining about religion.

I still dont understand whats so annoying about the idea of atheists complaining about religion. I can understand when people get upset when atheist call theists names, or are offensive in general. But it seems that the very idea that there are people who dont believe them, is something they find offensive. I guess its because when I say "I dont believe you", I am inherently saying "thats a bunch of shit".

[JeNNiF00F00]

I still dont understand whats so annoying about the idea of atheists complaining about religion.

Because Athiests in themselves are religious without even realizing it. Almost more so than the christians that I live around here in the gd bible belt.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Because Athiests in themselves are religious without even realizing it. Almost more so than the christians that I live around here in the gd bible belt.

I've heard it all before "atheists are just as religious as the theists".

Imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy. And they passed special laws on pillows and teeth and dentists that catered to this tooth fairy. You had to buy a certain pillow to make it easier for the tooth fairy. Before every meal, everyone asked the tooth fairy to protect their teeth during this meal. In schools, you had to pledge allegiance to the tooth fairy.

If in that society, I came out as a nonbeliever in this tooth fairy, and said everyone was crazy, and suggested that tooth fairy worship churches shouldnt get special favors, and the government shouldnt design the law based on the laws people believe are handed down by the tooth fairy, would it make any sense at all for someone to criticize me by saying :

"Ha! For someone who claims not to believe in the tooth fairy, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing over the tooth fairy. You are just as dogmatic and religious about your non-belief in the tooth fairy as the believers are."


This type of argument is really a non-argument. It doesnt adress the issue, its simply a diversion to distract people away from criticizing belief. Its similar to the tactic the left is doing right now, by calling anyone who criticizes Obama a "racist". It gives people the idea of "Uh oh, I dont want to be called a racist, so I better be careful and not criticize Obama's policies". With atheism, it goes, "Uh oh, these people are calling me religious and dogmatic for being an atheist, and I dont want to be called religious and dogmatic, so I better not call myself an atheist, or come out very strong in my convictions."

[TortoiseDream]

TD - I'm not a pure mathematician or an expert logician and this seems to be an area you are particularly adept at..I, perhaps erroneously (due to my lack of complete understanding) suggested in a debate your postulation that both religious and mathematical standpoints are faith-based and received the following response...and require your help....sorry for hijacking this thread :o

This is how I'd respond.


Of course there are absolutes in mathematics. Would you for a moment doubt that 2+2=4? OK, let's assume you say even that is not certain. So you say:
"No statement can be absolute."

You're misinterpreting the spirit of mathematics, that is, mathematics has NO connection to truth in any way, shape, or form. Mathematics is simply, SIMPLY, precise manipulation of symbols according to rules, THAT'S IT. More precisely, mathematics is the manipulation of axioms sets with precise rules. In pure mathematics, the statement "2+2=4" follows from a particular "mainstream" set of axioms that "make sense", though the choice of this axiom set is only preferred because it seems to correlate with common sense. One could just as easily define an axiom set that gives 2+2=$, or 2+2=2. I've taken a math course where we actually precisely defined addition; we said it was a function that took in an ordered pair and spit out the sum. If we defined addition differently, 2+2 could equal anything.

In this way ALL statements in mathematics are contingent on the axioms set and set of rules being employed. They are not absolute, and if they were the term "absolute" wouldn't have any connection to reality anyway. So when I say all the axioms in mathematics (more generally logic) are taken on faith, that's because no logical process can lead you to believe one over another. That defeats the purpose of the axioms themselves.


Now, is the above statement absolute? If yes, then there is something absolute; if not, then you cannot be sure if there are absolute statements...

This is more for the realm of philosophy. You can, in principle, doubt anything. But, like you point out, how can I say this knowing that I can also doubt the act of doubting itself? I don't see any conclusion except that you become so skeptical that you are skeptical of being skeptical. Essentially man knows nothing certain, not even his uncertainty. It is the abyss, the dilemma of all human life. Thus you have religion to cling to, it's a savior.


I would like to point out that in mathematics the word 'theory' has a very different meaning from that which is associated with it when speaking, for example, of the theory of evolution. In mathematics a (formal) theory is a system of axioms from which you derive theorems by means of logical rules. The axioms are not something you assume to be "true"; it's more like the theory is an imaginary world that you examine (or at least that's one way to look at it; I personally think that some things are absolute, like 2+2=4, and that mathematics consists of finding out those absolute truths).

That's all right, except for the end. You can personally meditate about the meaning of mathematics on your own, we all do, but from a formalist point of view there is no meaning except for what we inject into it (of course this is true for all domains). Math has no connection to truth. The number 2 does not exist.

[TortoiseDream]

If "atheism" is true, then there is no reason why we should believe "atheism" is true. In their worldview, we just live in a corrupt and suffering world for a few years, and then we die into nonexistence.

Seems to me like the only argument here is that atheism is less preferred, thus it is untrue. Does disgust lead to untruth? Should you not embrace truth, regardless of what it may be? Isn't clinging to an imaginary safe-haven foolish? Just playing devil's advocate, but what do you think?


I've heard it all before "atheists are just as religious as the theists".

Imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy. And they passed special laws on pillows and teeth and dentists that catered to this tooth fairy. You had to buy a certain pillow to make it easier for the tooth fairy. Before every meal, everyone asked the tooth fairy to protect their teeth during this meal. In schools, you had to pledge allegiance to the tooth fairy.

If in that society, I came out as a nonbeliever in this tooth fairy, and said everyone was crazy, and suggested that tooth fairy worship churches shouldnt get special favors, and the government shouldnt design the law based on the laws people believe are handed down by the tooth fairy, would it make any sense at all for someone to criticize me by saying :

"Ha! For someone who claims not to believe in the tooth fairy, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing over the tooth fairy. You are just as dogmatic and religious about your non-belief in the tooth fairy as the believers are."


This type of argument is really a non-argument. It doesnt adress the issue, its simply a diversion to distract people away from criticizing belief. Its similar to the tactic the left is doing right now, by calling anyone who criticizes Obama a "racist". It gives people the idea of "Uh oh, I dont want to be called a racist, so I better be careful and not criticize Obama's policies". With atheism, it goes, "Uh oh, these people are calling me religious and dogmatic for being an atheist, and I dont want to be called religious and dogmatic, so I better not call myself an atheist, or come out very strong in my convictions."

The atheist has faith in logic, his "God" is reason. Like I say so much, you cannot support reason with reason because it defeats the point of reason being the foundation. Whether or not you'd call that religious is another issue, and I don't really care since it's mostly semantics. But you must agree that the atheist adheres to the same kind of romantic hopes as the Christian.

[TGGRV]

1. I don't believe in the type of Hell you are referring to. C.S. Lewsis said that ultimately there are two types of people; Those who say to God "Thy will be done" and those to whom God says "Thy will be done." People who are in hell are there because they set the wisdom of God at naught and followed thir own counsel. My religion believes that people go to one of three kingdoms after judgement - even the lowest of which is vastly superior to the earth that we live on (which is actually subject to Satan in other words yes we are currently in Hell.)

There are actually a very few that will go to a place worse than here - those with a full knowledge that Jesus is Christ and deny it. In other words, very few people are ever even capable of committing this sin.

Anyway the short answer is there will be no reason to mourn those not where I am because they will be living in exactly the place and condition that they are happiest in. They will not be with God because they don't WANT to be with God they want...well obviously it varies from person to person.

2. I'd need an example, I would likely say I do not believe the scripture you quote to be the infallible word of God.

3. Although Adam and Eve did not know good from evil, they did understand obedience/disobedience and consequences. Also, punish may not really be the right word as again I think that consequence is more accurate. If you tell a child not to cross the road, are you then punishing the child when they are hit by a car?

4. My religion believes in baptism in behalf of the dead. We believe that those who had no opportunity to hear the gospel in this life will have that opportunity presented to them in the afterlife. If they accept the gospel, then the proxy baptism done in their behalf is in effect. After Jesus' resurrection, He said that He had been preaching to the spirits in prison.

5. We believe that the words Infinite and Eternal are names of God. Thus infinite and eternal punishment means, in this case, God's punishment, not unending punishment. Likewise we believe the gift of eternallife means the gift of living the same type of life that God lives (which in this case IS also unending as God's life is unending.)

6. God's omniscience and free will are not mutually exclusive. yes God knows in advance every choice that we will make. But that does not mean that God imposes His will upon us to make those decisions, only that He knows us so intimately that He knows the choice in advance. C.S. Lewsi was once asked that if that were the case, what is the point of life, why did God not just sort us out according to all of the choices that we WOULD make and punish/reward us accordingly? C.S. Lewis responded that knowing that putting dough in an oven at such and such a temperature would make bread did not remove the necessity of putting the dough in the oven if you wanted bread made. In other words, something is done in the process of making these choices, something that God would not do just by "waving His magic wand". So yes He knows already where we will all end up, but we still have to walk the path to get there. And I am sure that I didn;t word it as well as C.S. Lewis, I will try to find the book and anecdote and include it later.

7. I think your analogy is off. I think the truth is saying you have the freedom to say whatever you want, but if you exercise your freedom of speech by walking up to a 250 lb. drunk bodybuilder and telling him he is ugly and his mom is good in bed you will be punished with a bloody nose or worse.

A quote that comes to mind is that we are not so much punished for our sins as we are by our sins. For instance take a child molester...imagine what it would be like to live for eternity knowing what you had done? That is hell. It is not the devil sticking at you with a pitchfork it is an awareness of the consequences of your actions with a fully awakened sense of conscience.

I also believe that people are only punished (or suffer guilt for) things that they were aware were wrong. I believe that an atheist who honestly has sought to find out if there is a God and for whatever reason has not been given a witness - well I would say in his case that if he was trying to dissuade a believer from believing because he thought they had been deceived - and thus was doing him a favor - I cannot imagine that he would be punished for that. However, i don't think that is true for someone who refuses to believe because he knows the changes that would require him or her to make in their own lives. I think many of these people either know better or at one point did know better and talked themselves out of believing. I do believe that these people will be held responsible for any that they lead away from belief. That's one of those situations that "only they and god know what is in ther heart", and I am sure there are as many shades of grey as their are people.

Sorry this is kind of laymanish. It's what I believe, and I jsut felt like answering because as I read your questions I felt like I could answer them. I am sure many of them fall short of satisfying you, but as I said they are sufficient for myself.
How can you say that Adam and Eve getting kicked out of Eden not being punishment? lol. Anyway, if you can't know right for wrong, you can't know obedience. Obedience follows the same pattern because you obey because you know that's the RIGHT thing to do.

And my analogy isn't off. Yours is off because being damned is systematic, just like the government encroaching the right to free speech.

pacelli, just read the Bible. Why did God have to check if the people in Sodom and Gomorrah are astray? Or why did he need Cain to confess? I can go on with the examples in which God didn't know what was going to happen, even though he is omniscient. And this is in all Abrahamic religions.

You can't respect a law if you don't know that it is the right thing to do.

Hell is an infinite punishment.

[JeNNiF00F00]

I've heard it all before "atheists are just as religious as the theists".

Imagine if 90% of the world believed in the tooth fairy. And they passed special laws on pillows and teeth and dentists that catered to this tooth fairy. You had to buy a certain pillow to make it easier for the tooth fairy. Before every meal, everyone asked the tooth fairy to protect their teeth during this meal. In schools, you had to pledge allegiance to the tooth fairy.

If in that society, I came out as a nonbeliever in this tooth fairy, and said everyone was crazy, and suggested that tooth fairy worship churches shouldnt get special favors, and the government shouldnt design the law based on the laws people believe are handed down by the tooth fairy, would it make any sense at all for someone to criticize me by saying :

"Ha! For someone who claims not to believe in the tooth fairy, you sure do spend a lot of time obsessing over the tooth fairy. You are just as dogmatic and religious about your non-belief in the tooth fairy as the believers are."


This type of argument is really a non-argument. It doesnt adress the issue, its simply a diversion to distract people away from criticizing belief. Its similar to the tactic the left is doing right now, by calling anyone who criticizes Obama a "racist". It gives people the idea of "Uh oh, I dont want to be called a racist, so I better be careful and not criticize Obama's policies". With atheism, it goes, "Uh oh, these people are calling me religious and dogmatic for being an atheist, and I dont want to be called religious and dogmatic, so I better not call myself an atheist, or come out very strong in my convictions."

The point is, I dont give a shit what anyone believes. Thats their business. Its really a stupid waste of time arguing with either side.

[Objectivist]

Funny thread.

[thevinci]

Muchas gracias TD :)

[Spot the Fed]

I would have to agree that I do this. I do this whenever I encounter someone who believes something I think is a fantasy. I take the same stance against 911 truthers, and chemtrailers.

*cough* insufferable douche *cough*

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

The point is, I dont give a shit what anyone believes. Thats their business. Its really a stupid waste of time arguing with either side.

Why does this rule only apply to religion? Does religion not play a major part in the structure of our society?

Ill buy into your argument when the religious stfu and keep their religion to themselves.

[thevinci]

Grr....I've become the proxy in a debate!!!
Help? lol

"So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true. Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it. And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding... [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto. I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?"

[Mini-Me]

Why does this rule only apply to religion? Does religion not play a major part in the structure of our society?

Ill buy into your argument when the religious stfu and keep their religion to themselves.

Although I agree to an extent, if you focus on opposing coercive power in general, that will encompass any damage that coercive religious people can do to you. I think spending your efforts attacking religion is a mistake, because it alienates religious people who don't want to push their beliefs onto you (and who might join you in opposing coercion), and it also bypasses people who want to control you for non-religious reasons.

[Feenix566]

Aside from the occasional thread about religion on RPF, I don't have any religious people pounding me over the head with their religion. So it doesn't really bother me. If you all want to believe that Jesus is saving you from your sins, go ahead. I pity you because you're throwing your life away. But it's yours to throw away, so it's no sweat off my back. :)

[TortoiseDream]

"So basically you're a formalist. I'm a platonist. I believe that yes, there is Absolute Truth, but of course there has to be a clear distinction between something that's absolutely true, regardless if anybody knows it and absolute certainty -- that is, knowing that something is true.

Of course, and I think most people, including me, would agree that absolute certainty is a romance and unattainable. Things can always be doubted.


Of course, this introduces the element of faith or metaphysics, if you will, and some people don't like it. But I personally feel you can never avoid it.

Right, that's my point. If you believe math has connection to reality, then it is faith based.


And I also think formalists are kind of hypocritical when they say how supposedly nothing in mathematics exists, and it's all just symbol manipulation, because then you can ask, "So how do you know symbols exist? How do you know manipulating them is real?", and I'm not sure what would be their response, but this to me shows how this element of faith is inevitable in mathematics. In fact, I believe, manipulating symbols amounts to arithmetic, so believing in symbols and not believing in numbers doesn't make sense to me.

Symbol's don't exist; rather pen ink exists, pencil lead exists, chalk dust exists. The symbols are our interpretations of these things when placed in aesthetically pleasing ways. And also, I don't know what formalists you talk to, but my opinion is not to replace faith in numbers with faith in symbols. I don't want to replace it with anything. This amounts math to a game, simply a game that we play for fun. I do math for enjoyment and speculation, but I do not connect it to truth.


Then you can hear some people even say how, in the end, not even these basic operations are certain; "nothing is certain, not even logic", which doesn't make sense when the same people are forced to use it in their "reasonings", it's inevitable. And then it goes:

"Nothing is certain. It's not even certain that nothing is certain. And the preceding statement isn't certain, either. And the same about the preceding one. And the preceding... [Then, after infinitely many statements:] None of the preceding statements are certain. etc."

Right.


This doesn't lead anywhere. Obviously, there must be something that we should be able to hang onto.

How is that in anyway obvious? What what does it mean to be obvious in the first place, what are the implications of "obvious"? Infinite regression is unavoidable if one is to critically doubt what he sees (metaphorically speaking). The only way to "escape" the chain is by a leap of faith. Hence religion, reason, etc.


I know there are fundamental problems with this when, for instance, you can assume either an axiom or its negation, and both versions are equiconsistent, but to this I say: just because we don't know which one is true, doesn't mean neither is. Do you understand what I'm saying?"

I do, but you must remember that all of your arguments and attempts to convince anyone of anything are based in your logical reasoning. It really makes communicating a silly thing, but I think that's the way it is.