World Religions - Atheism Discussion Thread

[Fallen Buckeye]

@PeeJayeEss:

Your rebuttal is full of contradictions that illustrate exactly what I'm saying. Faith according to google is "complete trust or confidence in something." In science, you have to trust that the data is accurate, the methods are sound, and the ones making interpretations are interpreting it all correctly. You even point out that theory is a best guess which others must agree with or reject (in other words deciding whether to trust another's conclusions). You imply that scientific theory is irrelevant, but you treat theories as fact in saying that Adam and Eve is disproven by fact. A fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," but the fact that we are having a conversation about the validity of the Genesis creation stories suggests that what you're claiming is disputable. Furthermore, you have no definitive proof yourself; you may have evidence which some people have drawn different conclusions on about the beginning of humanity. That my friend is a theory by your own definition which individuals have to decide whether to trust or distrust. In other words, the must decide whether or not to have faith in the conclusions others have drawn.

Now that we have that out of the way, I may have framed my point poorly in a way that suggests that by believing in God you must abandon science completely. That's untrue. However, science alone is an inadequate tool to prove or disprove the existence of God because He transcends what is observable and measurable. Yet many completely trust (i.e.; put their faith in) the scientific process or reason alone to decide if God exists.. It's the same as if you tried to decide if you love someone scientifically. You could collect data on your neurochemistry, your heart rate, and the dilation of your pupils, and after that you could sit down list that person's weaknesses and strengths and compare the number of good experiences with the number of bad experiences with that person. Yet all that information cannot definitively show you whether you love someone because love is something that transcends the purely physical. So it is with God. It is a decision you should approach with both your head and your heart.

With that in mind, I would encourage you to open yourself to at least the possibility that God exists. If you're genuinely interested I could point you towards some literature that provides evidence for the existence of God, so that even if you reject that God exists you can at least say you have given the topic the serious consideration it deserves. I am actually an adult convert to Christianity myself, so I understand the skepticism. I would just challenge you to turn down the skepticism enough to give the idea a fair shake before making a final judgement (cue rimshot  ). Take care.

[PeeJayEss]

A fact is "a thing that is indisputably the case," but the fact that we are having a conversation about the validity of the Genesis creation stories suggests that what you're claiming is disputable.

The fact that we are having the conversation is not evidence that both sides have valid points. We are having the conversation because you are making the illogical and unreasonable claim that there is a possibility that the Genesis story is historical record. I haven't said God doesn't exist anywhere in this thread (at least not directly), I have simply taken issue with your literalist framing of the debate which I think is damaging to both religion and faith as a whole. The Holy See does not dispute evolution, it simply maintains that we humans are special because we have a soul that is specially and particularly given to us by God, and this could have happened at some point in our evolution from other primates. Or perhaps, God put the soul in even earlier, and all primates have one, or all mammals, or all animals, or all living creatures. I just don't know.

Now that we have that out of the way, I may have framed my point poorly in a way that suggests that by believing in God you must abandon science completely. That's untrue. However, science alone is an inadequate tool to prove or disprove the existence of God because He transcends what is observable and measurable. Yet many completely trust (i.e.; put their faith in) the scientific process or reason alone to decide if God exists.. It's the same as if you tried to decide if you love someone scientifically. You could collect data on your neurochemistry, your heart rate, and the dilation of your pupils, and after that you could sit down list that person's weaknesses and strengths and compare the number of good experiences with the number of bad experiences with that person. Yet all that information cannot definitively show you whether you love someone because love is something that transcends the purely physical. So it is with God. It is a decision you should approach with both your head and your heart.

This paragraph is a complete cop-out of constructive debate on the topic, which is why I think it cheapens the position of others of faith. The assumption here that you are using as proof that God cannot be found by science is that love exists as a definitive thing. While the romantic in me would agree, the skeptic in me would ask, how are you so sure? Do other animals have love (penguins mate for life)? Or is it possible that love is simply a romanticized, monetized modern manifestation of our evolutionary need to procreate? In that case, "love" probably can be proven or predicted. Hell, matchmakers would already claim they can predict love.

With that in mind, I would encourage you to open yourself to at least the possibility that God exists. If you're genuinely interested I could point you towards some literature that provides evidence for the existence of God, so that even if you reject that God exists you can at least say you have given the topic the serious consideration it deserves. I am actually an adult convert to Christianity myself, so I understand the skepticism. I would just challenge you to turn down the skepticism enough to give the idea a fair shake before making a final judgement (cue rimshot  ). Take care.

Your assumption is that because I argue against Adam and Eve as historical record that I am not schooled on the teachings, readings, and tenets of the faith. That would be a poor assumption. Please do direct me towards this literature that gives evidence of God's existence. I did not know it had been proven. It would surely shed light on this forum, and I think we would all have something to gain from it.

"What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" - Pope Pius XII

[Fallen Buckeye]

I think you're really misunderstanding my position on a couple things here. First, I am not arguing that the Genesis creation story is a historical play-by-play account, but there are several truths that we can gain from it with the correct reading of the text. I'm not actually disputing the theory of evolution; I'm disputing a Darwinian take on evolution where humans are treated like just another animal. I'm saying that humans are distinct from animals because of their rational souls, and there is a finite beginning where we became man and not just another animal. That fact is self-evident. I mean do dolphins or octopi contemplate the reason for their own existence? Does a chimp make a conscious decision whether their actions are good or evil? Why is it wrong to murder a person but not wrong for animals to kill each other? It is plain that we are qualitatively different from animals, and I'm only saying that there is a distinct point in time where we stopped being animals and became truly human, body and soul.

About your second point, the main point is that science must be informed by faith because science will only take us so far. Most people would reject what you say about love being able to be defined strictly by science and reason, but the same idea could apply to things like defining the beauty of something. I see it like this: science and reason can reveal to us much about God but it takes faith to make to be able to make proper sense of it. Science and reason actually reveal how great God is once we have the gift of faith which is why it's possible for people of faith can be great scientists and philosophers. My argument is not for either or God; it's argument for both/and because one complements the other.

That said here is some reading for you:
20 arguments for the existence of God - http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Here's link to an audio discussion on the existence of God - http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/proofs-for-gods-existence-part-i-6821#
Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church starting at section 283 would back up a lot of what I said. Here's an online version: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
What is poetic knowledge? (This doesn't prove the existence of God, but puts forward that there are other types of knowledge that is valuable besides scientific knowledge) - http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/what-is-poetic-knowledge
Regarding our discussion on creation - http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis and http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Lastly, you're right that I shouldn't make assumptions about what you know or don't know about Christianity. Sorry. I think you've made some similar assumptions about me, too. So, if you don't mind me asking, what is your faith background? Personally, I am a Catholic who converted from agnosticism about 3 or 4 years ago. Sorry if I have come off as trying to attack you personally. I really am just trying to present a different perspective on the conversation and challenging the arguments. No hard feelings. 

[ronchamblin]

Of course, and I suppose this allows me to be called an atheist, my position is that man has created the idea of a god, a heaven, a hell.  Man has created thousands of gods.  A Baptist, a Catholic Priest, or a Muslim will attempt convincing others that there is only one god, and that it is their god.  The forces and mechanisms of nature, which operate according to the laws of the universe, caused man, created man, and the mechanisms of evolution have allowed man to think on a level exceeding that of any other animal.  Creation?  The universe is the creator.  And man creates new things from what already exists in nature.   

Nature, by its laws, creates diversity, creates more, and man, by his intelligence, creates things to satisfy his needs.  A creator?  A god?  These ideas were imagined by man long ago, perhaps even as a consequence of genetic pressures to survive, as with the mothering instinct, so as to enhance the probability of survival as individuals and societies.  The mind’s receptivity to religious belief has probably been shaped by evolution, as the belief in religion seems to have conferred upon a society, at least in early ages, a better chance of survival.

The obvious tendency for many individuals to cling to a belief in a god might be a consequence of lingering genetic pressures within, making it difficult for some to emerge free from it so that they might engage life without the idea of a god, without the idea of sin, or a heaven or a hell, and without the idea of something supreme above to give assistance and comfort when needed.

Some of us, as evidenced by some on MJ, are emerging free, free from this lingering belief in a god, a kind of father in heaven.  We have no need for faith, but gain more confidence that we know; and this, not only by way of the probabilities offered by our growing understanding of nature and the laws of the universe, but also by our awareness of the psychological mechanisms by which the religious remain attached to their beliefs.

Some of us, being free from a belief in a god as portrayed by the religions created by man, have allowed ourselves to more comfortably engage the probability that we are not alone in the universe.  Because of the immense size of the universe, coupled with its structure, mechanisms, and laws, the idea that we have neighbors which we call aliens, who are probably contemplating us as we contemplate them, is held to be highly probable by those who tend to imagine possibilities and  contemplate probabilities.  I have more confidence in the idea of aliens, than in the idea of a god as portrayed by the revealed religions we’ve seen imagined and created by man during the past few thousand years. 

In my view, there is a high probability that we will meet one day other beings from planets in other systems in the universe.  The idea of meeting other creatures who have also emerged from the soup of the universe as a consequence of the mechanisms of physics and chemistry, as cultivated and guided by the principles of evolution, is much more believable, as compared to the idea of a god who is sitting in judgment upon us, watching us, threatening hell upon us, concerned with us, urging us to worship no other god. 

The bible teaches some principles of human behavior, but these would emerge in any society or village simply as a consequence of logic and need.  The bible contains poetry and parables, and a measure of history which can be verified as true.  And although it originally conveyed the beliefs of tribal peoples and villagers in a god, it is basically fiction in most respects, and even descends to nonsense in other respects. 

But, back to the idea of the other beings.  I think I saw an alien on the sidewalk a few weeks ago.  It was a male, appearing quite human, but there was something strange about this individual.  The eyes were different, the pupils seeming too distinct, the lines or circles too defined.  And he walked funny.  Even though his feet were contacting the sidewalk, there was a sort of gliding movement.  Yes, it’s scary.  But I think some are here, visiting us, the aliens I mean.  But I’m encouraged by this as, obviously if he was or is an alien, and they are amongst us, they haven’t yet harmed us.  What would motivate them to harm us?   

But whether or not he was an alien, imagine the idea of an alien being able to travel to our planet.  They might have perhaps a million year head start on us, having had a technology a million years ago, as ours is now.  Imagine our technology a million years from now.  I wonder if there will be people of faith in a million years?  Will there be churches like the FBC?  Will there still be gods to which people will give attention, and even worship?  Will we have streetcars by then, and a vibrant downtown?  Will marijuana still be illegal?  Will humans be able not only to marry the same sex, but other animals, and even plants?  Will there still be religious charlatans and imposters like Joel O'steen, Jim Bakker, Ed Young, and Jimmy Swaggart?               
     
   

[Timkin]

^ for that matter, Will Joel O'steen and Jimmy Swaggart still be here?  You know, they HAVE come up with life-extending measures and DNA  science stuff ( Jurassic Park )  so you never know

[Fallen Buckeye]

Why would the existence of God preclude the possibility of alien life? Who's to say by what means God creates the universe or the extent of His creation?

Ron, I think you're right in suggesting that belief in God is an adaptive behavior that fills a need in man and society. We as human beings need to know why we are here (which again separates humans from other animals). We were made for a purpose by a loving creator, and the precepts which you say weigh man down are to me wings that lift us up to be our true selves. God does not relish in judgement and damnation; He only allows us to feel the weight of our own action. Just as surely as the alcoholic poisons himself every time he raises his glass, we bring a death to ourselves by our sin. God simply recognizes our own choice, and offers us mercy if we'll accept it.

Finally, why would we assume society is past a need for God? Fidelity to many of the traditional Judeo-Christian values and precepts started to wane many decades ago. Are people happier and more fulfilled as a result of "freeing" themselves? Are we as a people so different than any others in history? Can we trust our leaders to be just once they are free of the restrictions and limits of a Judeo-Christian ethic? I wholeheartedly agree that some Christians are deeply flawed people, but the specter of a Godless society is terrifying to me. We've had glimpses of this in places like Russia and China already, and I for one dread going down that same road.

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

[Ocklawaha]

We've been hearing about the benevolence of our atheist community, HERE IS YOUR CHANCE to multiply that love!

I'm inviting all atheists (some might say challenging) for a chance at helping families and children in critical need. In PANAMA , within the next two weeks we'll be giving water filtration systems to Indian families.

Call it 'an unholy' alliance if you wish, but the systems cost $100 dollars each and you've got my personal guarantee that 100% of that money goes to buy the filtration equipment.

Any takers? I'll be happy to see that your filter gets into the hands of a family that is likely drawing water out of highly polluted streams and rivers.

Oh, and yes, it's my tiny church group that will buy and distribute these filters... We'll take plenty of photos.

OCKLAWAHA

[PeeJayEss]

"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Being the only signer of the Declaration that was Catholic, Carroll was truly not in step with his contemporaries, who we consider to be the great early statesmen and founders of this country. A great many of them, who actually had a hand in shaping our great early documents (and not just signing them) were anti-religious (not necessarily non-spiritual). Among those who were not agnostics or atheists, there was a particular inclination towards deism, which rejects organized religion and says the existence of a Creator can be determined through reason and observation. It requires the same strong faith as any other religion that the Creator does exist, but without the mindless obedience to an organization or ancient book of parables, and (my favorite) without the belief that this Creator intervenes in our daily lives. If you believe in God AND you think this omnipotent, omniscient, immortal being that has set up the Universe to work ever so precisely and given you free will to do as you wish within the laws of his creation will intervene at your request in that Jags game, your test, or in your loved one's illness, you are either delusional or superstitious. Either way, you are trying to use religion/God to serve your own self interest.

Also, Carroll was a large slave-owner. So much for the sublime and pure morality of the Christian religion. I hope we can realize there is a higher morality than that which tells us to do good in order to not suffer eternal damnation. If you're only motivation in doing good is to get into heaven, I consider you neither moral nor good, but pathetic.

[Fallen Buckeye]

You're right, PeeJayEss. I don't believe in a God of convenience either that intervenes on command in all of the minutia. Personally, I seek to cooperate with His will, so that I am wanting what He wants. That's why I pray, "Thy Kingdom come. Thy Will be done." Of course, I pray for my needs and the needs of others, but I hope that it is in cooperation with His grace. I am asking, not telling. lol. But you also have to consider that no one is perfect. Everyone is in a different place on their faith journey, and just because this person fails to live up to the ideals of Christianity does not mean that the whole system is bunk. I teach math for a living. I make computational mistakes all the time. Doesn't mean all the math I teach is wrong.

I don't believe in mindless acceptance of God and His Church either. Like I keep saying, it's head and heart. It's faith and reason. If you read about the lives of the saints, you see people who struggle with their beliefs left and right. I'm reading Augustine's Confessions right now, and I will tell that he struggled with it for years. Mother Teresa had her dark night of the soul that stretched for decades. Saint Ignatius of Loyola only converted after being bound to his bed where he could only read and think. Christianity, Catholicism in particular, has a 2,000 year old tradition of contemplation and thought. Despite all that I would say you're right. Don't believe because the saints believed or I believe. Put your own intellect to use and in your heart have a desire for and openness to the truth.

That said, I don't have a particular taste to argue, but if anyone has heartfelt questions my inbox is always open. I am getting the sense that this conversation is becoming about judging people for their beliefs, and I know that is not my intention. I'm just putting a view forward. Take it or leave it.

[nomeus]

[Ocklawaha]

Come on in boys and girls, $100 bucks and I can deliver a pure water miracle to an indian family...

BTW, I'M SERIOUS! Send me a note, I'll get your filter on the flight to Panama.

OCK

[ronchamblin]

Nomeus.  Beautiful piece.  So well done.  I wish I had written it.  But wait, I notice that god "did" sign it, right at the bottom.  That's amazing.  Finally, proof that god exists.   

Ock, I forgot.  So yes, I will be happy to do two of those water filters.  People need clean water.  If possible, people must have one of "the" most important necessities for life.  But wait, this might be a trick.  How do I know that you are not sending the money to Joel O'steen, or Ed Young?  These fellows are quite persuasive you know. 

Well... okay, I feel somehow that your association with religion and the spiritual avoids the insane end of the spectrum, and that you aren't going to be persuaded by the TV charlatans, the fellows who offer some of us the occasional comedy show.  They are quite funny to watch.  I really miss the shows of Jimmy Swaggart and Jerry Falwell.  They are so hilarious.     

 

[WmNussbaum]

Ron, if you want a Sunday morning giggle, turn on CBS around 8 or 8:30 and watch the Jack Van Impe show, and pay very,very, special attention to his wife - I am not making this up - Rexella. She's a TammyFaye if ever there was one, and she is so damn sincere you will be moved to send in money - really! As if that wasn't enough, they have an announcer with a voice that makes James Earl Jones sound like a castrato.

You'll enjoy it - I promise you. I watch every Sunday for about the last 5 minutes before CBS Sunday Morning comes on. I swear, I'm going to send those folks some money one day. Hey! Here is a good idea: Why don't you send me your money and I'll add it to mine and pass it all along. Salvation will be yours, my friend, and best of all it won't set you back too much.

Noemus: i'm with Ron on your G-d letter.

[officerk]

Noemus phenomenal letter!!!!

[Timkin]

Maybe Nomeus is God