Unless Ben Peter Terpstra has specific financial interests in any of those businesses called religions, he would be better to stand aside.

Religions are packaged set of opinions sold to scared people.

The very contemplation of the mystery of life is all that we can call religion.

Let no charlatan take from you that mystery and its stupendous contemplation

No man is an atheist when faced in situations of dispair .

Skeptic: Author here. Your critical-thinking skills seem to be resting. This idea for, example, that spiritual aboriginal people have a “packaged set of opinions” is ludicrous. Are they all charlatans?

But if that’s your position, feel free to alert the atheists, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, because according to my knowledge, Zen and Judaism are also religions.

I wonder how you arrived at your fundamentalist contemplation theory too (by faith, my guess). In any case, also feel free to encourage atheist Julia to stop praying.

“No man is an atheist when faced in situations of despair.”

Good point Philo. There aren’t many atheists in foxholes, I’m told.
It’s odd. In war situations, many of them experience diarrhea panic and a newfound belief in God (their new best friend!).

It only takes Gillard one election, however. -BPT

As a member of Alcoholics Anonymous [ AA ], although its "12 Steps " refer several times to "God "and also to a "higher power " , I am perplexed , at every meeting ,by attendees who are hostile to believing in God [ unless , they say , it means "group of drunks "or "good orderly direction "]. They then say that every day , they hand over their will and their lives to the care of this group of drunks or good orderly direction and they pray to this "god " to help them .
When I say that they cannot act in accordance with the 12 Steps , unless these are amended , by deleting the references to God , the non - believers object that the 12 Steps cannot be changed .This a type of non - religious fundamentalism , which exists elsewhere . Then , they claim to have a higher power , but they do not know what it is . They claim to have spirituality , but do not know what it is , except that it is not religion .

It is , of course , possible to have spiritual beliefs , which are not religious [ e.g ., love of one's family or fellow human beings , arguably the better type of patriotism ] . However , it is more honest for a person , who does not believe in a god or supreme being , to say that s/he is an atheist , rather than claiming belief in some nebulous concept of "god " or higher power .
Non - believers should not insist in having funerals for themselves or deceased friends / relatives , in a church , conducted by a minister of religion .

Yes, good point Philo. It just goes to show that religious belief is based on fear and not evidence and reasoned argument.

From the article: “Atheism isn’t great, or convincing.”

Who ever said it was “great”? What could possibly be so great about an opinion (or lack thereof) that wouldn’t exist had it not been for others choosing to adopt a particular belief system?

Atheism - in its strongest form - is the rejection of a claim as unsupported by evidence. So to say that it’s not convincing (particularly when those who have the burden of proof have not yet supplied the slightlest shred of it) shows an astonishing level of ignorance.

>>No man is an atheist when faced in situations of dispair<<

OMG!!

Ooops.

>>Non - believers should not insist in having funerals for themselves or deceased friends / relatives , in a church , conducted by a minister of religion<<

Amen to that...

Ooops.

I suspect another agenda here. Surely, no-one could mistake the use of simple, everyday phrases, expressing surprise, sympathy, agreement or whatever, with a suppressed desire for religion?

These are turns-of-phrase. They are automatic responses - yes, quite possibly from a religious linguistic hinterland, but signifying nothing more than the fact that most of our oaths, over the centuries, have been religion-based.

"Strewth", as any fule kno, is a contraction of "God's truth". "Gorblimey" was "God blind me". "For crying out loud" was an exclamation that started out as "For Christ's sake!" At least it was when my father used it.

Does the use of these somehow signify a subterranean desire for the spiritual?

I doubt it.

No more than Julia's "prayer" was directed at a subconsciously longed-for deity.

Mountains. Molehills.

‘All men believe in some higher power’. How does one arrive at such a 'position'? I guess it is via a pathway that heads for a destination labelled 'atheism is whatever I say it is, so I can then say whatever I like about it'.

I always thought that atheism was something much simpler - the absence of belief in what other people call their gods. But honestly, I have not given it much thought. Since age about 13 it seemed painfully obvious to me that other people's religions were based on current wishful thinking and/or an inherited legacy of past ignorance and superstition. It was not I who wished to put a label on my conclusion, but I guess the word 'atheist' is convenient enough. But please don't fiddle with its meaning in order to make inaccurate generalisations.

I do not believe in some higher power, meaning the kind of higher power that other folk call their gods. So there.

What is the point of this article. It merely reminds us rather stridently, that people are varied and find spiritual meaning in many different ways.

So what if JG said "we pray for ...speedy recovery". It is a terminology. I have often said My God when something amazing happens - it is built into cultural language. Australia has a Judeo-Christian heritage which has impacted on aspects of language, that is perfectly normal.

So what if there are no 'atheists' in fox holes. I can imagine with death looming that one might reach out to the thinnest of hopes no matter how incredulous, it is a natural human instinct to survive. That is not proof of God, it is purely evidence of the nature of man.

Why do so many Christians insist their views are right for everyone even to the point of insisting on school programs dedicated to Christian proselytising. Why do Christians go on the attack over any perceived slight on Christianity including sometimes defending the indefensible.

Finding yet more ways to villify people who find spirituality in different ways is not a worthy response. Atheism just means a disbelief in the presence of a supernatural being. It does not preclude people from all things spiritual if that is their wont. Atheists like Christians are not a homogenous group. I know many Christians who read their horoscopes on a daily basis.

People are many and varied, we are not all the same and people are what they do not what they say. Words are easy, actions are long felt.

There is no need to consistently vilify those who do not share your spiritual beliefs.

Find strength in your own beliefs without the need to demonise others for is the better approach I reckon.

Yes, Pericles, Julia is the atheist messiah who prays in public and believes in the most hysterical global warming prophecies. And if you don’t believe her well you’re a heretic (denier). How dare we question the messiah. After all, she is beyond accountability.

C'mon BPT.

>>Yes, Pericles, Julia is the atheist messiah who prays in public and believes in the most hysterical global warming prophecies. And if you don’t believe her well you’re a heretic (denier). How dare we question the messiah. After all, she is beyond accountability<<

That's just plain silly. And aren't you being just the teensiest bit hysterical yourself?

Climate change is not a religious belief.

If we are going to reduce all policy to religious beliefs and all advocates of those numerous policies as Messiahs this is going to be a very long article response.

Climate change is worthy of debate but it is nothing to do with spiritual atheism or with religion despite the fact it is often religious people who deny climate change by using religious analogies.

Those sceptical of AGW are a mixed bunch and include Atheists and non-atheists alike.

My sentiments exactly, Tombee.

<<But please don't fiddle with its meaning in order to make inaccurate generalisations.>>

All too often, in my travels here on OLO, I come across theists adding more than is necessary to what it means to be an atheist - implying that it is a belief system in itself (as was implied in the article) - and I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s only ever done out of envy of those who are freethinkers not bound by a rigid dogma. They can’t stand it, so they need to drag those who disagree with them down to their own dogmatic level by re-defining atheism.

This is why I encourage all who aren’t religious to use the term to describe themselves rather than shying away with terms like “sceptic” or “agnostic”. Because if we don’t take ownership of the word, they’ll succeed is changing its meaning and we all know how bad they are at defining it.

What theists fail to realise, though, is that even if they do succeed in re-defining atheism, all it means is that we are no longer “atheists” and that we then need to select a different term to describe ourselves. Changing the definition of a word doesn’t change who people are. It just means they’ll use a different word to describe themselves in future.

The English language has enough illogical rules and exceptions for us to want to screw around with it any more than what already occurs naturally - just for our own little agendas.

Yes what is this rant about?
It is a typical example of Ben's smarmy adolescent ignorance, while pretending to be insightful.

Ben is of course OLO's resident comedian - except that he aint at all funny.
Plus there has never been one iota of evidence of a religiously informed consciousness in anything that Ben has ever written on OLO or on his appalling adolescent blog.
And why has Sam Harris become the target of both right-wing religionists and (now) pseudo-religious hacks like Ben.

Sam's superb Letter to Christian America should be compulsory reading for everyone, especially all of the right-wing religionists with their inherently intolerant "only-we-possess-the-truth" mind-set.

Notice too that Ben takes a swipe at Harris's use of Zen terminology.
Sam is quite sympathetic to the Buddhist understanding of Reality, so why not use Zen terminology.
Never mind that we have NO living Spiritual Tradition, and thus even the language with which to attempt to communicate a Spiritual and therefore subtle and paradoxical understanding of Reality.

“Climate change is not a religious belief.” I agree Pericles – but hiding preindustrial climate changes and claiming that men are gods who can change the climate is cultic. Banning debates is cultic. Not being able to question Al Gore’s Gaia theology is cultic.

No educated skeptic has said climate change is not real – they have said that apocalyptic manmade “global warming” is a con. But perhaps your faith allows you to erase history. I note that green Leftists don’t talk about “global warming” as much now after Climategate.

I get very tired of people trotting out the phrase "there are no atheists in fox holes".
Where is the evidence to support this? Just because someone said it and it sounds clever does not make it true.

I agree Rhys. My mother, who recently passed away from a slow debilitating illness, came from a Baptist background - did not fear death. In one of our final conversations, she recounted to me a visit from some of her Christian friends - while she appreciated their company, she said to me "I am an atheist, I am still an atheist, I love my friends and family but I am still an atheist." With over half her lung capacity gone and every word an effort, she wanted to make very clear that she had accepted her fate and did not need to pray to anything or anyone.

When I was informed of her death, the nurse remarked upon how extraordinarily peaceful she looked. My mother died with a smile on her face - I can only hope to be as brave and accepting.

All that the author has done is confirm what we already know: religion
is based on hope and fear.

David Brooks has published an interesting new book called " The
Social Animal" I downloaded it onto the Ipad and its worth
a read.

A couple of quotes:

"You are the spiritual entity that emerges out of the material
networks in your head"

"A brain is the record of a life"

No need for souls or gods in there.

What about the many Christians who think climate change is real. I have not read any articles in the Age pushing the idea of conversion to Gaia - what is that about?!

I am an atheist who does not believe that a Carbon Tax will reduce pollution or make an iota of difference on a global scale to reduce pollution.

Does that make me a secret Christian.

The foolish comments on this thread are amazing.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Someone used the term "Christian soldiers" and that is exactly what th world does not need. Soldiers with jackboots plotting war against anyone who does not bend to their will. They used to call it facism. It is reminiscent of the Communist regimes that suppress and oppress diversity and forcing the idea there is only one right way - their way. Did we learn nothing from the Crusades?

HAHAHAHAHA...

Is this guy for real?

Saying that 10% of atheists pray once a week is so ludicrous it's funny. That's just like saying 10% of christians pray to Vishnu once a week just for the hell of it (pun definitely intended)!

As an atheist the act of praying (or even walking into a church for that matter) is so foreign I don't see why you would even make a statement like that.

To me personally praying is like asking Santa for a brand new bike... it would be good but c'mon people let's get with the times. There's no such thing and authors like the one in this article are just holding society back...

So sick of self-righteous biggots. Leave us atheists alone - go pray to your non-existent god and let us enjoy life as the liberated and enlightened free spirirts we are.

I definitely see what you mean, pelican…

<<Does that make me a secret Christian.>>

The way some - including the author - speak, you would think that every person on Earth fit perfectly and neatly into one of the following categories:

(a) Rightwing = theist = anti-AGW

(b) Leftwing = atheist = pro-AGW

But as someone who was raised by predominantly Leftwing Christians who don’t doubt AGW, I find this extreme form of rigid thinking very small-minded.

In regards to “Christian soldiers”, that was said in jest on another thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12045&page=0), but I couldn’t help smile when I read your (justified) reaction because I remember singing the song that term comes from in Sunday school as a kid!

“Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war…”

I think Pelican has made the best response to this article thus far, and is to be commended for the thoughtful approach taken.

I have an inclination to propose a philosophical evaluation: As a sentient being, Man has a sense of "self" encompassing the physical, the emotional, the historical and the environmental (my proposition, and not necessarily all-encompassing). This sense of self appears not to be shared with any other inhabitants of this planet, and may in fact be unique in the universe. Man is not only endowed with amazing neurological capabilities, in memory, logic, reasoning, problem solving etc, but also with great creative ability - to imagine the future, to delve into the very construct and nature of the universe - but is also fundamentally an emotional being. Is it possible that the full extent of our appreciation of "self" may in fact necessitate a sense of, or the actual presence of, a "soul"?

Now, there's a challenge. To decipher the indecipherable? There has been mention of Zen, and meditation, and immersion in the spiritual (or neurological) self, detached from the physical. Whether such "detachment" is real, or just an altered state of reality, is another question. We know people may be subject to altered states - as in delusion, hallucination, schizophrenia, catalepsy, etc, - but can there be a "cognizant" detached state, in which the individual is truly immersed in their "inner being", and could this therefore be considered to be in communion with their "soul"?

Could the proposition of a "universal presence" (or God) possibly emanate from an innate sense of "soul", as perhaps a nexus to the understanding of our uniqueness?

Since all life is truly a "miracle" (both in a literal and metaphorical sense), and Man is indeed a most amazing being, it appears likely that recognition of a higher being as a "creator" is a logical expression of man's wonder at the intricacy, enormity and indescribable beauty of the universe. It seems a pity then to deviate from sheer admiration by the construction of beliefs or mythologies which divide rather than consolidate.

Too late, I see that Ben-Peter Terpstra is "an Australian-European satirist". While his numerous links/references do seem to check out, I suspect we've all been had!

Philo,
We are facing despair right now.
What is there for you and your children but a war to the death with the irresponsible administrators of the only planet we can live on?

BPT,
What do you think we have done with the spirituality of the people we now call Aborigine, other than destroy their wondering and wanderings and compel them to build fences on a land of pristine beauty?

They did not have but one church, the most magnificent, ‘The Sky’, the breath and beauty of which cannot be approached by any of the churches built by the civilized.

The original inhabitant of this land did not, in their tens of thousands years or existence, felt the need for a God; hence they did not create any divinity,

Any person who claims to believe in the big bang theory has more faith than most. The denial of that defies all mathematics and all logic. 'Scientist'who claim not to have faith and yet beleive in the big bang are either very deceitful or blind. The reason Julia and other so called athiest speak of praying is they know that creation screams every day of a Creator. It takes a lot more faith to deny the obvious than to hold to ever changing scientific dogmas.

Runner, can you please explain what you understand of the 'big bang theory' and exactly what you disagree with regarding this theory. I have always wanted to hear an opposing point of view on theories such as this, so please do not respond with some sort of attack on the 'pseudo-science of the secular communist hippies' but rather explain to me your reasoning so I can understand your point.

What is it that people want to be taught in schools that is currently provided by religious groups, and why can this not be provided by the non-religious? Is there something they can teach that other can't?

Same thing Einstein believed in, that indeterminate something between what is understood and what is known. Religion & Science are not mutually exclusive, faith does not prohibit the quest to understand more, in fact the narrower the gap between what is understood and what is known, the closer you must be to god, thus:

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

My beliefs are mine, I respect the right of everyone to their own beliefs, provided they are willing to respect the rights of others to learn (freely, not channeled into catechism of any stripe), and I will fight to protect that right from those who would prevent/restrict them from so doing.

The three major Christian churches preached that same evil through much of recorded history. The belief was eradicated viciously by the Catholic Church (the eradication of Gnosticism & the Cathars), who violently rejected the concept that no church was needed between a person and god. Other religions are trying to pursue the same crusade today.

No human has the right to impose religious strictures on another. No human has the right to say that I must impose some imperial mandarin-like figure between my beliefs and what they presume god to be. They do not have the right to impose that evil on anyone, they have the right to offer, but that is not the way of religion is it? Their very power comes from being able to direct/deflect/control the beliefs of others. That way lies the re-imposition of the inquisition and the middle ages, no thanks. This country is built on the backs of those who would not be dictated to, that is our strength. At least Gillard has the guts to take a stand and show that it is ok to express a disbelief in the "religious" sideshows.

As to god, if god as an entity exists "he" is a cruel b@st@rd...

I believe there is something, that I do not understand, but which I know to be true. I certainly don't worship prophets/profits.

To put it more bluntly, true agnosticism (essentially gnosticism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism - without the lip-service to a specific deity, so necessary to survival at the time) is a belief system that believes that knowledge and understanding can be two very different things, knowledge that there is "something greater" than us, without the imposition of artificial strictures/restrictions/sanctions upon the seeking of knowledge other than that which is imposed by a religion, is very real.

Religions have long sought to vilify/outlaw/punish the very concept, that one can quite comfortably exist and learn without their control, without the restrictions upon learning, upon personal experience, because that is the source of their power, position and wealth. WWI did more than any other event to shatter ancient myths and strictures, the "religions" have never really recovered from it. Too many people realised that prayer to specific deity's was incapable of preventing evil done in the name of those self-same, specific deities.

I can't speak directly for Julia Gillard, but I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that her line 'we all pray for Kevin Rudd's speedy recovery' is figurative.When you say 'I'm going to kill that' whatever when someone or thing makes you angry, is that literal or figurative? Also, if we look at the realities of Julia's thread-like hold onto power, wouldn't it seem prudent to appeal to believers by use of their language? Basically, I think you're clutching at straws.

I've scanned quickly the Pew study you refer to. The first point is that it was done in the US. Generally, the US is considered quite a religious nation by comparison to modern European countries and to Australia. Thus percentages represent in the study won't be transferable directly.

Reading the copied results, one can only hope they were typographical errors.

'21% of atheist expressed at least some certainty of belief in God..'

If I may explain, atheists don't believe in God. Therefore, if 21% of people said they have a certainty of it they are, by definition, not atheists.

In addition, clearly the writer doesn't actually know much about Zen Buddhism. Zen Buddhism is a practise originating as a philosophy, not a religion per se.

PS. To those who bring out the old canard 'There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.' I say a) The desire, out of fear, to have a power looking after your safety doesn't actually mean the power exists. b) Following the logic, if a foxhole creates belivers/followers, then foxholes would result in no one ever getting killed from a foxhole occupant. re: 'thou shalt not kill.'

Ah that old line, but hang on...

If one truly believed in a loving, munificent and kind god, why on earth would that person be digging a hole and hiding in it anyway? The only people that would be hiding in holes would surely be those who had serious doubts about the power of prayer, wouldn't they?

There is an old Arab saying - "trust in god, but tie your camel..."

Dear Tombee,

I agree, there something a little Stephen Colbert about the author's responses here. Are we being had? Very well done if we are. A great satirist indeed. Hats off to you good sir. Certainly had me going.

Hey Runner, one doesn't have to be an Atheist to believe in the 'big bang theory'. I don't 'believe' in any theory as to how the world began, because no one will ever find out the truth!

You believe in a Creator theory, but I say who created the creator?
We could go on with these questions ad infinitum, but there will never be any answers :)

I have seen many Atheists die peaceful deaths, just as I have seen Christians die awful, frightened deaths, or vice versa.
It all depends on what personalities they have, the life experiences that brought them to the moment of death, and whether they have a comfortable death or not.

Death is simply the body dying.
When the brain dies, there is just endless sleep

*When the brain dies, there is just endless sleep*

More like great worm food, Suze :)

There is an old Arab saying - "trust in god, but tie your camel. -
This sounds sounds like an "each way bet on God" and shows no trust in God.

Whereas I see the saying to say :-
Trust in God and BE RESPONSIBLE.

Ho Hum: So quote speech is smarmy speech? So we must never question the atheist messiah, Gillard? So the Guardian and the Nation, two leftwing publications are in on this massive conspiracy? You be you, and I’ll be me Ho Hum. People like Sam Harris sound like they have been hating on black Christians, for years, and I’m not tolerating it.

“So sick of self-righteous biggots. Leave us atheists alone - go pray to your non-existent god and let us enjoy life as the liberated and enlightened free spirirts [sic] we are.”

Surge: 100 milion-plus people have died under communist atheism, so I think it’s about time atheists left self-identified believers alone.

You don’t sound like a victim – you just have faith that you’re a victim. No one forced you to read this article.

To sleep, perchance to dream.

Wondrous world of unknown origin, breathing, as I breathe,
Offering me life, nurturing an abundance, to sustain me.
Angular balanced perfection, in a sea of balance,
Motion in ellipse, season on season, in endless continuum,
Radiant hyper-fire illuminating blue and green umbrella,
Happen-chance orbital fields, shielding, protecting,
Companion orb swirling liquid life in stream and current,
Luminescent rotation revealing blanket splendour,
Expanding infinity, of chance, of trial.

One Earth, one perfection, one dream realised;
Perchance to dream, to wonder in rest,
For now, for eternity, and beyond.

BPT
Atheists are not the ones pushing their 'Chaplains' into the school system nor advocating classes that rubbish Christianity.

What is it that you are not getting.

What you are advocating is the same as those Communists - pushing an agenda onto a population made up of many different faiths and beliefs via the school system.

Atheists are leaving Christians alone we only ask each person to respect the rights of others by not proselytising in schools or invading the privacy of people's homes. Part of that means leaving others to their own beliefs and to do no harm.

“Atheists are leaving Christians alone we only ask each person to respect the rights of others by not proselytising in schools or invading the privacy of people's homes. Part of that means leaving others to their own beliefs and to do no harm.”

Pelican – your faith statement is interesting but it is contradicted by my own personal experiences and those of many others. For starters, preaching against preaching is circular.

Second, the conversion tactics used by militant Darwinists, global warmists, and politically-correct speech code fanatics, are very evangelical indeed. I’m sorry your faith has blinded you to reality.

I don’t believe that LOUD atheists should be telling open faith groups, from African-American Christians to Aboriginal Catholics, what they can say and can’t say in public. If your ears are that sensitive then just switch off, or go for a walk.

Free speech isn’t a one way street. Perhaps you would have been more suited to Red Russia. But that experiment failed.

suzeonline

at least you are honest enough to state that all belief systems concerning beginnings are based on faith. Far more honest than the fundies who claim the big bang is science. We finally agree on something.

Ho Hum, with your name I wouldn’t be calling people clowns. Perhaps you’re projecting. You appear to be just another faceless and nameless Labor-like clown. And no one is forcing you to read this, unless you’re a trolling (which would explain a great deal).

PS> I never said Sam Harris is the devil. Indeed, I like his “pro-torture” views. Most people on the right and now some on the left are awake to his wild evangelical side, however.

BPT
Do you really not understand any of the points made about pushing a one-side agenda in schools or are you being purposely disingenuous. This is not anti-Christian, it is seeking mutual respect for our differing views and acknowledging everything in its proper place.

Atheists are not preaching against preaching. There are places for all purposes and preaching is certainly appropriate in Churches or Bible Studies groups etc. It is not suitable in public schools. As a parent I really want to be able to make informed choices on how my children are raised and schooled. If I want a religious education there are those options.

Some like ACCESS are openly claiming the goal in gathering disciples within schools.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3216132.htm

How would you feel if it were not only Christian Chaplains allowed in schools but anyone with an agenda you do not agree with. Many of the Chaplains are not qualified to counsel children.

You are the one dictating and forcing the idea of preaching in schools. The Church does not have the authority over public schools - we are living in a democratic secular society that values the separation of Church and State which also serves to protect Churches from governments.

I am sure there is a case for arguing the School Chaplaincy program breaches the Constitution.

The fact is we are not living in Communist China, Russia, Nazi Germany or in parts of the world where people are still killed and persecuted for their beliefs and where one worldview is enforced.

Please don't let blind dogma override fair and rational thinking.

Dear Ben,

"So we must never question the atheist messiah, Gillard?".

Very good. A laugh on many levels. Thank you Mr Colbert.

So to say that it’s not convincing (particularly when those who have the burden of proof have not yet supplied the slightlest shred of it) shows an astonishing level of ignorance.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 17 May 2011 9:29:33 AM

The 'evidence' exists within an individual's/believer's own relationship with God AJ Philips. That's what you have never understood from OLO participants comments, who are believers.

There is no requirement or necessity for people who are believers, to deliver or produce 'evidence' that God exists.

If you have no fear regarding God, why shoot down in flames, labelling people as ignoramuses, who are believers given their relationship and experiences with God. ie, the non fanatical (religious or not).

I do not think any less of people who are athiests or non-believers, and hold no fear of people being athiests.

Were you burnt somewhere along the lines regarding faith (in God), by people who are religious, or your education or upbringing OR are you one of those people who cannot observe, think or look outside the square, requiring every tangible piece in a jigsaw to be present, prior to working out what the actual jigsaw picture is?

Do you live your life weighing up every situation in minute detail before making a decision or are you able to make calculated decisions?

These are heart to heart questions by the way AJ not having a go at you. I work with scientists, some believers, some non-believers, and fully comprehend there are people in this world whereby they cannot envision any other being or foreign being existing outside their own world.

The problem is, AJ, don't suffer too much of a shock/heart attack/ stroke, IF a few spaceships appear one day with their pellets, dropping them randomly on different countries!

Another example whereby 'one' does not require tangible shreds to close the book on the concept of foreign beings existing out there in the beautiful universe (ie outside our own planet)!

Its always wise to think a little, outside the square, or beyond our own little worlds and atmospheres.

Pardon my French but what a lot of bollocks!

Faith, beliefs, risks and calculated decisions all factored into the first space shuttle take-off.

Inventors, Engineers and Scientists do not sit around awaiting 'evidence' AJ.

Ditto for every invention successfully achieved.

There is no evidence that a certain invention (after spending time, resources and money)will ever eventuate or be successful.

Faith, belief and thinking 'outside the square/norm'

Setting aside religion, I wonder if we can examine the concept of faith.

In an earlier post on this thread (on comments page 6), suzeonline spoke of death, and of a range of observed responses to its approach. This prompted me to do some soul-searching, and to post (on comments page 7) a possible alternative view.

From my own experience, as the potential conclusion of our span approaches, our contemplation of life lived, of relationships, regrets and guilts accelerates, and we search for a satisfactory winding-down or a last spurt to fulfill bypassed ambitions.

In making this examination, I have considered just how very fortunate we are to exist, to have the capabilities we possess, and the very environment with which we have been endowed, and I have tried to evaluate whether mere chance is a satisfactory explanation for all this. In the end result I don't think it really matters whether we accept chance as a satisfactory explanation, or not, or if we think this may be just a little too coincidental. The essential thing may be that we should at least be cognizant of the extraordinary nature of the coincidence of factors involved, and perhaps we should be just a little bit in awe.

I don't think people should dwell on historical legends, as I also think it ridiculous for people to maintain feuds over long past injustices. Surely it should be sufficient to have a sense of gratitude, and perhaps a sense of responsibility, for this amazing inexplicable gift.

For all I may have puzzled, I would only ask that you contemplate the existence of the electromagnetic curtain which protects us from deadly blasts of cosmic radiation (and also enables so many species to unerringly navigate the globe), the balance of our particular placement within such an enormous expanse, the existence of our moon to generate tides and ocean currents, our surprising atmosphere and oceans, and the very existence of life itself.

Could it be perhaps, that we are truly blessed?

Okay, I'll (a little reluctantly) stand up and be counted.
I'm an atheist who has -quite recently- started to pray.
I have found the essential problem with internal debate is the absolute equality of both sides, making resolution virtually impossible. By assigning notional identities to both sides ('me' and 'God') I have found resolutions to be remarkably forthcoming.
Do I believe I am actually having a conversation with God? Not at all (although I can't with absolute certainty discard the possibility).
The simple truth is, I find in choosing a course of action I will often go for the course which is expedient, or simply more palatable.
Often the 'right' course is also the more difficult course.
In this, my 'God' is simply more objective; indeed, it would be more correct to label my 2 identities as 'subjective' and 'objective', but 'me' and 'God' is simply shorter -and who knows? Tying up one's camel is simply good sense...
I would suggest an atheist's prayers in this respect are quite possibly more efficacious than a True Believer's.
I've never ceased to be amazed at how the the True Believer's God is always so perfectly in agreement with the True Believer.

aj/quote..""Atheism -in its strongest form-""

lol

""..is the rejection of a claim
as unsupported by evidence.""

funny the level of faith
seems proportional..to our various beliefs

you demand proof of god
yet refuse to test the personal good
..with an open heart..thus proof dont come....lol

circular diss-belief
a/thiest-sic*

""So to say that it’s not convincing""

i studied the 'science of evolution'
it talks of species level speciation
[as proving evolution into a new genus]

egsamining the changes
they are all at the species level
but NEVER a change of genus
[mice breed mice.cats breed cats]

life makes life
yet you have 'faith'..
in your belief..of a godless theory
so swallow the lie

""(particularly when those
who have the burden of proof
have not yet supplied the slightlest shred of it)""

yep just like with evolution
lots of 'science'..but not specificly ANY PROOF
[of even one reported/observed/let alone replicated change of genus]

no proof a..[cold-blood]..fish
can become a..{warm blood]..mammel

""shows an astonishing level of ignorance.""

yes you do

think of it like you thinking there isnt a god
as being LIKE thinking you cant walk

YOU KNOW..[you cant walk]
so you never try

its the same with god
it is him who sustaines all life
[isnt that enough?]

why say..god..[good]..*is walking the talk
then asking him...*to fly

BPT,

I'm fascinated at how often the word "militant" is bandied about by Christians referring to anyone who objects to their children being Christian indoctrinated in a supposedly secular school environment. It's almost becoming cliché - and seems to be employed by those who can't justify their stance.

Have you read the whole of Evonne Paddison's speech?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/55338278/ACCESS-Ministry-s-head-Evonne-Paddison-s-speech-to-Anglican-Evangelical-Fellowship

Scroll down to highlighted areas in yellow for points that non-Christian parents and community members might find objectionable.

Poirot

This bit has me concerned as well, it is like a call to arms:

"We are to be disciples and make disciples, we are not looking for astress free pampered existence, not seeking popularity, not seeking health andwealth and happiness but followers of Jesus who have taken up crosses.Reflecting his glory will inevitably mean following his path of humiliation andloss for the sake of bearing fruit. For the sake of winning others."

They don't care about our children all they care about is winning numbers.

As for topic.

I live in the Yarra Ranges, the trees form my cathedral, I am inspired and meditate here. However, none of that means there is a god, let alone that Christianity is true (or any other religion for that matter). Part of the wonder of our planet is its complexity within a near infinite universe - the words of the bible are nothing in comparison to real life.

Having spiritual feelings does not prove religion. Just that I am human.

Ammonite,

Yes, I agree that it's interesting to read the "whole" speech - not just grabs. The intent behind the speech is pretty clear...to look upon "access" to state schoolchildren as an open door to their indoctrination and discipleship into the Christian faith. Fairly blatant in its goal setting, it seems to me.

Poirot

Abundantly clear that ACCESS are violating the terms laid out for RE.

Reading through was like reading something from the Dark Ages without the 'thees & thous'. Nowhere was there any care exhibited for the well being of children - just a golden opportunity to harvest disciples.

Ironic if people complain about these religious groups, we are attacked for being religion haters.

Whatever happened to live and let live?

weareunique,

Thanks for your reply. Again, you have given me a lot to respond to.

<<The 'evidence' exists within an individual's/believer's own relationship with God AJ Philips. That's what you have never understood from OLO participants comments, who are believers.>>

I have always understood that position and it’s precisely the way I used to think when I was a Christian. But that is not reliable evidence if we really care about the truth of our beliefs and that’s what THEISTS have never understood.

Applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have of arriving at the truth given what we currently know. Even if you could find another method, how would you go about demonstrating that it was reliable without evidence and reasoning?

It all comes back to evidence and reason.

<<There is no requirement or necessity for people who are believers, to deliver or produce 'evidence' that God exists.>>

There is if they want to legislate according to those beliefs or convert others.

<<Another example whereby 'one' does not require tangible shreds to close the book on the concept of foreign beings existing out there in the beautiful universe…>>

This is a poor analogy. Extraterrestrials would still be consistent with the natural world and gods are of a yet unproven supernatural realm.

In regards to the rest of your first post, I've already explained to you why I do what I do and you seemed quite accepting of my reasoning at the time.

As for your engineering analogy… I mean… wow, just wow! Sometimes it’s as though you guys hand our rebuttals to us on plates or slap targets on your foreheads. Never before have I seen an analogy that was so spot-on in one way and so dead wrong in another.

The analogy was accurate in the sense that both engineers and theists conjure up something from nothing. The difference is, though, that engineers produce something that is real, tangible, measurable, demonstrable, verifiable and consistent with reality as we know it (“know it” being the operative words, not “believe it to be”).

Continued…

…Continued

<<Inventors, Engineers and Scientists do not sit around awaiting 'evidence' AJ.>>

And why would they? No-one was obliged to provide it. If a god exists and is threatening us with eternal consequences, then that god is obliged to prove their existence to us beyond any reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic god allegedly wants a relationship with us but apparently can’t be bothered putting any effort into reaching out to us in any way that can’t be explained through other more rational means; at least not to those of us who understand the nature of evidence since he’s relying texts, anecdotal testimony and old languages that die out.

<<There is no evidence that a certain invention (after spending time, resources and money)will ever eventuate or be successful.>>

No, but we can apply what we do already know to arrive at a certain level of certainty that it will be successful and if it isn’t, then it’s abandoned. Very different from making something up, only to then - when there is no evidence for it and even evidence to the contrary - place it in an untouchable transcendent realm to avoid ever having to abandon it and protect it from the only reliable methods we currently have for investigating reality.

The faith you refer to in your analogy is a justified confidence in the eventual success of something. “Religious faith”, on the other hand, is merely hope and desire mistaken for knowledge. Even if they were the same kinds of “faith”, your analogy would STILL be woefully inaccurate because the “faith” that engineers/scientists/etc start off with is no longer required once their ideas are made reality. Religion, however, will always require faith and even theists themselves admit this.

How is it that we use reason and evidence in every endeavour of our lives but then when it comes to the ultimate and most important truth, theists say faith is required?

What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence?

AJ Philips: Enlightening posts as always. Thank you. As a bit of a nod to last month's 300th anniversary of the philosopher David Hume's birth…

You pose the question: "What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence?"

The sort that is only conjured into existence in our imaginations – that is, all of them.

Poirot: “I'm fascinated at how often the word ‘militant’ is bandied about by Christians referring to anyone who objects to their children being Christian indoctrinated in a supposedly secular school environment.”

Typical “humanitarian” atheist talk. So Christian education means “indoctrination” because you’re precious? I have little time for atheists who stalk and seek out Christians and other self-identified people of faith.

100 million-plus people were murdered under atheist communist regimes alone (the world’s greatest killing machine), so save your tears for them. Save your sermons for their enablers and excuse makers.

Here’s a more sensible quote from Agatha Christie: “For sheer primitive rage, commend me to a thorough-going humanitarian when you get him well roused.” That in a nutshell is your hysterical atheist.

Perhaps even more to the point; what sort of a God creates beings with endlessly enquiring minds, and then says: "Don't enquire"?
A very shy one, methinks.

aJ/QUOTE...'"What kind of a god requires faith instead of evidence""

I WILL IGNORE THAT YOU USE..THE WORD REQUIRES
god 'requires'..nothing from us
our lives are the perfect gift

see how he sustains even the most vile living
their lives..[equally as to him supplying life for..the better]

god sustains our living
[he is not a god of the dead..[nor the material]

""..No-one was obliged to provide it.""
for belief is for each to individually decide
or not..

""If a god exists
and is threatening us with eternal consequences""'

se right there you go wrong
you say god threatens...but this is faulse

[if you sought to know god..[good]..
you would realise..he dont threaten
[thats fools..getting gods/good wrong],

""then that god is obliged to prove
their existence to us beyond any reasonable doubt.""

again you confound words
you talk of god[ie ONE GOOD}..*god
thjen ramble on stuff and nonsense...with the insertion of..''their'

well here is the scoop
god DONT THREATEN

god is one
..[atonement/at-one-meant]

all living
all loving
all mercyfull

if you expect..the wrong idea about god
of course you cant ever find proof..!

[your looking..for YOUR..*IDEA OF GOD..
not the good..sustaining your every breath}..

""the Abrahamic god allegedly wants a relationship""

you know some stuff

yet dont filter
the tares..from the wheat

[how much more
is god..'one to one'..

...than sustaining you
[us/..all]..

our EVERY BREATH?
sustaining..us all
our very lives..

relationship/.."""with us..
but apparently can’t be bothered
putting any effort into reaching out to us..in any way..

that can’t be explained
through other more rational means;""

mate
were god to stop doing..that ONLY GOD CAN DO

ie make 'life'/live..
there COULD BE NO LIFE...[fullstop].

its not going to happen..
because god lives
thus we live...

he could no more end life...
than could a baby
build a constructive/reasoned..lie

YOU GOT GOD ALL WRONG

he dont do vengence..
he dont do 'judemeant'
he dont hate..no fear/no lie
god is..*the only perfect/living good..[god]

""at least not to those of us
who understand..the nature of evidence"''

lol
you cant even sepperate..fact from fiction..from a book

the bible is full out it
[its best value is finding the good..*of god]
and ignoring..*the delusion/exoplanations..of men..in it

god is love grace mercy..[good works..of life]

live with the truth

nature of evidence..""since he’s relying texts,.
.anecdotal testimony
and old languages..that die out."""

and thus the concept was lost...the holy texts..got rewritten
translated..put into divergent context...[made man god]..lol

THUS THE NEED TO FILTER OUT
THAT GOOD..OF GOD..!

from the crapppp..of men
who didnt know...the truth of god within us all

that we do to the LEAST[or the most]
WE DO TO/FOR HIM..!

BPT,

I couldn't give a toss what you've got time for.

A "humanitarian atheist" who "stalks and seeks out Christians and other self-identified people of faith."

Au contraire...., my best friends are Catholics of faith - and the nicest most genuine people you'd ever be likely to meet. It seems, however, that I never meet their ilk on OLO.

Can't you conduct a conversation without resorting to stereotypical labels?

As for "sheer primitive rage" - your posts appear to be among the most acerbic and inflammatory on this thread.

AJ Phillips,

The issue here is that you treat reason as an absolute.

Yet the evidence is clear; reason is not, and cannot be, absolute.

Why is that the case?

1. The use of reason is a subjective matter and the interpretation of "evidence" (whatever evidence actually is) is also highly subjective and relies on intuition, personal experience and a range of other factors.

The outcome of 1, is...

2. This makes it possible for two rational people to reasonably disagree, and it also means that even reasonable people often say ridiculous things. This happens on a whole range of issues all the time, so it is bizarre that someone would expect that to NOT happen for an issue as emotionally charged and as complex as a discussion between finite beings about an (allegedly) infinite God. Yet, by talking about reason as if it's an absolute that's exactly what you're doing.

In my next post, I'll show some examples to prove my point

To prove my point on a practical level, allow me to provide two examples. I said there are two practical outcomes showing the flimsiness of "reason". 1. Reasonable people can disagree and 2. People who claim to be reasonable regularly say ridiculous things. I will now provide examples of number 2. (I'm sure we can all think of examples of number 1 fairly easily, so I won't bother with that).

Naturalistic atheists consider themselves to be beacons of reason amongst the irrational masses of everyday society, many of whom believe in God, or miracles or at least some kind of new age spirituality. And yet, these same atheists REGULARLY come up with all kinds of ridiculous old canards, consider the following statements:

1. Religion is a primary cause of war and/or most wars are caused by religion and therefore the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion,

2. A historical Jesus never existed. The idea of Jesus is most likely just a complete myth dreamt up by some deluded Jews and is based on NOTHING historical. There was not even a historical person or teacher who the myth was based on.

These two statements are claims you will regularly read if you travel along to atheist websites. And yet, both are highly unsupportable in terms of evidence and are almost laughable. Yet the supposed beacons of reason trot these out all the time.

If reason is such an absolute (as you claim, AJ) and the use of pure reason should be unaffected by subjective emotions, then why do supposed reasonable atheists make such ridiculous statements with frightening regularity?

Give a good answer to that question, my friend, and I'll begin to consider your idea that "reason" should be considered some kind of absolute and that it is the fantastic path to knowledge that you evidently believe it is.

I'd say it takes quite a lot of "faith" to believe that reason is as great as you think it is ;-).

Dear Grim,

"what sort of a God creates beings with endlessly enquiring minds, and then says: "Don't enquire"?"..."A very shy one, methinks."

Look who's being shy here!
Why don't you say straightly what's really on your mind and the REAL reason why most humanists shy away from God:

<what sort of a god creates beings with an endless sexual appetite and then says: "Don't do it"?>

ALL the above are merely unfounded human ideas, ignorantly projected on God. Do broaden your idea of God, the essence of all goodness, then you'll discover He's not that bad after all!

've never ceased to be amazed at how the True Believer's God is always so perfectly in agreement with the True Believer.
Posted by Grim,
Amazingly It is the other way around. The believer in God is trying (with God's help) to live their life according to God's guidance hence Prayer and Bible reading.

Darwin's theory of evolution is just that.. a THEORY. Darwin had many arguments with the church leaders of his time to publish his work and due to the print media his theory has been spread far and wide.
By the way according to Darwin,s son, towards the end of Darwin's life he turned back to God and regretted developing his theory. But the scientific world has run off with the "THEORY" as if it is gospel truth.

God's signature is everywhere in creation so how can anyone say they can't see God. Where is God. Yes, God the Father is invisible, God the son is God who made himself visible and God the Holy Spirit is God working in men. Yes, one God with three natures .. like I am a mother, a sister a daughter. One person 3 roles.
God created Adam and Eve and it "WAS" good. God walked and talked with Adam and Eve. God did not walk away from that relationship it was Adam and Eve they hid........ . Genesis.
Cont......

In Queensland bible reading has always been allowed in schools. Schools have never been totally "Secular".
Chaplaincy in schools is always begun at the community. Chaplains are not appointed to schools unless there is a ground swell from the community. So no Christian is imposing their religion on anyone in the schools. SU facilitates Yes and isn't that fantastic that there are some checks and balances in place. How could the schools provide the time to manage the whole process? SU has many volunteers to assist and then each community requesting a chaplain has the best management process in place as SU overseas the whole state rather than each school "re-inventing the wheel" so to speak. Absolutely brilliant.

By the way, I am a Christian and I detest the term religious.
I am not religious- to me religious can be all about showiness, rituals etc. it does not reflect the heart. A Christian has a heart for God, an obedient, heart and they are more interested in their walk before God than what "men" may say about them.
God is the God of individual hearts and the God of the Nations. The Government is on Jesus shoulders and God has appointed Jesus to be the Judge of every heart at a future time. As I have said before even though some might like to "believe" schools are secular they are not God is still there. He is not a God just for the Christian schools He is God of ALL. It is not about evidence and facts if is about faith. In fact science is starting to prove the bible and many historical events confirm biblical events.
Lets let a little LIGHT into the world. Jesus is the Light of the world.

WmTrevor,

Thanks for your kind words. Your answer to my question is pretty much what I was thinking too.

OUG,

Until you can demonstrate any of your assertions, I have no way of knowing whether or not you’re just making all that up.

But thanks for sharing your take on what god is and is not.

It’s interesting, isn’t it, how billions around the world have a personal relationship with this god and yet no two of them can completely agree on who he is or what exactly he wants.

And Trav,

I think you need to go back and a re-read my last posts a little more carefully. Assuming that an atheist is arguing in absolutes is a common tactic you’ll get from Christians in debates (I guess it makes their arguments easier to attack) but I don’t talk or think in absolutes, sorry. I find them largely useless and unhelpful for reasons even you pointed out.

<<The issue here is that you treat reason as an absolute.>>

No, actually, I didn’t. And I’m surprised you’ve set-up this strawman as I went to painstaking lengths to choose my wording very carefully.

I said, “Applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the only reliable method we have of arriving at the truth given what we currently know.” That I went to the extent of adding the words, “...given what we currently know”, when they weren’t even necessary, shows a conscious effort on my behalf to be anything but absolutist and remain open-minded as to what discoveries may lay ahead.

Now sure, there are other ways we can arrive at the truth. I could flip a coin and you may guess that it was ‘heads’. You arrived at the truth via a guess, but that doesn’t mean guessing is as reliable as applied reasoning based on logical absolutes. It’s a similar case with intuition.

So everything in my response to weareunique still stands and there’s not really much point in me addressing the rest of your comments as my clarification has rendered them irrelevant.

Thanks for your response all the same.

AJ,

I'm not sure I understand how my arguments are supposed to be circumvented here.

Labelling reason the "only reliable method" of determining the truth WITHOUT acknowledging it's limitations is putting it on a pedestal it doesn't deserve to be standing on, regardless of whether we agree on the semantics of whether this means you consider it "absolute". And adding "given what we currently know" to your claim makes no difference to the force of the objections I've made.

Cheers.

Trav,

I didn’t need to acknowledge limitations of reason (in unison with evidence, of course) because it is currently - and demonstrably - the only (or, at the very least, the most) reliable method we currently have of arriving at the truth.

<<adding "given what we currently know" to your claim makes no difference to the force of the objections I've made.>>

Actually it does, because it demonstrates a lack of absolutism.

So the rest of your points are still irrelevant and your argument was still a strawman.

I still think you've failed to face the full force of my objections merely by the convenient fact that you've chosen to ignore them. They do not rely on whether or not we agree on the semantics of what "absolute" means.

Fundamentally, my objections show that unaided reason and evidence alone cannot actually get us very far, and that it is a far flimsier tool than you are willing to admit. Personal experience, intuition and background presuppositions all play a part in our use of reason because reason is incapable of functioning without them. Any time anyone proclaims the greatness of reason, these things must be mentioned.

Atheists often somehow expect that this grand instrument which they faithfully idolise -PRAISE REASON! - should somehow fully reveal both God's existence and everything about him, and when it doesn't they consider it a flaw in a belief system, when in actual fact it's their own faithful idolatry of rationality which often needs to be called into question. Reason isn't infallible. It can't be. Never has been and never will be.

Thank you AJ for all of your wonderful time and effort.

AJ, the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) should be sufficient for people to be introduced to Jesus, God, Our Lady Mary and all of Jesus Disciples regardless of the vintage/times, additions or deletions made over thousands of years.

Secondly, there are so many wonders and unexplained facts about this earth from an evolutionary perspective.

For example, how do you explain AJ the fact that darker skinned people originally were born in hotter parts of countries, while fair skinned people were born in the cooler parts of countries/climates?

As per the Engineering point AJ, I still believe that many Engineers and Scientists take risks initially based upon their first sets of beliefs, talents and skills that God gave them, similarly, all of us, given our unique sets of gifts.

My point here is that I 'believe' God gave us options to either use those talents and gifts, or to ignore using those talents and gifts, travelling another path.

Similarly, the teachings of Jesus Christ.

God left Jesus, Mary Magdalene and His Disciples to spread His (God's) word throughout the world via scriptures, then put into a book entitled "The Bible".

I have just finished reading Margaret George's book 'Mary Magdalene' another version or interpretation of some biblical extracts that Margaret wrote and published. Heart wrenching in many places for me).

The options were left (and explained) within the Bible, by the Disciples, that those who choose to believe in Him will be saved and raised to His Kingdom.

Given the Commandments left to Man are all positive and good, I chose as a young child to follow as best in everyday life those Commandments, although to be honest, have broken just about every one of them in trying circumstances through life AJ.

I can honestly say that if I never had been introduced to praying for other people as a child, or not believed in both Jesus and God, I may not have been as compassionate for other people.

Children yes, some adults may be not as much

Hey Trav, on the question of a 'reasonable' person making a ridiculous statement (strawman argument); if it could be demonstrated and proven that the statement was ridiculous, the reasonable person would say "oops. My reasoning was faulty". IOW, it was not the failure of reason, but the application thereof. Like computers, reason rarely makes mistakes; it's almost always a case of 'garbage in, garbage out'.
WAU, darkskinned people are less prone to skin cancers, but are also less capable of absorbing (or creating) vitamin D from sunlight. Hence, natural selection has favoured the dark skinned in sunny climes, and light skinned in less sunny regions.
Thank you for bringing up a classic example of Darwinian Evolution.
Yuyutsu.,,sigh.
"Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" When we presume to judge others, we inevitably demonstrate our own foibles -which we apply in judgement.
I did say exactly what was on my mind. The fact that you chose to bring sex into the discussion tells us much more about you, that it does about me.
Trav's point about religion not being the root cause of war (which I have to agree with) is an excellent example of what I meant when I wrote about how remarkable it was that a True Believer's God always agreed so implicitly with the true believer. True Believers, right up to and included the recent Dubya, have always believed their God was right behind them, supporting their every action, no matter how morally reprehensible -by Humanist standards.
Of course, other True Believers whose God doesn't quite mesh with the first True Believers will say they (the latter TBs) weren't really True Believers at all...

Upon reflection, weareunique, I've demonstrated how Darwinian Evolution accounts for difference in (a) species. Perhaps you would be so kind as to reciprocate? How do Creationists explain such things?
Were there just 2 dogs on the Ark, or were there 2 of each variety of dog?
2 great danes, 2 pekinese...
2 Australian cattle dogs...
If you believe these varieties were deliberately 'evolved' by Humankind, surely your God must be just as capable?

i agree with trav

yet quote aj/""i said,
“Applied reasoning based on logical absolutes""

a logical absolute is by itself absolute
untill spoiled by reason..

logical[lol]..absolutes..."" is the only reliable method"'

i think you just made
a noun into an adjective?

by method..[lol]..re-lie-able/meth head..
..""we have of arriving at the truth
given what we currently know.”

if oignoring the rational of a cold blood critter mutating[evolving..lol step by step into a warm blood mammal

SHOW ME THE SCIENCE....*fact
this erant thopught [THEORY]..is based on

THEN MAKE BUT ONE YOURSELF

ie REPLICTE or cease and disist
from gross verbalisations
of spin masked as science[lol]..fact

GRIM/spin...""there are so many wonders
and unexplained facts about this earth..from an evolutionary perspective.""

not just from wevolution
[although i note you go on to use/AB-use
micro evolution WITHIN species...[micro-evolution]..
as some sort of proof..of macro evolution...*creating new genus

[when science has never recorded..
nor witnessed..let alone replicated..such a form of 'evo-lution'

lets recall trav's words

""when in actual fact..it's their own faithful idolatry
of rationality..which often needs to be called into question.""

HEAR HEAR...!
show me the science

"Reason isn't infallible.
It can't be.
Never has been and never will be.""

evolution is within *species
cannot move beyond *genus..[learn the language]

ahhh-men

oops that was we are uniques quote
anyhow here is the grim quote...""Upon reflection,..weareunique, I've demonstrated how Darwinian Evolution accounts for difference in..(a) species.""'

oh good so you recognise
the egsample quoted is SPECIES limited..!

""Perhaps you would be so kind as to reciprocate?
How do Creationists explain such things?""

its not beyond us creationists to think of it as god
making us the beastrly nature we deserve to be
[yearn by our works to be]

pigs love being pigs
lions love being lions
god meets all our needs

but thats our excuse
NOW WHATS YOUR REASONing?

if evolution
thats a flawed theory
that has NEVER bred a pig from a goat[so to speak]
indeed matuings accross time..[or at least since the advent of writing]

SPEAK ONLY OF LIKE BREEDING LIKE
dogs bred dogs/cats bred cats..rats breed rat's

""Were there just 2 dogs on the Ark,
or were there 2 of each variety of dog?""

thats absurd..[all dogs come from cannus
/canine[dog][ie wild type[+] wolf

so no doudt you can replicte
a wolf making a cat?
[evolution claims it did]

""If you believe these varieties
were deliberately 'evolved' by Humankind,"'

yes they were

""surely your God must be just as capable""'

most certainly
jesus said see the things i do
we shall do greater...[we are in the image of our creator]

just wait and see the greater things
we ALL shall do...[in time]

essentially we each..have god[good]..within

infinite possability
once we realise what we all are to become..

BPT
" I have little time for atheists who stalk and seek out Christians and other self-identified people of faith."

One could equally argue against those Christians who stalk and seek out children in schools.

In what way do atheists stalk and seek out Christians?

The problem is simple. The Christians who are pushing Chaplaincy or RI in schools are not willing to admit the motivations behind these programs. It is about indoctrination. While Christians believe their motives to be pure and the work of 'God' they fail to respect the validity and privacy of other people who don't share their faith.

This is not stalking but defending basic human rights. I would also defend the right for Christians and other faiths to be able to practise their faith and would rally equally as hard against calls to ban religion.

Blind dogma sometimes makes people irrational, try and separate your own beliefs, which are personal, and be generous in recognising that it is not only Christians who have rights.

Grim,
I did science at school and up to tertiary level and was never satisfied with the secular science version based on Darwin's theory (loosely - fish become reptiles, fins drop off and become legs, legs drop off and become wings. etc...over time.)
Neanderthal Man and missing link stuff- the link is still missing. Science like this gave me a headache. Was I presented with an alternative view NO.

In my 30's I started to search and in Genesis God created the fish of the sea, the birds of the air and then man in God's image.
Then in Noah's flood Noah ,his wife and Noah's 3 sons and their 3 wives were the only ones to survive. Noah's sons were Ham, Shem and Japheth. Genesis 9 Many children were born to Noah's sons. Perhaps looking quite different from each other hence we have Asians, Africans and Caucasians.
What is interesting is: The 3 sons went in 3 different directions. One son settled towards Asia, one son headed south to African areas and another settled North towards Norway, Europe UK. This blew my mind with the the fact that I heard a different option as to the way things might have started. This was refreshing knowledge and I have actually settled with that view now and guess what no more headaches when thinking about origins in science. I don't hate science either.

Trav,

If there’s anything I can say about your apparent need to find flaws in my arguments, that don’t exist, it’s that I really must’ve hit the nail on the head.

<<I still think you've failed to face the full force of my objections merely by the convenient fact that you've chosen to ignore them.>>

Yes, I certainly did choose to ignore them because, as I said, your strawman premise rendered them irrelevant to my points.

<<They do not rely on whether or not we agree on the semantics of what "absolute" means.>>

No, they don’t. And I never said or even implied that they did. The relevancy of your arguments do, however, rely on whether or not I was “treating reason as an absolute”.

<<Fundamentally, my objections show that unaided reason and evidence alone cannot actually get us very far...>>

Yes, and that’s why we aid them with the one thing I mentioned that you have conveniently ignored throughout all this: logical absolutes.

Is this where you were going to slot religion in? I’d like to see you demonstrate that!

If not, then what?

<<Personal experience, intuition and background presuppositions all play a part in our use of reason...>>

Agreed.

Which is why we base them on logical absolutes: to help filter out the garbage that may come along with presuppositions, etc.

<<Any time anyone proclaims the greatness of reason, these things must be mentioned.>>

Forgetting for a moment that my pivotal re-introduction of “logical absolutes” to the discussion renders this fairly meaningless, I’d point out that the necessity to mention these things fades significantly until someone can point to another reliable method.

<<Reason isn't infallible.>>

I never said it was.

<<It can't be.>>

Agreed.

<<Never has been and never will be.>>

Agree, agreed, agreed.

Acknowledging that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes is the most reliable method of arriving at the truth is not idolising or praising reason. You’re spouting pure hyperbole.

Why do you insist on punching at shadows and seeing things that aren’t there?

What is it about what I’ve said that scares you so much?

One of the delights of OLO - the gift that keeps on giving - is the insight it provides on the way in which people think.

"What" they think is fascinating enough. But the never-ending flow of insights into the process that delivers that outcome, is priceless.

Trav is my latest hero in this educational process.

>>To prove my point on a practical level, allow me to provide two examples... these same atheists REGULARLY come up with all kinds of ridiculous old canards...<<

And we get two examples.

>>Religion is a primary cause of war and/or most wars are caused by religion and therefore the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion<<

A canard? That religion has been, for many hundreds of years, a primary cause of wars, police actions, skirmishes, assassinations, border disputes etc. etc. can surely not even be remotely debatable, let alone be a "canard"?

Even leaving aside outright war for a moment, how can anyone dispute that for several hundred years Europe was a permanent battleground between Protestant and Catholic? Talk the wrong talk in the wrong Belfast pub, and tell me religion isn't divisive. Try being Sunni in a Shiite country, or a Shiite in a Sunni country, and tell me that religion doesn't put lives in danger, every day.

So in what way, pray, can you even remotely object to the notion that - and I quote you exactly, "the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion"?

Canard? You are kidding.

And the other?

>>A historical Jesus never existed.<<

It may be that you mix in the sort of circles where atheists say this all the time. I don't. Most of my acquaintance have a completely open mind on the subject. (Which is of course one of the true delights of atheism: the open mind)

Thing is, though, it is totally irrelevant to atheism-the-concept, whether he did or not.

After all, he only represents one aspect of one religion. There are all the other gods that we - and you, by the way - don't believe in either.

A brilliant response as usual, Pericles.

And a timely one too considering I haven’t found the time, not to mention the motivation (which has been waning in recent days) to respond with a line-by-line rebuttal that covers every point.

Trav,

One clarification I should make is that reason, in itself (when correctly applied to logical absolutes), is infallible. Our ability to apply it is not.

But eventually we do get there with a little trial and error and in fact; religion has been one of the predominant forces throughout history that has proven itself to hold us back from applying our reason to logical absolutes correctly - ironically.

Everything we enjoy, in our civilised modern society, we have thanks to evidence and reason; which makes you sound very ungrateful considering what little credit you give it. But that’s understandable when one takes into consideration that your worldview is derived via means that do not adhere to it - I’m sorry to say.

You scoff at reason, yet you provide no other alternative. So I’m genuinely interested in what you think a viable really alternative is.

What is it?

Or do you think that it is by pure dumb luck that we have achieved everything that we have?

I’m curious. Do tell.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, but is a long way from reality does that make the argument… far canard?

Atheism is the new "religion".

And like all those before it, it must attack and crush its rivals.

Thankfully since their potential fanaticism is based on "nothing", hopefully we'll be spared the inquisitions and witchhunts, since "nothing" isn't much of motivating force.

We won't be spared the arrogance.

With respect, Pericles, to imply an absence of religion would result in an absence of war -which I accept you haven't strictly done- is to oversimplify the case.
I would suggest the demarcation between religions or religious factions merely serves as convenient pigeonholes, masking underlying causes. I would further suggest the 'Catholic/Protestant' troubles in Ireland are an excellent example.
As I understand it, the conflict began when an English King started to run out of land to award a growing aristocracy, and so started awarding Irish lands (and the attached yeomanry) to Protestant nobles. The indigenous Catholics were -I think rather naturally- a tad resentful.
Likewise the current war in Iraq could be classified as a religious conflict, as it was nominally an act of reprisal for a Muslim atrocity by a supposedly fervent Christian President, but does anyone really believe that?
It is rather peculiar that religious war mongers so often stand to benefit in more material ways.
The wonder of the Bible is that anyone can find something in it to justify almost anything.
As to 'Shockadelic' (and Yuyutsu), call me an old pedant, but nothing annoys me more in these discussions, than people who use totally arbitrary definitions for common words. Yuyutsu insists on her own definition of the word 'religion', which is simply an extension of the 5 year old's unbeatable argument: “I don't care what you say, I'm right and you're wrong, so there nyah!”
Anything Yuyutsu likes or approves of is 'religious', and anything Yuyutsu doesn't like is apparently irreligious.
Now Shockadelic comes out with 'the old canard' that Atheism is a religion.
For the record, I'm happy to accept this definition from dictionary.com:
“-a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
By this -or any, that I am aware of- definition atheism, in and of itself, can never be described as anything like a religion.

i agree with shokkers
athe-ism..[not only contains theism in its name]

but look close at grims definition

""“-a set of beliefs""

say no more
what is religeon but faith in a certain belief[creed]

set of beliefs...""concerning the cause,
nature,..and purpose of the universe,""

personally i fel thats giving ignorant athiests an easy out
you dont actually need to prove your vieuw...""as to cause
nor the nature and purpose...of the universe''

..this serves the god haters an easy out
let their high priests be quoted
klet their highpriests explain

lol

by any other name
you got yourself a belief systemised
upon basic faith..of non god creation
[but cant validate your beliefs...thus get to use the name calling of radicles even as the autordoxy/proxey....calling others deniers]..

""while only holding a faith especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,""

..'"usually involving devotional and ritual observances,""

god free ritual/creed...recognising othwer lesser gods like elders..or the land..or mother nature..[anything but the one true good/god]

>>""and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs.”

statute law...
like criminalisation of drug users
but bailouts for bankers
grants for greenies

By this definition atheism,
in and of itself,can be described
as..being egsactly..like a religion....

ahh men

in the beginning waas a huge bang

[let there be light
let the firmament arise..from the waters]

let the beasts emerge from the seas
cold/blood fish..into warm/blood mammal..lol

and let them breed a-like

let like produce like
except...when it evolves into not-like....lol

realise atheism
is a neo form of religious zeal-outry
the belief you have when you got no belief...lol

Simplified, Grim,yes. Oversimplfied... not so sure.

>>With respect, Pericles, to imply an absence of religion would result in an absence of war -which I accept you haven't strictly done- is to oversimplify the case.<<

I was pointing out that an absence of religious differences would have eliminated one fairly well-used justification for beating up on one's neighbour (Belfast) or travelling halfway across the world to beat up on some foreigners (the Crusades).

To simplify the James I Irish land-grab by the (predominantly Scottish) aristocracy, to the point where Catholic and Protestant doesn't feature as a motivating force would be, I suggest, to rewrite the history of Europe. Don't forget the direction Irish Catholics turned for assistance was... Catholic France. Surely that wasn't purely coincidental.

Here's a timeline, starting with St Patrick. Observe the frequency with which the words Catholic and Protestant appear... (33 and 18, to save you actually having to count).

http://www.historyonthenet.com/Chronology/timelinenorthernireland.htm

And how their history is punctured by battles, wars and terrorism as a result.

Similarly, to classify the Crusades as being a religion-free event would be entirely wrong.

"At the Council of Clermont in 1095 Pope Urban II called upon Christians in Europe to respond to an urgent plea for help from Byzantine Christians in the East. Muslims were threatening to conquer this remnant of the Roman Empire for Allah. The threat was real; most of the Middle East, including the Holy Land where Christ had walked, had already been vanquished. Thus began the era of the Crusades, taken from the Latin word crux or cross. Committed to saving Christianity, the Crusaders left family and jobs to take up the cause."

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/crusades.html

The two sides of the dispute were Muslims and Christians. Once again, the question of who started it is irrelevant. If Islam hadn't been invented, they wouldn't have been swarming through the Middle East and Europe "for Allah", nor would Christians have been obliged to beat them back.

>>Likewise the current war in Iraq could be classified as a religious conflict...<<

I suspect the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988 could, though, eh?

AJ,

I’m not sure we are/ever were speaking on the same terms. Seems like this has degenerated into a discussion about semantics, and as a result I don’t believe you’re understanding my arguments. And I'm guessing you feel the same. I’m only interested in discussions that lead to fruitful dialogue (read: Understanding. This does NOT mean I expect to convince you of anything). So I think we finish it there.

I would add one comment though (as a final comment)- perhaps it is our application of reason, not reason itself that is the problem. But that is of no practical consequence when you consider how little control we finite humans may actually have over our ability to improve our application of it

Pericles,

I have found it helpful in another discussion with another user to utilise the dictionary.

According to dictionary.reference.com a cause is "a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result".

My contention is that human nature is the cause of war. People will utilise whatever excuse they can find to butcher each other. It's been happening constantly throughout history- see 20th century- mass killings of millions of people due to politics and ideology. People have sometimes used religion as an excuse (but, far less often than popular folklore would have you believe), however if religion didnt exist people would simply use the other excuses more often.

The common denominator with wars is human pride, ego, and the insatiable quest for power, NOT religion. Those things exist EVERY time there are wars. People observe that, on the odd occasion, in a very small minority of cases, these things are clothed in religious excuses and then decide to blame religion itself for wars and vehemently declare that religion is some kind of dangerous disease that the world needs to get rid of. This strikes me as an embarrassingly simplistic and poorly thought out comment, followed by an emotional reaction. Usually, the only people that make these comments are the same people who have a strong emotional dislike for religions. So my point is valid- even people who claim to try their best and use objective reason fail miserably at it.

Can all you devout "religious" people clarify on the message from the USA preacher, that 21 May 2011 is the end of the world.
He and his followers say that only those who believe in god will be saved and go to "Heaven", and us other lot will be cast aside to the "front bar of the pub!"
Again we have religious extremists imposing fear, in hope of control and sucking in the vunerable. Do you lot have no respect for people other than your outdated ancient dogma (and still to be proven is true). Respect for your beliefs goes without question, but when you try to impose your beliefs on others, says that you are not at one with yourself and being as an individual person; but full of insecurities.

Take it easy, Kipp: When tomorrow comes and goes, and everything is still in place, all that will show is that some deluded cleric got it badly wrong - or some may even rejoice in the thought that, as everyone is still here, then no-one could have been a true believer. How about that? All saved, hence, all must surely be damned? Forget it mate, it's just another beat-up.

Unfortunately, I guess we will have to put up with these various specialised religious groups, or orders, which seem to think they have something special going on. I doubt that God would be amusued - that is if he really exists for many of these "specialists". We can only hope that one day these various questionable specialisations will be over and done with, and humanity can get on with getting on with one another.

Saltpetre,

You mentioned that you were thought that God would be not amused at the antics of the deluded clerics.

Not amused! - I'll bet he's downright depressed!....and not just at nutty ministers, but at the entire barbaric history of mankind.

Fancy going to all that trouble to fashion an intelligent being, and then spending millenia witnessing your creation galumphing about its dominion lobbing projectiles at each other.

"but nothing annoys me more in these discussions, than people who use totally arbitrary definitions for common words"

I am using the etymological meaning of the word 'religion', as per its Latin origin - to re-connect with God. There's no need for me to support the mistake, common as it may be, as if either membership in certain religious orders (such as churches) or sharing their beliefs, equates with this.

"Anything Yuyutsu likes or approves of is 'religious', and anything Yuyutsu doesn't like is apparently irreligious."

That's incorrect: I like eating ice-cream for example, but I wouldn't count that as religious and while I do approve of abortion, for example, I just don't consider it a religious practice in most cases.

I repeat: any practice that brings one closer to God is religious, while anything that draws one away from God is irreligious. My own whims do not come into it and it is not for me to scrutinize each specific case and be able to tell whether it is religious or not. Even if I do have a personal judgment about a particular activity being religious or otherwise, you don't need to accept it.

Here is an example - Kipp wrote:

"Again we have religious extremists imposing fear"

A common mistake: just because people belong to religious orders does not imply that they are religious. I can't see how imposing fear on others brings one closer to God.

"Now Shockadelic comes out with 'the old canard' that Atheism is a religion."

Atheism in itself is neither religious nor irreligious. One has to ask whether one's atheism, or the lack of belief in God's existence, brings one closer to God or otherwise. In my opinion, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. Some people's disbelief in God's existence is in fact enhancing their religion, while for others, their belief in God's existence is detrimental to their religion - and vice versa.

Fancy going to all that trouble to fashion an intelligent being, and not giving the true callings of your fellow man or eve.

Who would be so spineless to give this gift to all of humanity.

There Must be a true GOD.

lea

Oh Trav!

You pull this one every time I drag you out of your comfort zone and make you think in another way that doesn’t quite align with what you want to believe...

<<I don’t believe you’re understanding my arguments.>>

The same thing happened when I showed, beyond any doubt, what a dishonest sophist someone that you admired was.

You’re right about one thing though: an agreement doesn’t need to be reached for dialogue to be “fruitful”.

Let’s look at the definition of “fruitful” in this context: -
Producing good or helpful results; productive (http://tiny.cc/sg8d7)

If you realise that “fruitful dialogue” doesn’t require that you convince me of anything and if you don’t think that it’s “productive” to help confirm a certain viewpoint in a discussion or that doing so is a “helpful” result, then what on Earth do you think it is?

Perhaps you only consider dialogue to be “helpful” if it helps confirm your viewpoint?

I agree with Pericles about OLO being the “gift that keeps on giving”. Something is put in place to block anything that makes a theist question the validity of their beliefs and I think we’re witnessing this in action right now.

I’m understanding you perfectly well, Trav, and I think my responses demonstrate this. I also think you understand me and that’s why you’re attempting to wriggle your way out of this, leaving a suggestion of some hidden encrypted meaning in everything you’ve been saying, trailing behind you.

Maybe it’s hiding away with the “semantics” we were apparently discussing?

<<...But [the application of reason, not reason itself, being the problem] is of no practical consequence when you consider how little control we finite humans may actually have over our ability to improve our application of it>>

/sigh

This after everything I just explained in my last two posts; selective hearing/reading at its finest.

According to your logic, there is little use in any of us ever trying to apply reasoning to anything.

Which would explain a lot.

And, yes, I do still think you understand me, Trav, deliberate attempts not to, don’t count.

some great comments
i liked especially the meaning of religion
as a means to get closer to god...

[if its not about revealing more of the truth of the one good...
its not drawing people closer to good]..[god]..[its either all good or its not 'of' god..

take these endtimers
i caught a few of them namecalling...[with hate on their face]

or those who kill to serve the good...[god]..
serving us all..our very lives....clearly
they are in fact far from good..[god]

thing is we are all here...just to get closer to good
[of course good is subtle...and good is good for all
not just good for you and yours]

how the good atonement[at one meant]..
must concern itself with obsessing only the good true mercyfull charitable..is both the reason..for us being here on earth

[and the reason there is a hell]

see hell is not a threat
[its a place of darkness..for those rejecting...
chosing to reject the light...*love good grace mercy charity..etc]

recall that the personal good
is equally sustaining the life within me/you
.. as he/she sustains the life..*in..us all

ye shall cal him emmanuEL..[god with-[in]..us-[all].

equally in the begger..
equally in..the messiah..
equally with/in..a mute dumb fish

where life is good [god]..is
where love is
god is at its most true expression

god
the good nurture..in nature
even in huh?man nature

see how great thy art oh man
ahhhhhh.....men

God says,
No one can come to Me, (God the Father) except through My Son (Jesus).
Accept Jesus and have a new relationship with God.
God doesn't want his Son rejected. Jesus paid the ultimate price after all(top dollar). His life for us.
Gratitude and Thanks are in order here. fully of the Grace of God.-Hebrews-all chapters. Grace Grace Grace.
God sends out the invitation. His word the bible is a love story.
God is patient. He invites mankind to have a relationship with Him.
Prayer (talking to God) Reading His Holy word(Listening to God).
God gave mankind "free will" and he wants mankind to individually choose Him.

AJ,

The number one prerequisite for fruitful discussion is to reach mutual agreement and understanding about what each person is actually arguing.

If, after repeated attempts, I have failed in my attempts at assisting someone in understanding my argument and if, after repeated attempts I have also failed to understand their argument (as you claim I have here), then the practical thing to do is end the conversation out of respect for each other's time.

Cheers, all the best.

please forgive me piper/quote

""God says,
No one can come to Me,..(God the Father)""

lets think
need god say..*im god..[twice]?

clearly 'god'..isnt saying this
maybe the bible is..but more specificlly the 'auther'..*says
god says..!

[so how does he know?]
if god told him..
how come he didnt tell you?

none to god..."except through My Son(Jesus)."

jersus revealed we are all children of the one father
he said se that ye see me do..YOU will do greater
[greater than god?..[of course not]..

jesus..*man was BORN..of woman
jesus said by your works..[not by me..!]
jesus didnt found a new religeon..paul/saul...did..!
[jesus actually said he came to unite his fathers divided house
[not build a new one]

to see jesus
was to see that our father does
EQUALLY for all of us...[who is not a child of the father?

""Accept Jesus and have a new relationship with God."'

jesus said we can know god personally
my father my father why have you abandoned me...[dont sound like god]

""God doesn't want his Son rejected."'

you can reject me..etc etc
but not the holy..[life]..spirit

""Jesus paid the ultimate price after all.""
as we all do[his big REVEALATION was him surviving his death
as we all shall...

""His life for us.""
please you who love god
must 'get'..god sustains all life
how is ANY death..serving gods LIVING..will/purpose

""God is patient.""
yet killed his own son?
the same as an ignorant abraham tried to do?
god now needs to copy the egsample of a mad man?

""He invites mankind to have a relationship with Him."""

TOO TRUE...!
with him one to one..!

not for the fools..in the street's
but you and good...one to one..
[emmanuel..god with me/you...US]

""Prayer..(talking to God)""

should never be begging
nor boastfull...
[he wont help you get a new boat]

other spirits might help..but god has enough to do
just keeping every life living..


""God gave mankind "free will"
and he wants mankind..*to individually choose Him..."

know he simply wants us..to love the living good
seeing no evil
as he does

love god...by..[loving of neighbour]

I absolutely agree with your definition of "cause", Trav. It never occurred to me that you might have a different one.

>>My contention is that human nature is the cause of war.<<

I absolutely agree that "human nature" is responsible for the act of taking up arms against a perceived threat, or in the pursuit of new power or territory.

But it does not explain why so many wars - or even individual acts of terrorism - have been completely and absolutely defined by the religious proclivities of the participants.

Part of that human nature is, of course, the acceptance of an authority figure. 1930s Germany followed Hitler. Twelfth century Knights and Saracens took their guidance from God. Different voices, same result.

But I'd be fascinated to hear your theory of how the Crusades would have played out in the absence of a religious element. Or indeed, how individuals in Belfast would have identified the people whose kneecaps they wanted to shoot, if they didn't have a religious justification.

Or what was the purpose of 9/11, absent the Muslim vs. Christian motivation?

Any thoughts?

One Under God, have you had any counselling?

Yuyutsu with respect eg: This weekend the world was to end, now putting it into simple language, the person of strong religious belief, living off the contributions of vulnerable people stated this worldwide.
The Pentecostals, Catholic church and all the others, enjoy affluence by emotional fear and exploitation of people, they should be ashamed, but they forgot to read their bible about Jesus and the Temple.
When it comes to cash and a free ride the churches sit on their bibles.!!

Yuyutsu with respect eg: This weekend the world was to end, now putting it into simple language, the person of strong religious belief, living off the contributions of vulnerable people stated this worldwide ( this organisation has cash reserves of USA$72,000,000)
The Pentecostals, Catholic church and all the others, enjoy affluence by emotional fear and exploitation of people, they should be ashamed, but they forgot to read their bible about Jesus and the Temple.
When it comes to cash and a free ride the churches sit on their bibles.!!

Pericles,

[I absolutely agree that "human nature" is responsible for the act of taking up arms against a perceived threat, or in the pursuit of new power or territory.

But it does not explain why so many wars - or even individual acts of terrorism - have been completely and absolutely defined by the religious proclivities of the participants]

Yes it does, because it shows that if religion didn't exist, people would simply define their wars and terrorisms using different proclivities.

Also as I said "so many" is wrong, in the context of the sheer number of wars there have been. Only a small minority of the total number of wars and violence throughout history have been "defined by the religious proclivities of the participants".

Our modern mindset is confronted by extremist Muslim terrorists which paints a very negative picture of religion and violence, but we must at least attempt to resist the urge to see history through the biased prism of being Westerners living in 2011

Kipp,

Are you sure you were addressing me in your last 2 posts?

I've just explained that a religious belief (even a strong one) does not constitute religion, not the belonging to this or that church.

As I raised none of those issues, perhaps you were writing to someone else?

Trav, it's easy to agree with you that human nature is the cause of war – as you say, pride, ego and the insatiable quest for power are common denominators. Maybe it's coincidence, but it is my observation that pride, ego and the insatiable quest for power are also common denominators of organised religions and many of the non-organised ones.

I do think you're overplaying your hand trying to relegate religion's contribution to wars throughout history to no more than an adopted excuse, in a very small minority of cases, on only the odd occasion.

Have you considered proving your argument from the opposite point of view?

It would be compelling evidence to cite examples from any place at any time in history where religion of any sort worked to counteract human nature and prevented war or violence.

Hi Pericles,
“I was pointing out that an absence of religious differences would have eliminated one fairly well-used justification for beating up on one's neighbour...”
Very true, but would an absence of religion eliminate or even reduce the frequency of war?
I doubt it.
As to rewriting history, as you point out the immigrant nobles to Ireland were “predominantly” Scottish. IOW, a more brief description encompassing all immigrant nobles would be “protestant”. As to turning to France for support, the English and French have been antagonists since Year Dot. (the last word on British Politics, -Yes Minister- had great material on the unending antagonism, as I recall). I also recall the IRA were happy to deal with the Germans in more recent conflicts, with no religious overtones. The enemy of my enemy... Of course, the fact that France was nominally Catholic certainly didn't hurt.
The 'Holy Crusades' on the other hand, were purely religious events.
Weren't they?
After the Vikings, Magyars etc. were drawn into the Christian fold, Western Europe had 'too many warriors, not enough wars'. To stop internecine troubles, Urban 2 offered (or was offered) up a 'common foe', in the invading Seljuqs.
It could perhaps be kept in mind that this series of conflicts began before the 'investiture controversy' , so arguably the Popes of the era were more political animals than our modern versions (after all, who would accuse modern clergymen of politicking?).
Whenever Religion is blamed for war, theists are quick to counterclaim Atheism in the persons of Stalin, Zedong, Pol Pot etc, is just as culpable.
Sometimes a 'cigar is just a cigar'.
And psychopaths are just psychopaths.
If we were desperate for a one word cause for war, I think 'prejudice' might be more apt than 'religion'.
Also the tendency for people to generalise, categorise or pigeonhole. It appears in our land, the pejorative 'Leb' is being supplanted by the more encompassing 'Muslim'.
I wonder why Muslim has not yet gained a pejorative?

Trav, with the greatest respect, an alternative, ununsupportable, untestable theory does not deserve the exuberant "Yes, it does" claim that you gave it.

My point, again, was that "[human nature] does not explain why so many wars - or even individual acts of terrorism - have been completely and absolutely defined by the religious proclivities of the participants"

You responded:

>>Yes it does, because it shows that if religion didn't exist, people would simply define their wars and terrorisms using different proclivities<<

Think through the logic of that again, and you will see that it does not hang together.

We are agreed that religion is the excuse many people give for war, terrorist acts, etc.

The absence of that excuse does not "show" that the combatants would necessarily fight or kill anyway. In fact, where religion is given as the primary excuse for knee-capping your fellow citizens, for example, it is almost impossible to dream up an alternative excuse to do so that makes any sense whatsoever.

Can you think of one reason why suicide-hijackers flew those planes into the WTC, apart from their religious convictions?

>>Only a small minority of the total number of wars and violence throughout history have been "defined by the religious proclivities of the participants".<<

Small minority, large minority, some, any... all support the point I made that without religion, there would be fewer.

Grim, I suspect that you were casting around for alternative explanations for European history, in your reassessment of Catholic vs. Protestant antagonism...

>>If we were desperate for a one word cause for war, I think 'prejudice' might be more apt than 'religion'.<<

But, as you also so succinctly point out...

>>Sometimes a 'cigar is just a cigar'<<

It's interesting that humans tread a line between their self-assertive tendencies and their self-transcending ones. Although a rogue human can do a lot of damage when aggressive, it pales in comparison to the destruction wrought by collective human endeavour.

Our susceptibility to suggestion when we align ourselves with group-think allows us to jettison personal responsibility for our actions.

Arthur Koestler wrote on the polarity of self-assertive and self-transcending tendencies:

"Under normal conditions the two tendencies are in dynamic equilibrium. Under conditions of stress the self-assertive tendency may get out of control and manifest itself in aggressive behaviour. However, on the historical scale, the damage wrought by individual violence for selfish motives are insignificant compared to the holocausts resulting from self-transcending devotion to collectively shared belief-systems. It is derived from primitive identification instead of mature social integration; it entails the partial surrender of personal responsibility and produces the quasi-hypnotic phenomena of group psychology. The egotism of the social holon feeds on the altruism of its members."

>> Our susceptibility to suggestion when we align ourselves with group-think allows us to jettison personal responsibility for our actions. <<

And that is the enabler for religious atrocities and its little brother ideology.

Learning how to think independently and to have the education by which a person can question that which is irrational - such as belief with no evidence, is our best chance to attain greater peace than we have at present.

The attitude of many religious claiming they know the "truth" because of their belief in a deity is no further removed than the rationality of a child believing in Santa.

At least people grow out of believing in Santa, and I have never heard of any wars waged in his name.

" With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."

Pericles,

As WM Trevor has pointed out, I have (deliberately) kept the scope of my argument rather narrow here (ie: I haven't made any reference to the POSITIVE things religion does and the fact that the vast majority of mainstream religious teaching actively encourages people to be peaceful rather than violent).

But given the criticisms you've made, I now need to broaden my scope to show where you are missing the point.

Consider this. How many devoutly religious people are there in the world? At least two billion? It's difficult to say, because the official stats would suggest 4 or 5 billion or more, yet they are biased as they include people who only have a very nominal affiliation (These would be the same stats that suggest two thirds of Australians are Christian). Regardless, the number of devout religious believers represents a substantial proportion of the world's population and the amount of time spent by these people doing religious observances and involving themselves in their faith is quite substantial. And their views of the world are impacted by the religious teaching they receive as well.

If those billions of people were spending their time doing something else, for example supporting a political ideology instead of observing their religion, and were taking other views into their minds instead of the (mostly) peaceful religious teaching they receive, then of course they would still be fighting just as much, and dare I say it much more.

(cont'd

In other words, you are missing half the equation. You're saying "Look at the religious justification for wars. What other justification could be used in THOSE circumstances?" Well of course, none. Those circumstances wouldn't exist! But given the substantial amount of people and time spent on religion, the amount of negativity and violence that arises directly from that is actually minimal. So if considering the hypothetical scenario that religion didn't exist, you need to account for the other half of the equation which is the fact that religious people would be spending their time doing other things, being influenced by other things, and starting wars on behalf of other causes which would utilise their human nature for violence in a worse manner than religion does.

Well Trav, it’s easy to see why you don’t think we’re understanding each other…

<<If, after repeated attempts, I have failed in my attempts at assisting someone in understanding my argument and if, after repeated attempts I have also failed to understand their argument (as you claim I have here), then the practical thing to do is end the conversation out of respect for each other's time.>>

I had said in my last post that I think you DO UNDERSTAND what I’ve been saying.

Twice.

A key to understanding others on OLO and determining whether or not they understand you is to not skim their posts.

It would probably be a good way to respect their time too.

Pericles:
“Can you think of one reason why suicide-hijackers flew those planes into the WTC, apart from their religious convictions?”
Gee, let me think.
“merkan sojers' are currently occupying (“aiding”)more than 40 countries, nominally for the cause of 'Democracy' but realistically more for the cause of American Capitalism.
People don't tend to like other people coming into their country, and telling them to change.
Witness the rise in antipathy in this country against Muslims, especially when it's suggested we have to change our traditions to placate them.
“...self-transcending devotion to collectively shared belief-systems...” don't necessarily have to be religious.
People tend to react violently towards invaders; yes like the IRA again. They have committed atrocities for generations, all in the name of a 'free Ireland'. I sincerely doubt the IRA fanatics were greatly exercised by Catholic beliefs, since they tended to ignore Papal injunctions (as well as other tedious rules, like “Thou shalt not kill...”).
Of course when it comes to martyrs, believing in Eternal Bliss certainly doesn't hurt.
Rather than 'casting around' Pericles, I would suggest you are quite comfortably ensconced in your anti-religious shell, and don't feel much need to cast very far at all.
The root of our disagreement lies in whether religion is a root cause of war, or merely a convenient justification for war.
“And psychopaths are just psychopaths.”

I'm not sure that helps us a great deal, Trav.

>>If those billions of people were spending their time doing something else, for example supporting a political ideology instead of observing their religion, and were taking other views into their minds instead of the (mostly) peaceful religious teaching they receive, then of course they would still be fighting just as much, and dare I say it much more<<

Why "of course"?

The vast majority of people are "supporting a political ideology" as well as their conducting their religious observances. And what on earth makes you think that when they stop doing so, their thoughts immediately turn to "who can I kill?"

Where's the evidence that tells you this?

If you cast an eye around the globe today, please identify which wars, terrorist atrocities and kneecappings are conducted by atheists, and which under the banner of religion.

Just pick a handful, I'm not looking for detail, just establishing a principle.

This is where our views diverge most noticeably:

>>...given the substantial amount of people and time spent on religion, the amount of negativity and violence that arises directly from that is actually minimal<<

I suspect that the people of Kashmir would take leave to disagree with you.

Don't forget that the entire partitioning of the Indian subcontinent in 1947 was underpinned by the perceived need to separate Muslim from Hindu. Give me one good valid reason why the State of Pakistan would have been created, in the absence of these two religions.

"In a couple of months in the summer of 1947, a million people were slaughtered on both sides in the religious rioting"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/south_asia_india0s_partition/html/5.stm

These people were, quite literally, defined by their religion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak-partition2.htm

The existence of the two religions caused the million people to die. the non-existence of those two religions, would have removed the motivation to slaughter each other.

Pericles,

Providing evidence of one or two particularly bad examples of religious wars (or three, or four, or five...) proves virtually nothing, because as I said, the context of the discussion is the THOUSANDS of wars that have occurred over history.

Read chapters 5 and 6 of Vox Day's book for some statistics of the number of religious wars. The free ebook version can be found here:

http://www.voxday.net/mart/TIA_free.pdf

I did not suggest that anyone's thoughts would turn to "Who can I kill" if they abandoned their religion, that would be a strawman. I said that lots of people take their belief systems seriously, and that the majority of religious teaching aims for peace rather than violence.

People align themselves to groups and authority figures and have the tendency to want to hurt each other, regardless of what the group they are aligning themselves with actually is. Therefore it's simply not logical to blame the group itself for wars. If you were going to do that, you'd be far better off blaming politics as a whole than religion.

Billions of people devoutly adhere to one religious group or another and consider it a guide for their life and conduct and have done so throughout history. So given that undeniable fact, and given human nature, I think a reasonable case could be made that we should expect to see many, many, religious wars. Yet, this is not the case in the CONTEXT of the total number of wars throughout history (See chapters 5 and 6 of Vox Day's book). On the other hand, religious people have a history of setting up charities and devoting themseves to social causes. This can also be proven using statistics and all kinds of evidence. So is religion a predominantly positive influence on the world, or a predominantly negative and violent one?

You are suggesting the world would be more peaceful without religion? I claim this is unsupportable given the historical evidence, and not only that, but that the evidence suggests the world would be a LESS peaceful place and worse off without the presence of religion.

I guess all the raking over of the ashes of past conflicts serves to exercise the mind, as it certainly offers stark illumination of the fickleness of the human condition in its propensity for destructiveness and inhumanity, but, is there a possible solution to conflict embedded in all this conjecture?

Don't wish to throw cold water, but the attribution of causation for so many conflicts, save those currently in play, will remain merely historical unless we can learn something of value towards an end to conflict.

Some posts have asserted religious differences as a major cause of past and current conflicts, but only one broad religious group would appear currently to favour holy war, and that is of course Islam - no disrespect intended, as we know there are many more peaceful and tolerant followers of Islam than there would be aggressive and intolerant ones - as we also know that the cause of greatest discontent applicable is not religion based, but rather oppression based.

Some may try to assert that U.S. aggression is religion based, but we know this to be untrue and that the actual motivation operating is almost exclusively security of nation and lifestyle - complete with relevant capitalistic stability and supremacy ideology - and perhaps justifiably so, because the world would be a very different place without the dominance exercised by this world power, particularly during and after WW2.

This leaves us with only one possible conclusion - religion is no longer a major factor in world conflict, though it unfortunately continues to be a source of localised disagreement, occasionally resulting in internal conflict.

The remaining questions: i) Is a world without religion achievable, or preferable? My answer is no to both of these propositions.
ii) Can or should Atheism or Agnosticism be considered to be religions? I leave this to the choice of those involved, and I have no objection to either proposition.

Are we any closer to a solution to world conflict? Doesn't appear so.

Saltpetre,

But God told Georgie to invade Iraq - don't you know.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Trav, any writer who insists that there is no religious angle to the conflict in Northern Ireland loses all credibility, instantly.

>>Read chapters 5 and 6 of Vox Day's book for some statistics of the number of religious wars.<<

The sleight-of-hand is most obvious when he sets out the criteria for "a religious war"

"1. It was publicly advocated by religious leaders.
2. Its appeal transcended national and political boundaries.
3. Large numbers of civilians voluntarily took part.
4. Individuals with neither military nor organizational authority held prominent leadership roles.
5. Professional soldiers volunteered to fight without demanding wages up front."

Without feeling the need to justify any of the five - let alone insist upon all of their being present, as he does - he manages quite neatly to re-define "religious wars" in such a narrow fashion that I am surprised any at all qualifies.

He mentions the partition of India, but only in passing. What are your thoughts, Trav, on a relatively recent event that - depending upon whom you ask - killed between one and one-and-a-half million people?

Did religion play a significant or insignificant role in these deaths. And has does it not still play a role, in 2011?

The Irish conflict was more about colonialism than religion but the stark religious differenes certainly added strong kindling to the fire. Many factors come into play in a war and any perceived difference adds impetus to the conflict and further serves to divide and differentiate 'them and us'.

Saltpetre askes a good question. Have we learned anything? We have I think in that the drive for secularism is a positive one and recognises differences are not always bad. Empathy is the most important factor, recognising the differences are not as important as the commonalities.

Other than on OLO discussions, Christians, atheists and agnostics rub together quite nicely.

Pericles,

[The sleight-of-hand is most obvious when he sets out the criteria for "a religious war"]

Do you have a better suggested methodology for distinguishing religious wars from other types? If so, please share it.

In Chapter 6 of Day's book, he refers to The Encyclopedia of Wars, an encyclopedia put together by a group of history professors which provides a summary of every major conflict, war and rebellion from the year 3,500 BCE to the present. The authors of the encyclopedia (Not Vox Day) categorise 123 wars as being religious, out of a total of 1,763 wars, giving us a grand total of 6.98% of wars being religious wars.

Fairly damning to your hypothesis, you would have to admit?

And no, I don't have a specific opinion on the one war you keep referring to, Pericles. Why do you continually refer to 1 war? Are you willing the spend the same amount of time discussing the other 1,762 wars since 3,500BCE, of which 1,639 were not categorised as religious by our history professors? With only 4 posts and 1,400 words a day, it could take a while

Nice body-swerve there, Trav. Are you available for the State of Origin, by any chance?

>>no, I don't have a specific opinion on the one war you keep referring to, Pericles. Why do you continually refer to 1 war?<<

Basically because wasn't actually a war.

The religious divisions (note: religious) in the sub-continent had reached a point where a "solution" was derived that separated the two major religions (note: religions) into two separate countries. During the process, over a million people were killed, as a result of their religious (that word again) affiliations.

To go back to the beginning for a moment, just to remind ourselves of the point of the discussion. I stated:

"That religion has been, for many hundreds of years, a primary cause of wars, police actions, skirmishes, assassinations, border disputes etc. etc. can surely not even be remotely debatable, let alone be a 'canard'?"

The evidence I have put forward has been simply to point out that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable.

If you are able to put forward one single argument how the killing of over a million people, outside of a declared war, has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, you will be well on your way to a Pulitzer Prize.

Incidentally, the existence of 123 wars of "religion" doesn't actually support your "canard" theory, does it. And that is even without quarreling with the definition of "religious" wars, or examining their magnitude and impact.

With respect, Pericles, your ongoing tirade against relijun is starting to sound like an ad hominem attack on a god or gods you profess not to believe in.
“Hindus” and “Muslims” did not partition India. The creation of the state of Pakistan was encacted by individual and exceptional humans, such as the Muslim Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who -a little ironically- broke with (the nominally Hindu) Gandhi over Gandhi's support for the Islamic Khilafat Movement.
That such exceptional and complex individuals should be categorised by just one of their beliefs is I think a tad unjust.
Undeniably religion (like guns) has played a significant role in many wars, and like guns, have probably exacerbated the violence, but to suggest:

"That religion has been, for many hundreds of years, a primary cause of wars, police actions, skirmishes, assassinations, border disputes etc. etc. can surely not even be remotely debatable...”

Is to draw an exceptionally long and dare I say, rather superficial bow; in fact, the same superficial bow which encourages theists to blame the atrocities of Stalin and Zedong on Atheism.
Incidentally, in the same post as the above quote, Pericles goes on to say:

“Incidentally, the existence of 123 wars of "religion" doesn't actually support your "canard" theory, does it. And that is even without quarreling with the definition of "religious" wars, or examining their magnitude and impact.”
Very true, but by the same token the 123 wars don't actually support your “primary cause” theory either.
Like guns, religions don't kill people, people kill people.

Trav,

If you take one of the motivations/excuses for war and terrorism out of the equation, the chances are the occurrences of those atrocities will drop.

Regardless of what this Vox Day joker, with his Swiss-cheese-model criteria for a war to be considered religious, says.

You’re happy to insist that the evil committed by some is so embedded in their nature, that it would probably occur to the same extent, even in the absence of religion. But then, when it comes to acts of good and striving for peace, you say religion assists.

Your argument that those who commit atrocities would have done so with or without religion assumes that the religious views of such people played no part in the triggering of the desire to commit such violent acts. What’s to say the tendency towards violence to such an extreme wouldn’t have lay dormant or been expressed in a different manner had they not been introduced to something as inherently divisive as the Abrahamic religions?

And what’s to say that the tribalism and groupthink necessary to proceed with these violent tendencies on such a large scale wouldn’t have been absent in some cases without religion?

Yet you’re happy to attribute charities and social causes to religion but conveniently ignore important underlying motivations behind religious charities such as proselytizing, PR, the nurturing a heavenly credit rating, and the easing of guilty consciences that result from religion’s need for its adherents to keep coming back for salvation.

Sure, some theists don’t take any of the above into account when doing their good deeds but I’d be willing to bet that those people would be devoting their time to charity whether or not they were believers.

Funnily enough, though, every time a study is done on the correlation between religiosity and societal health, religion doesn’t appear to be the positive force you want it to be:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
http://www.morgantownatheists.com/797/a-chart-of-religiousness-iq-morality-and-more
http://www.sachikospace.com/english/2010/08/atheism-vs-theism-the-statistics/

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily prove that religion is bad for societies. What it does do, however, is lay waste to the ridiculous suggestion that we’d be worse off without religion.

Continued…

…Continued

But at the end of the day, I consider all this to be fairly meaningless anyway, as it says nothing about the truth of religious claims - which are yet to be supported by any reliable, objective evidence.

Although, one would think that if an infinitely perfect being really did create all that we see, then surely it would be caring enough and proficient enough in its communication skills to convey its message to us in a way clear enough to prevent us destroying each other over him.

As usual, your arguments are logically consistent AJ.

"religious claims - which are yet to be supported by any reliable, objective evidence"

Religion is not about making claims, it is about living in a way that brings one closer to God. The only possibility of a "religious claim" is when someone, by the very act of making that claim (or listening to it), brings him/herself closer to God. The actual content of that claim, including the ability or otherwise of supporting it with objective evidence, is thus completely irrelevant.

"Although, one would think that if an infinitely perfect being really did create all that we see, then surely it would be caring enough and proficient enough in its communication skills to convey its message to us in a way clear enough to prevent us destroying each other over him"

There are two hidden assumptions here, as if:
1. God is a "being" (an infinitely perfect one and a creator).
2. God is separate from us (since communication can only occur between two different entities).

Both assumptions were intended for beginners/children who are unable to worship God without the aid of some visual/conceptual notion of Him. While having their legitimate place, these are not true statements and it seems that some organized religions have erred by taking such conceptual-aids too far and mixing them up with physical reality, sometimes with disastrous consequences such as wars. Yet of course, others also caused wars by abusing conceptual-aids (such as "Mother-Earth", "Mother-{name_your_country}", "Fatherland" and "Father-Stalin").

Back to the original topic of Spiritual Atheism:

There is no contradiction!

I could technically be described as a "spiritual atheist" myself, because although I do my best to live a religious life, based on spirit rather than on matter, I do not believe that God exists. I consider that belief as an easy way to introduce religion to children, but adults should outgrow beyond such early concepts that in reality do not befit or honour God, depicting Him as a mere being.

I take this opportunity to thank Saltpetre for his/her excellent contributions.

Pericles,

You do realize that giving one, or two, or three examples of religious wars or conflicts or violence does next to nothing to show that the world would be more peaceful without religion, don’t you?

As I’ve said, you need to consider religion’s wider impact on the world and its general influence, rather than only consider the very narrow scope of the religious conflicts have occurred.

You could probably make a far more respectable and persuasive argument that the world would be more peaceful without politics, or say, communism. Although it would still be flawed because these things are not themselves “causes” of war either.

[To go back to the beginning for a moment, just to remind ourselves of the point of the discussion. I stated:

"That religion has been, for many hundreds of years, a primary cause of wars, police actions, skirmishes, assassinations, border disputes etc. etc. can surely not even be remotely debatable, let alone be a 'canard'?"

The evidence I have put forward has been simply to point out that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable.]

No.

The “beginning” of this discussion was in my post, where I was using the war example to illustrate the inability of self-proclaimed rationalists to apply so-called objective reason. I said

“Naturalistic atheists consider themselves to be beacons of reason amongst the irrational masses of everyday society, many of whom believe in God, or miracles or at least some kind of new age spirituality. And yet, these same atheists REGULARLY come up with all kinds of ridiculous old canards, consider the following statements:

1. Religion is a primary cause of war and/or most wars are caused by religion and therefore the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion,”

(cont'd)

Now you seem to be claiming that your evidence is only in response to the part where I said that religion is not a primary cause of war, and that your evidence is NOT meant to support the conclusion that many atheists draw about this (truly the most irrational part) where they claim that the world would be more peaceful without religion.

I think I have shown that the ONLY primary cause of war is human nature- the prideful, egotistical, power-seeking, selfish nature of humanity. But regardless of that, it’s beginning to look like you are dodging and weaving and changing your argument.

I will quote from some of your comments. From your initial post, the same one you quoted from above. Two paragraphs further on, you said…

[So in what way, pray, can you even remotely object to the notion that - and I quote you exactly, "the world would be a much more peaceful place without religion"?]

And in a later post you said….

[Small minority, large minority, some, any... all support the point I made that without religion, there would be fewer.]

(ie: You were referring to “wars and violence”)

So you were clearly and undoubtedly arguing that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence. And now you are claiming that your evidence was "simply" meant to show "that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable".

So, what’s the go? Are you backpedalling? Are you deliberately evading the argument here or changing your own argument as you see fit? It certainly seems like it.

AJ.
"Although, one would think that if an infinitely perfect being really did create all that we see, then surely it would be caring enough and proficient enough in its communication skills to convey its message to us in a way clear enough to prevent us destroying each other over him."

The God that I know does communicate through the Bible (which contains 66 separate books). Gods message is contained within it and the blood of Jesus is on every page Old and New Testament-(not literally of course).
God does care enough to send His Holy word which was written by men of God who listened to the God who divinely inspired them to record His word. The styles vary but the Holy Bible has ONE author --God Himself.
God's message has been described as "A still point in a turning world" and it needs to be understood in its entirety.
God tells mankind to LOVE God and LOVE one another. These 2 commandments are actually in the New Testament.
They are the 10 Old Testaments commandments in summary.
Commandments 1-4 in the OT are LOVE God and commandments 5-10 are LOVE one another.
Do people listen to God??NO. It is difficult to LISTEN. How come God gets the blame. God also sends His Holy Spirit to comfort and guide.
What more can God do to get people to listen? God also provides a church family to support and encourage anyone seeking to follow Him.
Scripture says, "Seek First the Kingdom of God". and (everything else will fall into place-my paraphrase).

It looks as though I have to answer my own question: "Is a world without religion possible, or even preferable? I say No. Now for an attempt to justify.

Religion is a good thing! Why? Because its highest endeavor and intention is promote goodness - good behaviour, honesty, responsibility for one's actions, and goodwill towards all of mankind irrespective of differences. In consequence of these good intentions, most mainstream religions have a good backing - by followers, in numbers and in support volunteered, and by governments and the public in general. How have these churches achieved wide acceptance? By the performance of good works - charities, help to the sick and to the poor and needy, and in providing hope and confidence to its followers in services to lift the spirit and nourish the soul. (Don't believe in a soul? Ok, just stick with spirit, or sense of wellbeing.) Large numbers of like-minded good people have achieved great things, and continue to do so - albeit today in spite of various hecklers and naysayers. The human is a gregarious animal, we need other people, and in particular we need like-minded people, and people we know we can trust. We can get this in church, and in community - though these days community is becoming a harder thing to find, or to rely upon. A church provides people with a level of certainty rarely found elsewhere, either today or in the past.

So, where do things go horribly wrong? When churches (meaning religious movements, denominations or creeds) get a bit too carried away with their own self-importance, start identifying and highlighting "differences" - differences with other groups, even with some having the same or similar origins - and start adding special provisions to denominate "true faith". Schisms, intolerance, bigotry, hate - these are not religious doctrine, they are hateful discriminatory infractions of goodness, of faith. Simple faith in the power and the necessity of goodness is, and must be foremost. To profess and to teach otherwise is simply sinful.

A world without religion could only be a tougher more discriminatory place.

Is a settlement/compromise possible?

Pericles… Would you accept that religion's role in warfare and violence is to about the same degree as that which Trav believes Christianity has contributed to Western civilisation?

Trav… Would you accept that religion's role in warfare and violence is to about the same degree as that which Pericles believes Christianity has contributed to Western civilisation?

Thanks Grim.

Yuyutsu,

Most religious people do still make claims regarding the supernatural and that’s what I was referring to.

I’m sorry, but with limited posts and time, generalising is unavoidable on OLO when there are nearly 3000 deities, billions of different religious beliefs and over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone.

But please, feel free consider my criticisms irrelevant to your take on religion. Most theists do that anyway, whether or not it’s the case. Although, from what I can remember, you at least have the advantage of a religious belief that has been purposefully devised with the sole intent of sheltering it from criticism.

Sandpiper,

Thanks. I’m glad you feel you have a sufficient level of communication from god. But the 30,000 odd denominations of Christianity speak otherwise, I’m afraid.

Saltpetre,

It appears I inadvertently half answered your question in my last response to Trav.

Is a world without religion preferable?

To whom? Broadly speaking, though, the statistics suggest it is.

Is a world without religion possible?

I think the answer is a resounding “yes”.

We can get the sense of community and all the other benefits you speak of in many ways without religion. In fact, try naming one benefit religion has provided us with that cannot possibly come about through secular means.

<<A world without religion could only be a tougher more discriminatory place.>>

An amazing claim considering the justification religion has provided us with for discrimination throughout history. How do you explain the fact that the less religion plays a role in our societies, the healthier they become?

Only 70 odd years ago we had a large-scale war in which Western countries were actually fighting against each other with one of them being run by a psychopath. The thought of that happening today is unimaginable.

The further we progress, the less of a role religion plays and the more peaceful we become. You would be hard-pressed to find a 10 year period since the dawn of civilisation where war, poverty and famine were at such proportionately low levels as they are now.

But surely, Trav, you must realize that the "claims" you have identified are far from being mutually exclusive. On the contrary, they support each other.

>>So you were clearly and undoubtedly arguing that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence. And now you are claiming that your evidence was "simply" meant to show "that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable". So, what’s the go? Are you backpedalling? Are you deliberately evading the argument here or changing your own argument as you see fit? It certainly seems like it.<<

If it helps, let me say categorically that i) I believe that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable, and ii) that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence.

And thanks for the chuckle, WmTrevor, but compromise is not on the table - even if I could work out what I would be agreeing to...!

pj ailipps/quote..""Is a world without religion preferable?

..the statistics suggest it is.""

present them
then give back to caeser
[see later reply]

""We can get the sense of community and all the other benefits you speak of in many ways without religion.""

mate...your in denial..about what religeons have done
to make the world better..lest we forget an ATHIEST...saing god made him do it..isnt the same as RELIGIOUNS DECLARING WARS

please give your proof
HOW MANY POPES have started wars
do popes declare wars..or do govts..or figure heads

""try naming one benefit religion has provided
us with that cannot possibly come about through secular means."'

everything from reading to writing
schools to hospitals..and hospis

from holding records to money
moral guidance/law/medicine/
animal husbandry..farming
food wine science's
""How do you explain the fact..that the less religion plays a role in our societies,..the healthier they become?""

mate less we forget the many charities
there alone holds a healthier society

""Only 70 odd years ago we had a large-scale war..run by a psychopath.""

right
NOT A PRIEST
not a pope..a darn madman...lol

his alies were also a godless gred/creed

""The thought of that happening today is unimaginable.""

lol

we got so many wars
let alone civil wars
premptive wars..occupation
how many are religious wars
declared and payed for by the church?

"You would be hard-pressed to find a 10 year period
since the dawn of civilisation where war, poverty

and famine..were at such
proportionately low levels..as they are now.""

lol
a ten year period*

lol your such a funny liar
please provide proof of your athiestic self agrandisations?

Valid question, oug.

>>HOW MANY POPES have started wars<<

The most obvious is Urban II, who in 1095 called upon the Franks, specifically and directly, to go and fight "a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God".

"Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey'... Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: 'It is the will of God! It is the will of God!'"

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2a.html

I reckon that qualifies, don't you?

Here's a Pope bent on world domination:

"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff." – Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302

They really weren't shy of getting others to do their dirty work. In his Bull "Intra Arcana" written in 1529, Pope Clement VI wrote to Charles V...

"...you will compel and with all zeal cause the barbarian nations to come to the knowledge of God, the maker and founder of all things, not only by edicts and admonitions, but also by force and arms, if needful, in order that their souls may partake of the heavenly kingdom"

Probably not the answers you were looking for, oug.

But then, when you invoke the papacy, you find many incumbents bring with them a whole lot of nasty baggage.

Google Pope John XII. He was a classic.

AJ Philips,

"Most religious people do still make claims regarding the supernatural"

It's human nature. Both religious and non-religious people make claims regarding the supernatural. The fact that a claim is made by a religious person does not make it more or less accurate than claims by non-religious people.

"from what I can remember, you at least have the advantage of a religious belief that has been purposefully devised with the sole intent of sheltering it from criticism."

My basic belief is that there is nothing but God. This however is not too important because it's the practice that matters, not the words. When I consciously acquired my belief over 30 years ago, I was yet unfamiliar with atheism and the scientific criticism of religions, so when I came across those, I listened to the criticism and my religious belief-system went through the refiner's fire and came out purer and stronger. As a result my beliefs are consistent not only with my own direct experience, but also with science.

In particular, I found that the belief in God's existence is superfluous and generally does not contribute to religion (except perhaps in relation to children and primitive tribes). On the contrary, it may even weaken religion because it conflicts with science - faith that depends on belief is weak. One does not need God to exist in order to love Him with all one's heart, soul and strength. One does not need to believe that God exists in order to direct one's whole life towards union with God. I Also found that one need not expect material rewards, either in this life or thereafter, in order to devote oneself to God, otherwise one is just a dealer/trader/bargainer, not a lover of God. The only reward to be gained is God Himself.

Science and religion do not conflict: science answers questions such as "what is", "what is not", "how does it work", while religion relates to questions such as "why" and "what's worthwhile". Science only conflicts with certain impurities that attached themselves to religious-thought over the millenia. Once purified, religion is stronger.

AJ Phillips,

You stated "the less religion plays a role in our societies, the healthier they become?" But, you have it back to front, and confirm this in your following "The further we progress, the less of a role religion plays and the more peaceful we become." There, you answered yourself - religion, for better or worse laid the groundwork, even in spite of some dramatic tumult along the way, and now a growing segment of society feels less need for the reassurance of religion - but it is development that has enabled society's relative comfort and complacency - western society that is.

You state, without any real foundation, that a world without religion is both possible and preferable. I'm afraid there would be a few billion people who would strenuously disagree.

Your predisposition to refer to age-old conflicts to justify your intolerance of religion generally, is clutching at hollow straws to support an insupportable criticism of the constructive role religion continues to play in the lives of billions of followers in a multitude of denominations worldwide. You ply your obvious vindictiveness towards Christianity to encompass all the world's religions in your irreligious zealotry, and it serves you no favour.

Pericles,

You seem to be in the same camp as AJ, yet in your last post you seem to be arguing with him. I am confused. However, your conviction that the world would be a better and more peaceful place without religion also denies the far wider and greater good that religion plays on the world stage, far outweighing the smaller localised current conflicts purportedly of religious base, and mostly more likely of a covetous base. People lie about their real motives, don't you know.

If you guys are just taking the mickey, I would appreciate you letting me know.

Yuyutsu; (sigh);
I seems I owe you an apology for suggesting you have claimed an 'arbitrary' definition for the word 'Religion'. You have successfully demonstrated this is not so.
You merely had to reach back a couple of thousand years into a dead language, to find a definition which accorded with your beliefs.
IOW, you have simply created your own religion, which you are as unilaterally convinced by as any other fundamentalist.
When you say 'science and religion do not conflict' you actually mean science and your religion do not conflict. You insist that even atheists can commit acts which bring them closer to a non existent God, which is to say Atheism is impossible, because God exists, whether they like it or not.
Hardly an original argument, and side steps the question of opposing beliefs.
Pronouncing judgements on all belief systems, held by billions of people both theist and atheist, according to the rules of your own (literally 'singular') religion is just a tad arrogant, don't you think?
Saltpetre, you have yet to establish the logic of your position.
“There, you answered yourself - religion, for better or worse laid the groundwork...”
I believe AJ's point is that as we become more secular, we also become more peaceful. IOW, is we had been secular to start with, we would have been peaceful to start with (or at least more peaceful). I would have to admit, history seems to be at least superficially on AJ's side; although AJ's assertion:
“If you take one of the motivations/excuses for war and terrorism out of the equation, the chances are the occurrences of those atrocities will drop.” ...while admirably logical and difficult to refute, does open other doors; eg nationalism is 'one of the motivations/excuses for war', and I would suggest an even greater one.
Ultimately, both religion and nationalism are, I would suggest, both 'natural' inventions of humans to define a collective and embracing set of moral and ethical conventions; 'Culture', in short.
As we see in OZ today, people don't like it when you mess with their culture.

Not sure what you mean, Saltpetre.

>>Pericles, You seem to be in the same camp as AJ, yet in your last post you seem to be arguing with him. I am confused.<<

That makes two of us. In my last post I was addressing an issue raised by one under god (oug), in which he posed what I imagined was intended to be a rhetorical question, but one that I chose to take at face value:

>>HOW MANY POPES have started wars<<

And quite frankly, I think you are wearing rose-tinted glasses when you make this statement:

>>However, your conviction that the world would be a better and more peaceful place without religion also denies the far wider and greater good that religion plays on the world stage, far outweighing the smaller localised current conflicts purportedly of religious base, and mostly more likely of a covetous base. People lie about their real motives, don't you know.<<

The "wider and greater good" that you speak of makes the traditional Christian assumption, that somehow religious people are nicer to each other. Given the evidence of history, of atrocities conducted in the name of religion, I cannot accept this.

As I see it, if we now have - as you describe them - nothing more than "smaller localised current conflicts purportedly of religious base", it is clear evidence of the failing power of religion alone to move people to war.

However, I'm not entirely convinced that your analysis is correct, and suspect we will continue to see wars waged under banners similar to Urban II's "It is the will of God! It is the will of God!"

I see religion as a manifestation of mankind's inherent fear of the unknown - part of human nature, if you will - and therefore a convenient excuse for channelling the expressions of violence that accompany that fear. If that aggression were confined to mere territorial conquest, we'd be far better off.

>>If you guys are just taking the mickey, I would appreciate you letting me know.<<

I'm happy to take it seriously, if you are.

Pericles, Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to your post to Trav yesterday, 25th, when you posted the following, which appeared to be in substantial agreement with something AJ posted just before you on comments page 22, and to which I was in process of responding:

"If it helps, let me say categorically that i) I believe that to describe religion's major contribution to strife in the world as a "canard" is insupportable, and ii) that the world would be a more peaceful place without religion and that there would be less wars and violence without religion's harmful presence."

My aim was to try to elevate the discussion away from the bashing of Christianity for an endless procession of age-old conflicts, and bring the discussion into consideration of present day concerns. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that you were then involved in responding to OUG.

My comment meant that the only religious violence of which I am aware currently is mostly between Sunni and Shiia factions, or Taliban against whoever they choose, apart from some bashing of Christians and their businesses here and there. I see these conflicts as being largely internal, and of jealous and covetous origin rather than being of religious origin, save that continuing fundamentalist hatred going on from the Taliban and their like.

I just don't see Christians waging warfare against anyone anywhere anymore, and don't expect to see this change, ever. Why would anyone think otherwise in this day and age? Are people really so worried about the ruckus from some U.S. evangelists or whatever, for that looks like a lot of lobbying for political considerations, and just a lot of hot air, nothing more. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My other meaning was that Buddhism, Hinduism and various other moderate religions are seen to be beneficial by their followers, who must number in the billions, and who profess no ill to anyone, quite the contrary. So, where is the great damning religious threat today? Is it only in some people's minds?

Yes, but it only works for spherical christians in a vacuum.

AJ,

Many of your comments are somewhat similar to Pericles, so I’ll only comment on the newer stuff to avoid doubling up with my arguments (unless I only have one brief comment). I’m not interested in discussing with two people at the same time on the same topic.

[If you take one of the motivations/excuses for war and terrorism out of the equation, the chances are the occurrences of those atrocities will drop.

Regardless of what this Vox Day joker, with his Swiss-cheese-model criteria for a war to be considered religious, says.]

What about what the group of history professors who penned The Encyclopedia of War, say? Are they also jokers?

[Sure, some theists don’t take any of the above into account when doing their good deeds but I’d be willing to bet that those people would be devoting their time to charity whether or not they were believers.]

There is strong evidence that the religious give much more to charity than non believers. So what evidence do you have to back up this statement?

This is the evidential weight, the reason I credit religion as a mostly peaceful force is the LACK of violence comparative to what I would expect given the sheer number of believers and their devout belief.

(cont'd)

[Funnily enough, though, every time a study is done on the correlation between religiosity and societal health, religion doesn’t appear to be the positive force you want it to be:]

I can quote you studies that show that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer than the non religious. And that they are good for society by spending their time, both professionally and otherwise, in activities that benefit society.

There was a study a few months ago which quantified the dollar figures of social benefit provided by churches.

But we must remember we are dealing with complex factors here. I would think that the overall structure of a society in terms of its history is also very relevant, and you’d need to map history through hundreds of years to even attempt to figure out those sorts of things. Modern day studies can, at best, show what influence religion or otherwise has in a given place at a given point in time, GIVEN the structure that the society ALREADY has, which of course, could be already positively (or negatively) influenced by religion to varying degrees.

Pretty much all of Western Civilization has a history that is greatly influenced by Christianity and that historical influence remains regardless of how far away some of these societies have shifted in the last 50 years. What will the impact be 100 years from now? That’s the big picture question.

Regarding your views on evidence for God, a couple of questions: What would convince you of God’s existence? In other words, provide me a specific hypothetical scenario that could result in you believing in a God.

And 2ndly, since I’m a Christian: We Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead in the Middle East 2,000 years ago. I, and others, argue that this claim is supported by evidence, to one degree or another. If Jesus DID in fact rise from the dead 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, with all other things being equal, what positive historical evidence would you expect to see

Dear Grim,

I did not claim that atheism is impossible. Of course it is. An atheist may in some cases be more religious than the average believer and vice-versa and I do not claim to be an authority to judge who is more religious than another (I may have an opinion in some cases, just like anybody else, but I could be wrong).

Most religious orders/organizations were initially formed with the intention of promoting religion, e.g. to bring us closer to God. Some were purer than others, some were wiser than others, some made less mistakes than others, but ultimately due to human nature degeneration is inevitable. Two common forms of degeneration are:
1. Seeking worldly power.
2. Attempting to provide information about the physical world.

Knowledge about the physical world is the responsibility of science. Historically, religious orders sadly erred and overstepped their limits by involving themselves with geography, history, astronomy/cosmology, biology, chemistry, even physics.

Much chaff has been added to religious thought over the ages, so sorting is necessary, but there is still a live religiosity-core beneath that chaff and I am often inspired and learn a lot from the teachings of sages and saints of many religious-orders.

Take for example, "consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin", a great lesson of faith, but is it supposed to be a botanical statement? What if science discovers that lilies after all do toil and spin - would that make any difference to this teaching? Should it then become a cause for war? Or what about that guy who constructed a gigantic needle and passed a camel through - does it change in any way the teaching that attachment to possessions is an obstacle to reaching God? Of course not!

A change of pace, at last, thank you Trav.

>>What would convince you of God’s existence? In other words, provide me a specific hypothetical scenario that could result in you believing in a God<<

That's is a superbly silly and pointless question.

There is no "test" for the existence of God.

Even theists can't think of one, despite the fact that they, unlike atheists, actually believe that there is a God.

How you expect someone to do so, without even the advantage of that starting-point, is beyond the realms of silly. It's like asking an intelligent adult "what would convince you of the existence of the Easter Bunny?"

This one is closer to the requirements of normal discourse, though.

>>If Jesus DID in fact rise from the dead 2,000 years ago in the Middle East, with all other things being equal, what positive historical evidence would you expect to see<<

I'd expect some contemporary, first-hand reports, for one thing. Assuming that "rising from the dead" was as unusual an occurrence back then as it is today, it is pretty amazing to find that no-one actually noticed.

Even the tiny fragments of comments by historians, that Christians latch onto with such tenacity when asked to "prove" the existence of Jesus, don't feel it necessary to report the news.

So in the absence of confirmation from a reliable source, it all remains within the realms of legend. One that just grew.

A sort of Robin Hood figure, as depicted by Errol Flynn. Or King Arthur, complete with Excalibur rising from the lake and the quest for the Holy Grail (but not Graham Chapman).

While the baseline characters (Robin, Arthur) are reasonably documented as being actual people, their exploits owe more to romantic idealism than to the establishment of historical facts.

The need for stories like these has been with us for many millennia, and in all likelihood will continue.

Because... we like stories. Our imagination, and the way we use it, is a major part of what differentiates us from the animal kingdom.

Yuyutsu,

As much as I don’t buy a lot of what you say, no-one can accuse you of not being thoughtful. One point though…

I never said that a claim becomes less accurate because a religious person made it.

In regards to supernatural claims specifically, there are atheists out there who make claims about the healing powers of crystals and other such nonsense. But these people aren’t affiliates of groups that lobby to legislate against the interests of the majority and nor have they acquired themselves a privileged and unearned status in society that gives them an unbalanced ability to enforce their dogmatic beliefs onto the general population. So until they do, I’ll leave them alone.

Saltpetre,

I think you’ve very much missed where I’m coming from.

<<You stated "the less religion plays a role in our societies, the healthier they become?" But, you have it back to front and confirm this in your following "The further we progress, the less of a role religion plays and the more peaceful we become.">>

So are you now just saying that religion was a necessary foundation? The rest of your response to me would suggest otherwise but if so, then why have you dodged my challenge to name a benefit that could not have possibly come about through secular means?

<<…religion, for better or worse laid the groundwork … and now a growing segment of society feels less need for the reassurance of religion - but it is development that has enabled society's relative comfort and complacency…>>

Groundwork for what exactly? And more to my point, why couldn’t this groundwork have possibly been laid by non-religious means?

<<You state, without any real foundation, that a world without religion is both possible and preferable.>>

Not quite.

I only said that “broadly speaking”, the statistics “suggested” that a world without religion would be preferable.

I wasn’t making an absolute statement and if you want to assert that this world would not have been possible without religion, then please tell me what religion has provided that could not have possibly come about another way?

Continued…

…Continued

But since you reject every “foundation” I provided (without any foundation ironically), what do you consider a “real” foundation..?

<<I'm afraid there would be a few billion people who would strenuously disagree.>>

Oh, an argument from numbers. How fallacious. So consistent trends and statistics are not “real” foundations for a point-of-view but strenuous disagreement is?

<<Your predisposition to refer to age-old conflicts…>>

It’s a “predisposition” of mine, is it? Well we could use the decline in intolerance and segregation in Western societies if you’d prefer? I’d be willing to bet that racism and homophobia are at an all-time low in those countries where religion is in rapid decline.

It all helps to support my argument.

I like how you threw in the “age-old” bit too. It makes is sound as though it’s irrelevant despite the fact that being age-old is precisely what makes it relevant to my point.

<<… clutching at hollow straws to support an insupportable criticism of the constructive role religion continues to play in the lives of billions of followers in a multitude of denominations worldwide.>>

I haven’t criticised the “constructive role” religion has played in the lives of billions and nor does such a role necessarily negate what I’ve been saying. I have, however, highlighted the not-so-constructive role of religion to put your rose-coloured view of its role in this world into context.

<<You ply your obvious vindictiveness towards Christianity to encompass all the world's religions in your irreligious zealotry, and it serves you no favour.>>

If you could point to anywhere where I have been unreasonable than I will cop this criticsm on the chin but until you can, you do yourself no favours by using emotive language to attack someone for raising valid questions simply because you don’t like the answers.

Trav,

I’m really not enthusiastic about covering ground we’ve already covered many times before.

I’m sorry if my “joker” comment rubbed you the wrong way, but I had a skim through the PDF and was pretty unimpressed by his inability to understand the arguments of Sam Harris et al.

<<There is strong evidence that the religious give much more to charity than non believers. So what evidence do you have to back up this statement?>>

I don’t doubt that and I even gave some reasons that I know of from experience as to why that is so. What’s your point?

And evidence? I said, “I’d be willing to bet”, for a reason. You’re only asking because it’s something that would be impossible to gather evidence for.

<<This is the evidential weight, the reason I credit religion as a mostly peaceful force is the LACK of violence comparative to what I would expect given the sheer number of believers and their devout belief.>>

Pure speculation that, again, goes against what we observe to be the case.

<<I can quote you studies that show that religious people are happier, healthier and live longer than the non religious. And that they are good for society by spending their time, both professionally and otherwise, in activities that benefit society.>>

I’m sure you can, but it doesn’t change what I’ve said nor the stats that I’ve provided.

Not only can our behaviour as individuals be quite different to our behaviour in groups, but Joe Blow’s devotion to the soup kitchen every Saturday morning doesn’t necessarily stop him voting to discriminate against gays, promoting gun ownership, fighting to have creationism taught in schools and promoting abstinence to his children as a form of contraception, only to forbid his daughter from having an abortion when it fails.

<<But we must remember we are dealing with complex factors here.>>

Exactly, which is why I haven’t offered anything I’ve said as proof that religion is bad for societies, only as a way of countering the claim that we’d be worse off without it.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Regarding your views on evidence for God, a couple of questions: What would convince you of God’s existence?>>

We’ve already been through this twice before.

I don’t have a specific answer for you, sorry. But what I can be quite sure of is that if something like a god - that created all that we see - really did exist, then its greatness would be so overwhelming that belief wouldn’t be required. It wouldn’t manifest in such a way made it appear as though its followers had made it up.

<<…what positive historical evidence would you expect to see [for Jesus’ resurrection]>>

I don’t think such an event could ever leave behind any reliable evidence. Especially since miraculous events, by their very nature, defy our only means of investigating reality; which goes back to my point about god’s poor communication skills:

He sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that we may be saved from himself then disappears, only to talk to people in obscure abstract ways that have other more rational reality-based explanations

It’s completely nuts, Trav, and it’s embarrassing to see otherwise intelligent people like yourself taking this stuff seriously. I look back to my Christian days and want to sink into the floor and I can only hope one day you’ll find out what that’s like.

Dear Trav,

What an excellent question:

"What would convince you of God’s existence?"

For the love of God, Nothing.

Evidence can only be acquired about objects.
All objects are limited.
God is not limited, so God is not an object.
A god that can be shown - is not God!

Evidence could convince me, for example, that the world has a creator; or that Jesus was the son of this creator and that he rose from the dead. Evidence could even convince me that the creator rewards good people and punishes the evil - and I will then say "what a jolly good fellow!"

However, none of that could reveal anything about God.

Any creator is subject to Time - God is not, so if this world was indeed created by some being, then I admit that physically this being would likely be by far stronger, more knowledgeable, more intelligent and more durable than humans. From a material point of view, such a being would be far greater than us, but from a spiritual point of view, this being and us would be equivalent.

AJ,

It is frustrating when you write hard evidence off as “Pure speculation”. This kind of rhetoric may help you win a debate but it doesn’t help thoughtful discussion. You seem fond of evidence, but only when it supports the case you’re making.

When history professors write that less than 7% of wars have been religious wars, I consider this to be relatively few given the billions and billions of people who, throughout history, have been devoutly religious and taken their faith to be the guiding force for their conduct and behavior.

If religion (especially monotheistic religion) is the divisive force that you have claimed it is, then surely we would expect there to have been more religious warring than that!

I detest your implication that one cannot think intelligently about religious faith and that intelligent people must, either consciously or subconsciously turn their brains off whilst considering such matters. That is a claim that I do not see any evidence for.

It’s a similar claim to what OLO user Squeers made recently, and our lengthy discussion concluded with us realizing that we have differing views of what a “thinker” is. Squeers stands by his statement that “The essence of thinking is uncertainty” whilst I claim that his statement is more of an epistemological claim and that thinking itself is an act which is definitely compatible with religious belief (pending evidence/arguments to the contrary which Squeers failed to provide). Do you have any arguments to support your implication here, AJ

AJ,

You ask me: "please tell me what religion has provided that could not have possibly come about another way?"
= The bible, Koran, Talmud, Jesus, Saint Mary McKillop, Israel..
(Now you'll ask - equivalents possible without religion?)
= Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Hitler ..

You state: "I haven’t criticised the “constructive role” religion has played in the lives of billions.."
But then say: "nor does such a role necessarily negate what I’ve been saying." And then: "I have, however, highlighted the not-so-constructive role of religion..."

To Trav, you put: "... which is why I haven’t offered anything I’ve said as proof that religion is bad for societies, only as a way of countering the claim that we’d be worse off without it."

And then: "... name a benefit that could not have possibly come about through secular means?"

But, I have to counter: What proof Do You offer that society WOULD NOT be worse off without religion, any religion - not just Christianity, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Voodoo, The Dreamtime, etc.?

You have a disposition to pose questions in the form of "could/ could not, possibly....? I can only suggest that anyone can pose a question that no-one can possibly answer, but what does that prove? Prove God exists, or prove God does not exist? Prove planet Earth is the only place in the universe where life exists as we know it, or even in any form? Prove life does exist elsewhere in the universe? Prove that evolution on Earth, and without any external influence, including without any input from any external cosmic matter, completely explains the origin of initial life on Earth? Prove that mankind is the only sentient life-form that has ever existed in the universe? Prove that life of some form did not exist on Earth before what we know as "evolution" even began? Prove that aliens did not help design or build the pyramids? TBC..

AJ, Continued:
You ask:
"Prove" that our world today would have been better, or would have been the same, or would have been worse, with/without the part, any part, religion has played (all religion - including heathen or indigenous ...) throughout the entire span of mankind's existence on planet Earth (as Homo Sapiens)? Why not ask someone to "Prove" that "it will be impossible, always impossible, absolutely impossible, for pigs to be able to fly, under their own power, ever."

So, what is the point of asking such questions? Particularly, when the question you are really asking is "prove to me why I am convinced that Christianity has been a terrible and evil force in the development of society through a long period of mankind's history, and therefore does not deserve any place in modern Earth society, and certainly not the privileged position it currently holds"; or "convince me why I am wrong, or even partly wrong, in this conviction"

You need to answer such questions yourself. For they are a matter of personal belief or conviction, and only your own study and insight will give you the clarification you seek.

Haven't criticised? Does not necessarily negate? All I can answer is I am an alien life-form living on a distant planet outside your solar system, and I have hacked into your Earthly Internet, and I'm sorry but I don't understand your question or interest. Would you like me to pass you on to another Intelligence in another time-phase in our outer galaxy, and Which you seem to refer to as God, and Which may be better able to assist you?

a recuring implied/question seems to be
""There is no "test"..for the existence of God...""

any such test would nessesarilly relate to what we chose to believe..or what we chose to disbelieve..as such it is enough for me to declare my certainties

there is life..
because previously life egsisted
[thus must have lived before/after..the big bang]

man
as clever as he claims to be
has not made life..'appear'..from non life...

and if he ever does..AND WE HAVNT..
then it would still be life...lol..from life

gods sure signs are life love logic light..
[choice/ability/will/good]

these arnt god...
but signs he/she.[life*]..egsists..
[thus they..pre-egsisted]

yes man CLAIMS he made life[by making a short string of dna]
inserting 'it'..into a LIVING cell..
and allowing the cell{bacteria]..
to replicate..

but life is more than just living
life is change...[micro change/micro evolution]
because of smakll changes..some of us speculate big changes

[to wit macro evolution..as in a fish becomming a bear..
or lol a wolf a whale...which is what evolutionists
sustain as fact..but is pure fiction]

but even in these are signs of good[god][..to wit logic
immagination..[see nature of itself is just natural..
the un-natural..that takes god]

there is so much more...*signs'..of good [god]
but those ignorant of the only good cause..

*will invent delusions..not knowing
eVEN within their delusions..
their root cause proves god

not by design
but by sign

AJ,

Reading further in your posts, I realise I should have been more understanding in my responses. Sorry for that. On reflection, I think you may be misinterpreting who we ordinary, imperfect Christians are.

I am unable and unqualified to speak knowledgeably, and Otokonoko has provided a worthwhile insight in his/her post on comments page 6 of the thread on the article titled "The Exclusivity of Jesus" by Peter Sellick. Otokonoko's post is worth a look.

It worried me when you posted the following to Trav:
"He sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that we may be saved from himself then disappears,.. "

Our belief is that Jesus sacrificed Himself for us, being for the world - to relieve us of sin, and to offer us a new and clean beginning. It is a misconstruction to believe that He died just to highlight His existence or His message and His teachings.

Though the church sets a high bar, and sometimes unrealistically so, we ordinary Christians are not homophobic or against abortion, and I don't think the church really expects otherwise, and to my knowledge the church has never been racist.

The church is imperfect, and some of its highest followers have proven to be very imperfect. That is indeed very unfortunate and very hurtful, to all, as it is a betrayal of trust, to all. Everyone is capable of failure and error, everyone of any faith or of non-faith.

I certainly consider everyone to be virtuous of nature, unless they should prove to me to be otherwise. I can only hope that this would be the general Christian view, as the church expects of us.

Trav,

Sorry I frustrated you but after trying to figure out how Saltpetre got to some of his/her conclusions, I was too mentally drained to put much thought and effort into my response to you.

<<It is frustrating when you write hard evidence off as “Pure speculation” … You seem fond of evidence, but only when it supports the case you’re making.>>

No, I’m fond of evidence when it is as objective as possible. The advantage of being a freethinking atheist is that I don’t need to interpret evidence in a way that fits my presuppositions. If I’m wrong, then so be it.

Anyway, speaking of the objectivity of evidence, let’s take a closer look at what you said…

<<This is the evidential weight, the reason I credit religion as a mostly peaceful force is the LACK of violence comparative to what I would expect given the sheer number of believers and their devout belief.>>

What YOU would expect? It doesn’t matter what you would expect sorry, Trav. Opinions don’t form evidence; evidence forms opinions.

Which brings us to this…

<<When history professors write that less than 7% of wars have been religious wars, I consider this to be relatively few given the billions and billions of people who, throughout history, have been devoutly religious and taken their faith to be the guiding force for their conduct and behavior.>>

YOU consider it to be relatively few? Again it doesn’t matter what any of us would consider it to be.

That aside though, with such Swiss-cheese-model style criteria for what constitutes a religious war, we can be confident that that’s 7% of the wars throughout history that would NOT have happened had we not had religion (and I think I’ve adequately demonstrated that there is no reason to think there would have been more without religion).

The premise of your “evidence” also relies on the assumption that devout religiosity should necessarily lead to a desire for war. War isn’t in the nature of everyone and there are many other ways we can be divisive even when our intentions are good.

Continued…

…Continued

I don’t see why you think one must always lead to the other. You go from, “Only 7% of wars are religious”, to, “It should be more”, then conclude, “So religion is the reason there aren’t more.”

That’s some impressive mental gymnastics there, Trav!

You start with an objective 7% statistic and then built assumption upon assumption on it. I’m sorry, but as well as being objective, evidence can’t contain assumptions. Like with arguments, assumptions can be built on evidence, but it's never the other way around.

Did you ever stop to think that there could be non-religious factors lowering the number of wars? No-one - no matter how devoutly religious - thinks 100% along the lines of their religion in absolutely every aspect of their lives.

But in spite of all I’ve said in the above - even if I was to grant that your evidence was reliable - it hardly constitutes “hard evidence”.

<<I detest your implication that one cannot think intelligently about religious faith and that intelligent people must, either consciously or subconsciously turn their brains off whilst considering such matters.>>

It’s not so much that they switch their brains off. There are many Christian thinkers, but all the thinking in the world is of little use if you start with a premise that you simply cannot, under any circumstances, deviate from. This is why their thinking usually results in pure sophistry.

<<Do you have any arguments to support your implication here, AJ>>

Yes, I do. Three of them, in fact:

The Kalam Cosmological Argument;
The Ontological Argument;
The Argument from Transcendence.

All of which fall down at their premises and even if the last two didn’t, they can be applied to any mythical being and still work just the same.

Saltpetre,

Sorry, I thought I made it clear enough the first time I asked that I was specifically referring to a benefit, not just anything.

I’m not sure what Hitler has to do with anything, in fact, Hitler probably wouldn’t have been possible without the help of the Roman Catholic Church.

Continued…

…Continued

But if you’re trying to go down the “Hitler was an atheist” path, then don’t bother. We’ll never really know for sure and most of the evidence says he was a Christian. It’s convenient that the Catholic Church is quite happy to consider atheists who, out of habit, check “Catholic” on their census forms when boasting of their numbers, yet they disown Hitler even though he never renounced his faith.

<<But, I have to counter: What proof Do You offer that society WOULD NOT be worse off without religion, any religion - not just Christianity, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Voodoo, The Dreamtime, etc.?>>

You’re kidding, right?

I’ve already given evidence that suggests that would be the case (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=49348) despite the fact that it is you who bears the burden of proof since you are the one making the positive claim. Providing no evidence as to why the world would be worse off without religion and then turning it around on me and saying, “Well you can’t prove it wouldn’t be”, is fallacious.

<<You have a disposition to pose questions in the form of "could/ could not, possibly....?>>

You’ll find most of my questions containing those words are rhetorical questions posed to make people think.

Anyway, thanks for that last conciliatory post. I remember saying much of it myself but they’re just words, I’m afraid.

I was a devout Christian for over half my life. I read and studied the Bible religiously and even had my own pocket Bible I carried around with me. I came from a very middle-of-the-road church and knew/know a lot of Christians and your claims about their progressiveness run completely contrary to most of my experience. My description of the resurrection may have been crude but it was still accurate. You also need to take into account that “evidence” was the topic at the time.

The difference now is not that I’m smarter necessarily; it’s that I’ve gained more information and I now care about whether or not my beliefs are true. I am no longer willing to believe something simply because it feels good.

"He sacrifices himself to himself to appease himself so that we may be saved from himself then disappears, only to talk to people in obscure abstract ways that have other more rational reality-based explanations."

To begin to understand what God was doing here one needs to check out Genesis again. God created everything GOOD. Mankind (With Free Will) Fell short of God.(disobeyed) -Called The FALL. The punishment from God for this FALL was death (including spiritual death, which is separation from God.
Jesus didn't die to save himself from God ( HE WAS/IS GOD), He dies to SAVE US from eternal death (the sacrifice/blood of Jesus is the sacrifice required by God for us. Believe it or not.
God is a loving God and a God of justice.- Death for disobedience at the FALL and Life, now, and for eternity, for obedience to God. This is the message of the Bible.
The Bible is summarized in John 3:16.
This message is communicated by God in the bible, we have not been left with no guidance from God. His Holy Spirit is also our guide and comforter.
God says, "Be still and know that I am God."

when aj turned away from xtians..[who's works clearly wernt 'good'/for him]thats only being fair

but to then reject..god..is to miss
seeing the tree for the forrest

lets walk through pipers forrest....QUOTE

""To begin to understand
what God was doing here one needs to check out Genesis again.""

what god 'did' here was build the world
make creatures after their own kind
suitable to their own nature

pigs that love being dirty love being pigs
and those who reject the way of the beast
may earn the right to be men

here we are at our highest evolution
to devolve from here..is to seek to
return to the nature of the beast

[is what we are seeing in xtians doinf muder
or telling the wrong..[see further quotes]..
about the only true good[god]

""God created everything GOOD.""
no re called it good...
[ie I SEE NO SIN..
in you]

""Mankind (With Free Will) Fell short of God.(disobeyed)""

god did not seek his greation to BLINDLY OBEY
[its the churches/creeds who DE-man/d this..LIE

""-Called The FALL.""
GOD DID NOT RISE US UP
to make us fall...[here we see a clear judgment
of the inperfect..FAULSLY..upon the only perfect

""The punishment from God for this FALL was death""

jesus came here to CONQUER death..!
[read your own words..]

god don t pun-ish
he gave/gives us life
then eternal life herafter

that AFTER life
jesus proved to be fact
by comming back and revealing it
[thus refuted judgment day..as well as the lie of reserction day

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO SERVE GODS GOOD
stop lying about what/who he is
emmanuel...GOD/with/in/us[all]

ahhhh
men

recall the new test-i-meant itself says
ye shall call him emmanuel
WHY CALL IT JESUS

what is in jesus
IS WITHIN us all
every mortal life..has within it eternal life[god]

"":(including spiritual death,
which is separation from God.""

where life is GOD IS
we may ignore him..BUT he WONT ignore us

HE SUSTAINS even the most vile life..
EVEN THOSE MOST VILE..he sustains them, TOO their life
how can any think he judges himself?

lets egsamin the thinking
""Jesus didn't die to save himself from God""

RIGHT

''JESUS didnt die"
but then the lie

""(HE WAS/IS GOD),""

NO
he has god[life]..with-in
like we all do

recall his words
that ye see me do
YE will do greatwer
[greater than god?]...lol

jesus born of woman..is man
jesus is a man..who listens to gods good voice within

""He dies to SAVE US from eternal death""

HE DIDNT DIE
there IS NO ETERNAL DEATH
we can fake it..but in the end good[god within]..wins

""(the sacrifice/blood of Jesus
is the sacrifice required by God for us.""

how is the life giving good...SUSTYAINING all life
served by any...'death'?

""Believe it or not.
God is a loving/living/logical/good God
and a God of justice/mercy/grace/work's/conscience/morality..""

""Death for disobedience at the FALL""
god seek's no obediance
CHURCH DOES

besides the fall
is the CURRENT STATE OF XTIAN creed
wakeup..WE ARE ALL UNDER GODS GRACES
for ever/eternally..assured us internally[god within]

""obedience to God.""
church/xtians demand obediance...lol
NOT GOD..his laws..are not muder/love neighbour

GET IT?

""This is the mess-age of the Bible.""
yes and words meanings change
xtians love having a gay old time..

xtians love the gay rituals

""The Bible is summarized in John 3:16""...

the new law is love god by loving neighbour
but lets read 1 john 3.16

'this is how we know what love is''..
[ie all that was before these words]
i suggest both read it
read 3;15
3;14
3;13

recall the first shall be THE LAST>>>!
meaning the ignorant 'get it'..before his own does...!

""This message is communicated by God in the bible""

unless gods name is john the first
yiou even got that wrong..[my beloved brother]

RECALL..the ciggie packets mess-age
with the eye..HELD OPEN,with metal hooks?

you dont se the eye of horus?
you dont see the weye of 'big brother'
RECALL THE TEACHING..of taking the plank..FROM THYNE own eyes..!

""we have not been left with no guidance from God.""
thabnks be to the teacher
the christs teching
who by being of man..was only huh?man

*like we all are
that we saw him DO
we shall do greater

greater than god?
[sustaining EVERY living 'being'...?

""His Holy Spirit is also our guide and comforter.""

yes that still inner voice of concience WITHIN us all
even withinj the beasts...[se how even they LOVE their own?]
gods nature IS nurture...!

john inner voice,..says
.."God says, "Be still
and know that I am God."

just as you are sustained to live
BY GODS GOOD WILL ALONE..

know you are god too..!
so too the buddist..so too the jew
so too the arab/the commie and the slant eye too

all of us are having god within
so that ye do the the least
you did to the most

Xtians, Xmas, Look who has been crossed out (X)-- CHRIST.

Think about this:
No matter how much one prays, does good, even goes to church 10 times a day, if Jesus Christ is not Lord and Saviour in ones life then they will not go to heaven-have eternal life.
After all, if they don't want to know Jesus here in this life, then why would they want to spend eternity with Him?

*if Jesus Christ is not Lord and Saviour in ones life then they will not go to heaven-have eternal life.*

That's what they sell people, to suck them into religion. Fact is,
you'll die just the same as the rest of us, turning into good old
worm food. We can prove that. All the rest is basically snake
oil. But believe what you will, if it makes you feel better.

my dear piper
wether we write xtian
or christ-ian...means specific things

if your a christ..doing the things christ does
then maybe you have EARNED an honourable title..as a christ

but really..if its opnly that he got hung out to die..on a 'x'
that he died so they can sin..so they can kill/make war

[NOT DO..WHAT CHRIST DID..then the best i can give them is an 'x'
because they got no idea..of the love/works..it takes
to earn the honourum 'christ'

if xtians diod as christ does
then with one billion christs there COULD be no war
could not be mass slaughter of americans[50 million]..by abortionists

if xtians were christ-ians
none could say....quote

""..That's what they sell people,
to suck them into religion.""

cause thats all they got
i dont need to think..dont ned to do good works
cause god died for us...[lol]..as if god could..DIE...!

but let continue the quote..""Fact is,
you'll die just the same as the rest of us,""

and if your not doing good works
ie like the servant...who only gave back..WHAT HE GOT...!
ie didnt multiply 10 fold..or double HIS own..*SAVING
what good in saving the retch anyhow?


they are right..about ALL OF US turnibng..into,,""worm food.
We can prove that.""

just as we can prove christ[a man]

died YET WERNT DEAD...
he lives on..like we all live on
thus even those who gave nothing..get more of the same

""All the rest is basically snake/oil.""

see how by being..just..a little wrong
we allow greater wrongs

THEY KNOW...that xtians only honour good/god with their lips
thus jesus said...by their work*s will ye know THEM
ie the CHRIST-ians...from the xtians..!

by wrong works
by wrong egsample
those REJECTING not only xtians AS WELL as christians
as well as god..[god DAMMMS no-one..!..god LOVES all*]

we are asked to be a good sheppard
and we let the wolf eat the children..in wars
murder the unborn..cast blame and reap shame

how right they are in saying the obvious truth

AJ,

There is a problem that permeates all response. EVERYONE has presuppositions! It is very, very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to interpret evidence without letting your presuppositions get in the way!

Since I’m exceedingly sceptical of anyone’s ability to truly think freely, I would advise you to avoid jumping on your high horse and claiming that you can complete this near-impossible task, and instead demonstrate your ability to do so through your writings.

You claim that I am indulging in “mental gymnastics” by building assumptions on top of assumptions. But really, all you’ve done is bang on about the objectivity of evidence and the worthlessness of opinions (whilst giving your own opinions to counter mine!) but obviously that will get us nowhere.

Now,lets get to the root of my “assumption”. Earlier you made the claim that monotheistic religion is a divisive force (an opinion). Now, we know that Christianity and Islam are the world’s two biggest religions and have both grown exponentially since their beginnings- Christianity in the first century and Islam around 600 years later. Their followers total 3.6 billion people (including many nominal followers, of course).

Now, given half the world follows one of these two religions, and given the assumption (your opinion) that they are both divisive forces, would we or would we not expect to see more than 7% of wars fought in the name of religion? I say yes, of course we would!

Half the world is either Christian or Muslim, and lets say a quarter of the world does more than just throw it on their census form. So a quarter of the world aligns themselves and their identity with Christianity or Islam, and looks to these for guidance in life and conduct. Now if they really were such divisive forces, why are only 7% of wars religious wars? Why wouldn’t we expect more? Billions of followers basing their lives on divisive teachings, and yet 7% of wars are fought in the name of these divisive belief systems? Something seems wrong here.

(cont’d)

You’ve suggested that no one “thinks 100% along the lines of their religion in absolutely every aspect of their lives”.

This is weak for two reasons:

1. It is objectively wrong- there ARE plenty of people who try to think of their religion with virtually every aspect of their lives.

2. The phrasing you’ve used is actually misleading because it shows a misunderstanding of the way people function. A person’s worldview and life experiences can impact their overall view of life and their understanding of everything, so that EVEN WHEN they aren’t directly thinking “What does my religion say about this aspect of my life” their worldview is still impacting upon them by shaping the lens by which they view the world.

Religions deal with fundamental questions and thus they impact how people see things at a basic level. So if billions upon billions are seeing their world through the “divisive” lens of monotheistic religion, then it would make sense that that divisive lens would assist them in violence.

Yet, it’s atheist countries who have the biggest militaries, and it’s atheist leaders who committed most of the worst crimes of the 20th century, and only 7% of wars have been categorised as religious wars. Which makes your claim that religion is divisive, and the claim that the world might be more peaceful without it, seem silly.

Changing topics, I asked for arguments or evidence to support your implication” that one cannot think intelligently about religious faith and that intelligent people must, either consciously or subconsciously turn their brains off whilst considering such matters”. All of those three specific arguments for God could fail miserably (as you believe they do) and that would still be rather irrelevant to the general question I posed.

(cont’d)

Just on Hitler, you say “Hitler never renounced his faith”.

Here are some quotes from Hitler from the book Hitler’s Table Talk.

“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure”

“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....”

“Christianity is an invention of sick brains”

“Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>."

So, Hitler might not have renounced Christianity, but maybe that’s because he never actually believed it and instead used it for his purposes!

Pericles,

[That's is a superbly silly and pointless question.]

No, it isn't.

Surely, considering that you are an enlightened homo sapien at the top of the animal kingdom, your powers of imagination are sufficient to provide a hypothetical scenario whereby you could come to believe in some kind of higher power.

To my way of thinking, this could quite possibly be the most integral question in discussions about God. Why? Because it seems to me that the atheists I observe claim that there is no evidence for God yet they are rarely willing to thoughtfully consider what kinds of evidence we would expect to see if God did exist. Atheists claim to see an absence of evidence for God and they claim this is evidence of the absence of God, but they miss something major! The absence of evidence for any given thing is only evidence of absence if we would expect to see that evidence in the case that the given thing existed! Otherwise, how can it be evidence of absence?

[ Assuming that "rising from the dead" was as unusual an occurrence back then as it is today, it is pretty amazing to find that no-one actually noticed.]

Plenty of people noticed, that's why the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8 that he "received" the message that Jesus rose again. And he goes on to list witnesses to the event.

Corinthians was written around 20 years after Jesus, and an analysis of the language used in the text, combined with other historical knowledge of Paul strongly suggests he "received" this message within a few years after the resurrection.

In other words, people noticed and they were proclaiming the Christian message pretty much straight after it happened. The fact that something strange happened is rarely even disputed by professional historians, the question then just becomes a more philosophical one: WHAT happened? My view is that the evidence is highly compatible with a resurrection and difficult to explain with other explanations.

I'd probably rephrase this a little, Trav, although I know what you mean.

>>Surely, considering that you are an enlightened homo sapien at the top of the animal kingdom, your powers of imagination are sufficient to provide a hypothetical scenario whereby you could come to believe in some kind of higher power.<<

Can I imagine a scenario where other people come to believe in some kind of higher power?

Indeed I can. I can imagine that belief in a God is a great comfort to people who fear the unknown - in particular, the unknowns "how did we get here" and "why are we here"?

Can I imagine a scenario whereby I could come to believe the same thing? Not really. I am quite content to accept that not everything will become clear in my lifetime. Nevertheless, I take great delight in each new discovery that humankind makes about the cosmos.

>>that's why the Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8 that he "received" the message that Jesus rose again. And he goes on to list witnesses to the event.<<

Unfortunately for this theory, he actually lists himself as one of those:

"...he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also"

We know for a fact (he says so himself) that Paul never met Jesus. Yet here he is, saying that he did, along with 514 others.

>>My view is that the evidence is highly compatible with a resurrection and difficult to explain with other explanations.<<

Sure. That is pretty much what defines you as a Christian. But your opinion differs from mine. You find it difficult, whereas I find it quite easy to explain the whole miracle-and-resurrection thing, as allegory.

After all, if you were founding a new religion, you'd need something pretty special to kick-start it, wouldn't you?

OUG- The worms will get my body but my spirit is with God (The Almighty God) and I have the assurance of the Holy Spirit and the word of God (the Bible).
Guess what, God promises to provide me with a new body just like His when He returns. I trust in His promises...contained in His word and He doesn't change His mind.
He does love me and He does love every person He has created but do they accept Him, do they accept His gift...the gift of His Son??

I wonder if all atheists have a Holiday (meaning- HOLY DAY) at Christmas and Easter (the Birth of Jesus and the Death and Resurrection of Jesus). Our country is based on a Christian heritage.

Jesus 12 disciples saw Jesus after He rose, naturally they took awhile to comprehend
because they thought He was going to be an earthly king. On the road to Emmaus two of the disciples didn't even recognise Jesus untilHe broke bread and drank wine with them as He had done at the last supper.
After the resurrection Jesus spent 40 days alive on earth and met about 500 people so 500 = the 12 disciples would have spread gospel message and the message is spreading around the world as fast as ever.
The New Testament contains books written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John(The Gospels) James, Peter and Timothy also wrote books which are also in the New Testament. And a Roman named Saul killed Christians then met (saw) the resurrected Jesus and became a changed man renamed Paul has written quite a few if the Letters in the New Testament. He wrote letters encouraging new believers in Rome, Corinth, Phillippi, Galatia, Epheasis. He also wrote Revelations.
These men walked and talked with Jesus..that's good enough for me. That is absolutely awesome for me.

Trav,

I don’t see much point in continuing further here. While there are points I don’t make as clear as I could due to word limits, some of your posts addressed to me contain responses to things I didn’t even say or meanings that weren’t even there.

<<There is a problem that permeates all response. EVERYONE has presuppositions!>>

You’re right. Why do we even bother forming opinions or believing anything if we’re so inextricably bound by our presuppositions? None of it’s reliable anyway.

Seriously though...

<<It is very, very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to interpret evidence without letting your presuppositions get in the way!>>

Impossible? You really have a habit of overstating things, don’t you, Trav? Like your “hard evidence”.

If that’s the case then why don’t I believe in a god anymore? According to your logic here we can’t have much confidence at all in the court system. Like with you logic in regards to our ability to reason, there’s little use in us ever trying.

<<I would advise you to avoid jumping on your high horse and claiming that you can complete this near-impossible task, and instead demonstrate your ability to do so through your writings.>>

And how haven’t I done that? In fact, considering no-one has yet shown why any of my arguments are wrong, what opportunity have I even been given to do that?

<<You claim that I am indulging in “mental gymnastics” by building assumptions on top of assumptions.>>

Example #1 of a response to something I didn’t say.

It’s not the act of building assumption upon assumption that made what you said “mental gymnastics”. It’s the disjointed logical process you went through to arrive at your conclusion.

<<But really, all you’ve done is bang on about the objectivity of evidence and the worthlessness of opinions (whilst giving your own opinions to counter mine!) but obviously that will get us nowhere.>>

Example #2 of a response to something I didn’t say.

I said that opinions don’t constitute evidence, they’re formed on it. But yes, they’re worthless as evidence because opinions can be wrong.

Continued...

...Continued

I like how you used the term “bang on” as if what I said was irrelevant to the discussion, though. It provided an intriguing insight into your attitude to anything that doesn’t support your arguments.

<<Earlier you made the claim that monotheistic religion is a divisive force (an opinion).>>

Yes, an opinion! When did I ever claim it was evidence for anything? I’m really wasting my time here, aren’t I?

<<...given half the world follows [Christianity/Islam], and given the assumption (your opinion) that they are both divisive forces, would we or would we not expect to see more than 7% of wars fought in the name of religion? I say yes, of course we would!>>

Yes and you saying, “Of course we would”, is not evidence. It’s an opinion. Yet you presented it as evidence and hence my “banging on”...

“This is the evidential weight, the reason I credit religion as a mostly peaceful force is the LACK of violence comparative to what I would expect given the sheer number of believers and their devout belief.” - Trav

Besides which, I said the Abrahamic religions are ”inherently divisive” (John 14:6, as just one example.), as in divisiveness is a characteristic of them. That doesn’t mean that that divisiveness is necessarily going to show through in every believer nor does it mean that it’s going to show to the same extent. There are external factors that come in to play when people decide how they’ll interpret and cherry-pick the teachings of their religion (hence my poorly-worded point about people not following their religion 100%).

But that doesn’t mean we let religion off the hook and lay the blame on human nature alone as you attempted to do. My point about taking one less motivation out of the equation still stands there.

<<Billions of followers basing their lives on divisive teachings, and yet 7% of wars are fought in the name of these divisive belief systems? Something seems wrong here.>>

Yes and I suspect it’s your 2-dimensional way of thinking. Your intuition isn’t evidence either, by the way.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Yet, it’s atheist countries who have the biggest militaries, and it’s atheist leaders who committed most of the worst crimes of the 20th century...>>

HA! I was wondering how long it would take you to pull this one.

For this to mean anything, you’d have to point to something within atheism that supported what they did, or at the very least, demonstrate how taking up a religious belief would have stopped the communists doing what they did, which - considering the stats I’ve provided - would really be pushing [censored] up hill.

But until you do, though, all you prove by pointing this out is that political ideologies can be just as divisive as religion.

<<All of those three specific arguments for God could fail miserably (as you believe they do)...>>

No, as I “know” they do and I’ve already explained to you once before why that is.

<<...and that would still be rather irrelevant to the general question I posed.>>

Oh they’re very relevant because they are some of the main “proofs” used for the existence of god, they were derived by Christian thinkers, they are modified by Christian thinkers and are often presented by Christian thinkers.

But like I said, all the thinking in the world is of little use if you start with a presupposition that you do not permit yourself to deviate from in any way whatsoever.

In regards to Hitler, not much of what you said was new to me and although we’ll never really know for sure, I’m quite comfortable with the idea of him being an atheist because, like with Communism, there’s nothing within atheism to support what he did and there’s nothing to say that a religious belief would have done anything to stop someone who was clearly mad to begin with anyway. So playing that as a trump card only makes theists look stupid and desperate.

So there you have it, Trav. All this time we’ve spent and so far you’ve still failed to make the slightest bit of headway.

How much longer are we going to keep doing this?

AJ Phillips

I always read your posts, I don't have the patience to sift through the "if the bible says it - it's true" style that many (fortunately not all) religious use as debate.

I also tire at the aspersions cast on people (any non-Christian including atheists). I know people both Christian and not who are inspiring, thoughtful and compassionate - I would posit that my Christian friends would have these qualities irrespective of their religion.

You have the patience of a saint.
P)

Trav

Rhetorical question: Have you ever considered that casting aspersions on people who do not share your beliefs and have the temerity to disagree with you, is in itself; a divisive act, lacking in charity and it is behaviour like this, throughout world history, has lead to war?

The control of belief = power.

I am not going to respond to you I would simply ask that you consider what I have posited.

i agree *its awsome..also re holy days

we both love and admire jesus[who lives even now]
and read his teachings many times with passion

but see how things have kept on moving along
now we have newer answers..than ones they knew 2000 years ago

to explain..quote..""The worms/get my body
but my spirit..is with God..""

appart from the reality gods spirit more importantly
is constantly 'with-us' we agree

""I have the assurance of the Holy Spirit""
who's inner voice wispers constantly to all of us
but lets just say we are aware of his loving guidance

differnt from ""and the word of God..(the Bible).""
men...like us wrote the words
by listening to their inner god

often though men can make error
god ALONE is perfect..[al-one]

'"God promises to provide me
with a new body""

yes a spiritual body of light
once we wearout the astral soul and physical bodies
on our way to his perfection...

[a journey not limited alone only to 'believers'..
[i..[and saul/paul]..for egsample were long dissbeliever's..
..till we saw the light/love/logic...via this mortal life]

""just like His when He returns.""
he has returned
to prove even a thief on a cross
'will be in heaven..this day'
as we all in time shall

""I trust in His promises""
me too

""...contained in His word""
words often try to use words..as s/words..[swords]
s/words are thus sacred..sacred/words..s/words

but as works rate higher
the mover of the pen*
is mightier than the sword
by reading the hily of the whole word
we can eat of the promise of his fruits

""and He doesn't change His mind."

he as in god
not he as in the holy christ

think of the holy trinity being you god and jesus
even though jesus revealed its a duet..[u and god]

GOD/good..*""He does love me
and He does love *every person""

and because he[good/god]
DOES love EVERY per-son
we must try TOO..to love EVERY person

""He has created""

yes AHHHmen

post/limits...lol
more later*

""but do they accept Him,
do they accept His gift...the gift of His Son??""

sadly no many refuse to..

but thats really the fault of overzealiousness
going beyong what the truth [good] of god]..reveals

just the facts themselves are ammasing
and simply by loving anything
of gods creations..

is good enough for god
who knows*..in time we all..''get it'..

hear the truth from the mouth of babes

""But believe what you will,
if it makes you feel better.""

because god is about love
not hate

about mercy
not shame

about grace
not blame

about truth/good..the light
so the blind dont lead the blind astray..in their darkness

jesus loved EVEN the sinner
who lives..by gods good-will ALONE*..

as much as he did
as much as we do

none before god
because he puts none..before any of us

but lets look at your..'words'

""Think about this:
No matter how much one prays,
does good,even goes to church 10 times a day,

if Jesus Christ/is not Lord and Saviour..in ones"..PHYSICAL?MORTAL>>"life..then they?..will not go to heaven-
/-have eternal life.""

ya think i want to go..*to a place
..where lies are made true?

if this type..is in heaven
to give-me hell

realise what lord..*means
what saviour..*means

your 'saved'...lol
from what...god is love..!

who wants to be 'saved'..from love?

""After all,if they don't..want to know Jesus here""

jesus is where good/love..grace mercy etc..*are..!

not with name calling
or only with the clever..in their own eyes

..you say know jesus...""in this life,""

well if you dont know..the true christ[love works]
if you arnt doing..the same things christ did
how well..do you know him..the *all loving?

what means grace
that has lost its taste..ie..[not grace]

if dont know christ
""then why would they want to..spend eternity..with Him?""

if christ
is anything like..his x'tians
who would want to..be?

anyhow

i love you brother
[both of you]

equal/as i love god
equal/as i love our christ
who told us..*we save ourselves..

{works not words]

love..is all we need
go the works..!

but if its..*not love
its..*not of christ
nor good/god.

aj/quote..""a habit of overstating things,
Like your “hard evidence”.

If that’s the case
then why don’t I believe in a god anymore?""

clearly like most you have rejected those
[NOT*]..'acting' as jesus did

[but that would be unfair to assume
now about you say it 'one more time"?

""According to your logic here
we can’t have much confidence at all in the court system.""

i dont trust the court system either
they make you swear truth on a bible
yet then the police lie...!

and because they backup each others lies
the courts are a farce...[lawyers judging the words of other lawyers..!

laws made by lawyers
passed intio law by other..'elected'.govt members
60% of whome actually practiced law...before making 'law'

statute law..isnt the same as criminal law
TRUE law needs an injured party...

under statuted law..we make criminal
that not truelly criminal...[courts are a blind joke]..

the bible has much to rebuke poor lawyers for..[woe]

""Like with you
logic in regards to our ability to reason,
there’s little use in us ever trying.""

thats the athiestic spirit
lie down and die...cause man made law
and thus you think man made god...[its a clever blind shuffle]
gods law casts no stones..[or it aint..[*gods law']

""...indulging in “mental gymnastics”
by building assumptions on top of assumptions.>>

Example #1 of a response to something I didn’t say.""

you dont need to say something
to be doing it

""It’s not the act of building assumption upon assumption
that made...*what you said “mental gymnastics”...

It’s the disjointed logical process
you went through to arrive at your conclusion.""

i think we all pretty much do the same due dilligence
but then make the misstake of judging others..by yet others

to wit judging god
by those who dont got a clue..that he is all love
all life....
all logic..
of the all..in all..

the most..treated..even by those
who claim him...as their own...yet
..who by their works prove they are in-deed..
far from his true/good/living/loving;essence..GO0d

dare i say
his true spirit

life/love/laughter
logic/licence/light

AJ,

It seems we always do this! We always claim that the other person is misinterpreting us and we always fail to reach mutual understanding. This disappoints me.

I said previously and I still strongly believe that the internet is a poor medium for this type of discussion, but nonetheless I try my best. I’ve had plenty of discussions with other users- Pericles and Squeers in the last fortnight. Discussions that haven’t resorted to this. I’m not sure what the problem is, perhaps the simplest explanation is that our styles clash in some way. But if you want to end the discussion here, go for it.

[Like with you logic in regards to our ability to reason, there’s little use in us ever trying].

No.

We can and definitely should try to reason. But we must always remember reason’s limitations and also the factors which limit our ability to objectively apply it, and if we fail to do so this will result in an overstated and naive level of certainty in our conclusions.

[I like how you used the term “bang on” as if what I said was irrelevant to the discussion, though. It provided an intriguing insight into your attitude to anything that doesn’t support your arguments.]

Yes. It was irrelevant to the extent that it distracted us from the real point of discussion, ie: The issue at hand.

[Yes and you saying, “Of course we would”, is not evidence. It’s an opinion. Yet you presented it as evidence and hence my “banging on”...

“This is the evidential weight, the reason I credit religion as a mostly peaceful force is the LACK of violence comparative to what I would expect given the sheer number of believers and their devout belief.” – Trav]

Let me clarify- The “evidence” is the figure of 6.98% of wars being categorised by expert historians in an encyclopaedia as religious wars. My expectation is my opinion- it is my interpretation of the evidence. And I haven’t yet seen any good reason from anyone as to why I should take on any other interpretation.

(cont’d)

[There are external factors that come in to play when people decide how they’ll interpret and cherry-pick the teachings of their religion (hence my poorly-worded point about people not following their religion 100%).]

Yes if that was your point then you did word poorly, but fair enough. I agree with you that there are external factors and that people cherry pick. Nonetheless this doesn’t really undercut my point that believers still, generally speaking, look to their religion for their guide on life and conduct and their religion will impact strongly on their worldview and lens for looking at life.

[But that doesn’t mean we let religion off the hook and lay the blame on human nature alone as you attempted to do.]

Well human nature is the one common denominator here. It’s the only primary cause because it stands on its own in terms of the importance of its contribution, and that level of importance can be identified in EVERY single case of war.

[ My point about taking one less motivation out of the equation still stands there.]

Yes, and your point is still just as unpersuasive as the first time you made it, due to the counter arguments I’ve made.

(cont’d

[Oh they’re very relevant because they are some of the main “proofs” used for the existence of god, they were derived by Christian thinkers, they are modified by Christian thinkers and are often presented by Christian thinkers]

Those types of arguments are inherently very subjective, because we’re talking about philosophical concepts like causation and contingency which are very much abstract and difficult to define, and so it’s difficult for anyone on either side of the debate to prove anything with a great degree of certainty.

But nonetheless as I already noted the failure or otherwise of any individual arguments for God’s existence still fail to provide support for your implication that one can’t be a believer and think intelligently about religious faith.

[But like I said, all the thinking in the world is of little use if you start with a presupposition that you do not permit yourself to deviate from in any way whatsoever.]

I agree. Same goes for you

Pericles,

[Can I imagine a scenario whereby I could come to believe the same thing? Not really. I am quite content to accept that not everything will become clear in my lifetime.]

Pericles, I applaud your honesty here for admitting that you have no idea in what sort of scenario you would believe in God.

Re: Your 2nd sentence, would you say that your belief includes a strong element of faith? ie: You have faith in your worldview, even though “not everything will become clear”?

[We know for a fact (he says so himself) that Paul never met Jesus. Yet here he is, saying that he did, along with 514 others.]

Do you think that including the rest of verse 8 (which you left out) might help us interpret this verse more accurately?

[Sure. That is pretty much what defines you as a Christian. But your opinion differs from mine. ]

Having the right opinion about evidence isn’t what defines a Christian. Plenty of Christians wouldn’t know the first thing about what evidence there is or isn’t for the resurrection. Anyway, back to your main point:

[You find it difficult, whereas I find it quite easy to explain the whole miracle-and-resurrection thing, as allegory.]

Go for it. I’d be interested to hear your explanation

Ammonite,

I’m truly humbled by your kind words. Thanks. My patience for OLO debating has been fading in recent days but comments like yours give me energy to fight another day.

----

Oh no, no, no, Trav, You don’t get to do that...

<<It seems we always do this! We always claim that the other person is misinterpreting us and we always fail to reach mutual understanding.>>

You don’t get to play the whole, “Look, I don’t think we’re understanding each other here”, card when you realise you’ve goofed, refuse to explain what it is that I’m allegedly not understanding out of an apparent respect for my time, only to later pull meanings out of what I’ve said that clearly weren’t there and then, when I correct you, ask why are we’re always doing this to each other.

And “claim”? My allegations progressed past the point of “claim”, sorry.

<<I’ve had plenty of discussions with other users... Discussions that haven’t resorted to this.>>

“Resorted”? I have not yet had to resort to anything.

<<We can and definitely should try to reason. But we must always remember reason’s limitations and also the factors which limit our ability to objectively apply it...>>

You say that like I had, at some point, forgotten it.

Limitations are one thing, but in your usual style, you overstated your point and implied that we had virtually no control over our biases clouding our ability to reason objectively, in which case, there really would be little point in trying at all.

<<Yes. [Discussing the requirement for evidence to be objective] was irrelevant to the extent that it distracted us from the real point of discussion, ie: The issue at hand.>>

When it affects the validity of your arguments regarding the “issue at hand”, it’s entirely relevant.

<<The “evidence” is the figure of 6.98% of wars being categorised by expert historians in an encyclopaedia as religious wars. My expectation is my opinion- it is my interpretation of the evidence.>>

Nice try.

The 6.98% figure, by itself, is not evidence for or against anything much at all.

Continued...

...Continued

For it to count as evidence for something you would need to gauge it alongside a control mechanism and you used your opinion of what you personally would expect to see as that control mechanism.

Are you getting any closer to understanding the fatal flaw in your argument now?

<<Yes, and your point is still just as unpersuasive as the first time you made it, due to the counter arguments I’ve made.>>

You mean the ones that have all fallen down?

<<But nonetheless as I already noted the failure or otherwise of any individual arguments for God’s existence still fail to provide support for your implication that one can’t be a believer and think intelligently about religious faith.>>

My main contention was not so much that it’s impossible for a believer to think intelligently about religious faith but that all the thinking in the world is of little use if one starts with a presupposition that they do not allow themselves to deviate from. The failed arguments for the existence of god were provided as examples of what results from this rigidity in thinking.

<<I agree. Same goes for you>>

No, the same does not go for me because I have not adopted, fallen in love and built my entire life around a dogmatic belief system that compels me to cling to it at all costs. That’s the advantage of being a freethinker - I can alter my presuppositions if the evidence dictates.

But we’ve already been through this in a previous discussion.

AJ Phillips

From now on I will try to refer to myself as a "freethinker" as it more accurately describes my reasoning abilities than does "atheist", which has acquired a negative aspect which I abhor and tire of trying to explain to those who think I am personally insulting them by referring to myself as such.

Cheers.

ammo[freethinker]
its a wise..to change words
when we find..*the meaning has alterd

im the same way..with being christian
if xtian means labling others..as dammed
well be dammed..if i want to be..*under that lable

i do hope aj and trave continue
with their civil discourses
i find i love both their passions and persistance
[noting both are missing from xtians]

if only we who claim to follow
THE TEACHINGS..and egsample
of the most holy christ...[would be seen to be doing the same good
then we would all KNOW god is love..for a certainty]

that we dont
infact that we EVEN attack our own*...lol

appart from the fact
we EVEN..hope to condem..those not 'like/us'
to eternal damm-nation..is ohhh soooo very un-christ like

the saying jesus wept..should read jesus weeps
ohh tha blasphemy..we do under your name

you [jesu]
who revealed the truth of the one father..
the living loving good/works of grace mercy

who is with and within us all....KNOW'sss
that that we do TO THE LEAST
[we do too..*to the most]

if only dead
REALLY MEANT DEAD

but you
had to go and prove
dead is only a re-birth

[yet those claiming to be born again*...lol..
still glory in the articles..of the flesh...ignoring completly the spirit..within the flesh]..that sustains the meat into life..*

ahhhh
men

see the insanity

see the materialistic...*joke

we got a KATE/bank-cheque..on tv
telling us were bad

[yet on her own mansions roof
sit over 60 solar cells]
estimated cost @ 1000$ per cell
=$60,000..[jeez how much power does she use?

did she get govt subsidy
for her gross excessive ab./use of power?

next joke is we got a solar ship..[oops sorry boat]
with 800 solar cells on its extended deck
did they get a subsidy i wonder

[cost 800,000$]
to run a large twin hull ferry size boat
PLUS*..REPLACING THE BATTERIES..[every few years]

[noting its going in..for service at cairns/next]
seems its batteries wearout every few thousand..amp hours

but there is yet more
to the materialistic [satanistic/..joke

but satan has made some numb..others dumb
yet anger wont fix things..[anger is his energy]

Thank you, Trav.

>>Pericles, I applaud your honesty here for admitting that you have no idea in what sort of scenario you would believe in God.<<

I'd be interested to hear your own answer to the same question. What sort of hypothetical scenario did you imagine that allowed you to believe in a higher power?

>>Re: Your 2nd sentence, would you say that your belief includes a strong element of faith? ie: You have faith in your worldview, even though “not everything will become clear”?<<

I have no idea what the word "faith" is doing in this sentence. I have a worldview. I am comfortable with it. It explains the things that I need to have explained, and accepts there is stuff that we are too primitive to get our heads around. It is a worldview that refuses to compromise on the facts, simply in order to feel comfortable.

Do I have "faith" in that worldview? I'm sorry, but that question doesn't compute.

>>Do you think that including the rest of verse 8 (which you left out) might help us interpret this verse more accurately?<<

What, "...as of one born out of due time"?

No. What do you find in that phrase that tells us that Paul actually met Jesus? Or that any of the others had?

>>Plenty of Christians wouldn’t know the first thing about what evidence there is or isn’t for the resurrection.<<

That's an interesting claim, indicating that you might actually have some evidence you'd like to share.

Do you?

>>I’d be interested to hear your explanation [of the whole miracle-and-resurrection thing, as allegory]<<

Simple. It is a story that was created in order to emphasise the "special" nature of the individual, and elevate his actions to a supernatural level. Likewise the "miracles".

It almost defines Christianity, after all. Believe that, and you'll believe everything else with very little effort.

As I said before, when you found a new religion, you need something pretty special to kick-start it, wouldn't you? Golden plates, tablets of stone, divine revelations, miracles, resurrection from the dead etc.

That sort of thing.

AJ,

Firstly, I haven’t “goofed”- I’ve made genuine attempts to understand you here. But perhaps if you didn’t make bad arguments and then admit that you worded them poorly and so have to explain yourself again, we could gain a better understanding. (As you did with your “100%” comment, for example).

[Limitations are one thing, but in your usual style, you overstated your point and implied that we had virtually no control over our biases clouding our ability to reason objectively, in which case, there really would be little point in trying at all.]

In your opinion there would be no point trying. In my opinion, we DO have little control over our biases but this does not imply that there is no point trying to reason objectively. That would be a non-sequitur, so I’m surprised that an enlightened free thinker such as yourself would make such a logical blunder.

(Actually, I’m not surprised at all- it’s merely more evidence for the original argument I made about the fallibility of reason and our use of it).

[For it to count as evidence for something you would need to gauge it alongside a control mechanism and you used your opinion of what you personally would expect to see as that control mechanism.]

You have also stated plenty of opinions here in this discussion! What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Instead of sitting here implying that my views are worthless because they are “opinions”, you should actually show them to be false or improbable.

[<<Yes, and your point is still just as unpersuasive as the first time you made it, due to the counter arguments I’ve made.>>

You mean the ones that have all fallen down?]

So, in your opinion my arguments have fallen down? Well, that’s complete nonsense because you are only stating an opinion.

(See how frustrating that is?)

(continued)

[My main contention was not so much that it’s impossible for a believer to think intelligently about religious faith ... ]

That may not have been your main contention, but it was certainly implied, as I noted in my previous post. Why are you trying to wriggle out of the implication you made? Is it because that implication is nonsense?

[all the thinking in the world is of little use if one starts with a presupposition that they do not allow themselves to deviate from.]

In principle I agree with you, in the sense that I agree that we must be willing to open up our own presuppositions to critical evaluation.

[No, the same does not go for me because I have not adopted, fallen in love and built my entire life around a dogmatic belief system that compels me to cling to it at all costs. That’s the advantage of being a freethinker - I can alter my presuppositions if the evidence dictates.]

So let me get this straight, lest I misunderstand another poorly worded statement of yours.

Your position is that freethinkers can alter their presuppositions, but religious believers cannot. You seem to be claiming that this is because religious believers have a belief that “compels them to cling to it at all costs”?

Your point may be correct in some cases, but it is not warranted if you are making a general, blanket statement about believers and non-believers.

If by free thinker you mean someone who thinks critically, examines their own presuppositions and is willing to alter them, in other words thinks as freely as they possibly can, then there is plenty of Christians throughout history and alive today who have fitted into that boat. And on the flip side, there are plenty of atheists who claim to be freethinkers, yet they have a “dogmatic belief system” built on the view that nature is all that can ever exist.

Pericles,

[Thank you, Trav.]

Not a problem.

[Do I have "faith" in that worldview? I'm sorry, but that question doesn't compute.]

Do you honestly believe you do not have any faith at all in your worldview? Honestly? I’m not asking whether the question “computes”, I’m asking you make an attempt at computing it, and then answer it.

[No. What do you find in that phrase that tells us that Paul actually met Jesus? Or that any of the others had?]

So did Paul meet Jesus or not? You suggested in your last post that he did not.

Allow me to ask: If he didn’t, as you are claiming, why does this discount the evidence of early belief in the resurrection given by 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8?

[That's an interesting claim, indicating that you might actually have some evidence you'd like to share.

Do you?]

If evidence means something that raises the probability of the Resurrection being true, then yes.

The historical evidence for the belief in post mortem appearances and the historical evidence for the empty tomb both make the resurrection more likely than it would be without that evidence.

[Simple. It is a story that was created in order to emphasise the "special" nature of the individual, and elevate his actions to a supernatural level. Likewise the "miracles"]

[As I said before, when you found a new religion, you need something pretty special to kick-start it, wouldn't you? Golden plates, tablets of stone, divine revelations, miracles, resurrection from the dead etc..]

OK, so that's your explanation which you found "quite easy", as you put it.

So, let’s say you wanted to emphasise the special nature of someone and elevate their actions to a supernatural level. You knew, of course that the person really had no supernatural power. You were only pretending he did in order to create something “pretty special”.

Would you continue to proclaim their supernatural power if it meant you would suffer a horrific death for doing so?

Hey AJ,

re: The first part of my above post, on a re-read it isn't clear whether you're saying that we shouldn't bother trying to reason (as I read it), or whether you're claiming I made that implication.

Since I definitely don't believe that, I assumed you were making that argument. If you weren't then please disregard.

You are just a mass of assumptions, aren't you Trav.

>>Do you honestly believe you do not have any faith at all in your worldview? Honestly?<<

It is not necessary to have "faith" in a worldview. The word doesn't belong in the question, which is why it is impossible to answer. It's like asking "do you have faith in this ham sandwich". Daft.

>>So did Paul meet Jesus or not? You suggested in your last post that he did not.<<

*I* suggested? Good grief, where did you get that crazy notion? I simply pointed out that there is no evidence, anywhere, in any of his (or someone else's) stories, that he did. That's not a suggestion, it is a statement. No-one says he did, and I find their evidence persuasive.

>>why does this discount the evidence of early belief in the resurrection given by 1 Corinthians 15 vs 3-8?<<

What evidence? It's just a story. Stories aren't evidence.

>>The historical evidence for the belief in post mortem appearances and the historical evidence for the empty tomb both make the resurrection more likely than it would be without that evidence.<<

Not if it is just a story, it doesn't. What evidence of an empty tomb, by the way? Evidence of an absence of evidence. Persuasive.

>>Would you continue to proclaim their supernatural power if it meant you would suffer a horrific death for doing so?<<

Have you ever heard of suicide bombers? What do they die for?

A story.

i cant ignore the referances to miracles and reserction
jesus at the passover feast died..thre days later..he proved death..'where is thy sting'...

[and lying in ya grave till 'res-erction/day'..a lie]..
thus also rebutted 'judgement day'...

its what people live by
a promise writ in stone..
[but available to all...!]

there is plenty of more recent proof
thaty we all survive death..many have communicate with the 'dead'

jewsus in fact came back more recently..[and his own missed it]
and channeled..'his story'..in his own wordform's
in..'a course in miracles'..[that explains much
about the act's of the miracle..

[as well as
the way to atonment..[at-one-meant]..
with good/god..and with each other...

we are ALL eternal spirit..
having an incarnate..mortal..life in sentanence
we are each here serving out our 'life'/sentance..[we all got life]

this is satans realm..not heaven..nor hell
here is the place of the beasts..the place where we make our choices
and life a life without knowing the all good..is a undeniable fact

a beast dont notice its masters thoughts
it only thinks/acts..like a beast...feed me/milk me..sex me up

but just as every sperm is sacred
so too the life spirit animouse sustaining..it[and us]..into life

any who have been in a car-crash
know they lived on..but the car died

its the same with spirit..within our vessel[body]..
the spirit/driver of the body..leaves the building
and gets sorted into sheep or goat...wheat or tare

and our soul body takes us there...
[back to where we belong]

where more of the 'same' shall be given
wether you be in the fathers light room
or in that dark place/room..

or in the woumb
to get back to here

your works...have earned it
wherever it in truth lies..in the light
or the dark..because you reject the light

yet by grace your spirit
gets a new oppertruinity to earn more
wherever your spirit may be in HEaven or HEll
or HEre..

its about redeeming ourselves[in time]
in-body..embody..knowing our true essence within
is protected..

indestructable*..
but easilly destractable

Yeah, sorry, Trav, you goofed.

I argued that applied reasoning based on logical absolutes was the only reliable pathway to truth given what we currently know; you responded with claims of absolutism on my behalf, then when I asked you to support your claim with an example of another reliable pathway, you couldn’t provide one.

You stuffed up. Admit it.

<<I’ve made genuine attempts to understand you here.>>

Okay, I’ll take your word for it then. It just seemed a little co-incidental that the way you'd misinterpret me just happened to help your argument every time. Almost as if there were another force at work there or something.

<<In your opinion there would be no point trying [to reason]...>>

Example #3 of a response to something I didn’t say.

I said there’d be “little point”, not “no point”. A surprisingly big difference there.

<<In my opinion, we DO have little control over our biases…>>

I know. I even went to the effort of inserting the word “virtually” into my comment in acknowledgment of that. So, why do you capitalise “do”?

<<…but this does not imply that there is no point trying to reason objectively.>>

No, it certainly does not.

<<…I’m surprised that an enlightened free thinker such as yourself would make such a logical blunder.>>

Nah, I’ve humiliated you enough. Let’s move on…

<<You have also stated plenty of opinions here in this discussion!>>

Yes, but I don’t use them as evidence for anything. For the tenth freaking time!

You are absolutely determined to miss my point here, aren’t you, Trav?

<<Instead of sitting here implying that my views are worthless because they are “opinions”, you should actually show them to be false or improbable.>>

I already have - multiple times. You still forget those all important stats I provided you with along with the moral shifting zeitgeist I mentioned.

And since when have I ever implied that your opinions were worthless? Your opinions have a lot of worth as they help to make up who you are, but they are not evidence of anything!

Continued…

…Continued

<<So, in your opinion my arguments have fallen down? Well, that’s complete nonsense because you are only stating an opinion.>>

Give me one example of where I have said opinion = nonsense. In any case, my opinion there is demonstrated by our entire discussion.

<<Why are you trying to wriggle out of the implication you made?>>

Why are you so determined to believe that I consciously implied that? Do you have an argument you’re busting to use?

I’ll tell ya what… How about you present this argument anyway and I’ll see what I think. Whaddya reckon?

Or would it not have the same effect that way?

<<Your position is that freethinkers can alter their presuppositions, but religious believers cannot.>>

No, more that they don’t allow themselves to.

<<Your point may be correct in some cases, but it is not warranted if you are making a general, blanket statement about believers and non-believers.>>

Well I can’t speak for all non-believers as the common denominator between us is a belief/non-belief that doesn’t have a doctrine. With believers, on the other hand, it is in the very nature of the doctrine in which they share to discourage them from ever questioning the core fundamentals of it.

<<If by free thinker you mean someone who thinks critically, examines their own presuppositions and is willing to alter them, in other words thinks as freely as they possibly can, then there is plenty of Christians throughout history and alive today who have fitted into that boat.>>

Yes, like me. They’re what you would now call “atheists”.

<<…there are plenty of atheists who claim to be freethinkers, yet they have a “dogmatic belief system” built on the view that nature is all that can ever exist.>>

There is nothing “dogmatic” about naturalism because, unlike the Abrahamic religions, there is nothing within it to say that one cannot question it.

Consider the contrast between how often atheists say that evidence is all it would take for them to believe and theists stating that no amount of evidence will shake their belief.

A J, Trav, Pericles,

I wonder if I dare throw a little clarification in here. Faith has two meanings in accepted usage for all purposes here - in this thread at this point of proceedings: The "Faith" that an individual holds in the pursuance of or commitment to their "Faith" - the second representing the particular religion or belief system they subscribe to. Ok? The other usage of the word "faith", which is a usage we must avoid in the current context (because it can only create further confusion), is the faith a person expresses that the sun will rise, that it will rain eventually, etc, and which has nothing whatever to do with religion or personal religious belief.

That said, I will do my best to avoid using the word altogether, here at least.

I don't really want to throw cold water, and you fellows are free to disregard anything I have to say and to go on regardless. That is always your right and your choice.

You fellows have been at it for a fair while now, and have analysed and re-analysed, but I haven't observed much progress, and all seems to be stuck in a round robin. The question was what? - Spiritual Atheism? The very construct has a reasonable absurdity to it. By definition, atheism really should avoid any relation to spirituality - as in accepted usage this would have to mean in relation to some religious order. Sure, people can be spirited in their holding of this position or that, but, this is not "spirituality".
TBC>

Cont'd:

Atheism and agnosticism have to be held as reasonable viewpoints, for the holding of such positions harms no-one. Religious fervour on the other hand, has been definitively shown to be destructive in some scenarios, and strictly without the least justification. For that, religion has a capacity to be "used" and "abused" for deleterious action. My conviction is, however, that this conflictive use of religion is generally a smoke-screen for true motives of covetousness, emanating from material or political inequity or corruption, or simply for purpose of domination (see Taliban). The solution remains equitability in all things, compromise and tolerance, together with revision of "separatist" doctrine and dogma. Unfortunately we have a long wait to see genuine improvement, or possibly a genuine "religious war" to totally clear the decks - God forbid.

On the latest trend in discussion, I find no value in attributing or denying religious intolerance - it is alive and well, along with racism, stereotyping, bigotry and all manner of prejudice - and fundamentally no better or worse.

On conflict - the past is the past, but it is revealing when we see thousands of people in Belgrade barracking, in "nationalistic" fervour, for the release and glorification of the "butcher" Vladco Miladich (however you spell the B's name). That demonstration is a salutary reminder of just how backward mankind remains, in spite of significant political, scientific and socio-economic advancement. Our world remains a harsh and troublesome environment, because of the existence and success of one unreliable creature - Homo Sapiens - resplendent with immense potential and creativity, and burdened with an unavoidable desire to conquer all, in the interest of personal superiority at any cost (some altruistic and idealistic persona excluded). Wish it were a brighter picture. We can go to the moon, but we can't say hello without offending someone. Sad.

In future I am going to try to avoid the term "Humankind", for inhumanity is rife - including in "Halal" animal slaughter methods.

Religion itself is not so much responsible for conflict and intolerance, it is the underlying fundamental nature of the beast, of "Man".

Oh blow it.

I was going to make this clarification after it was pointed out in order to ration posts for a full response before bed, but after emerging conspiracies about “wriggling out” and laying blame on my inability to make my points clearer, it’s probably best I clarify this now. Even if it means waiting until tomorrow afternoon before I can post my next response. And besides, Saltpetre’s post is beckoning me.

Yes, Trav. I realise there is nothing specific about the Abrahamic religions preventing one from questioning them. Maybe I should have said “should not”. But the point remains that there is nothing inherently authoritative about naturalism and so to use the term “dogmatic” when referring to it - in any situation - is ludicrous.

Besides which, we all remember our parents telling us that we should never question god. It prevented us from straying to that place called “reason” where religious beliefs go to die. One other OLO’er (who is hostile to the suggestion that parents “indoctrinate” their children) once freely admitted to me that that is what they were told too. This person also seems to agree that not questioning god is something Christians are all taught... http://hubpages.com/hub/Questioning-God.

Saltpetre,

Thanks for your thoughts. The part that caught my eye was the bit about faith, although I'm not entirely sure what your first definition was supposed to mean.

Theists tend to can come up with all sorts of false - albeit colourful - definitions of faith. We already have a word for your second definition, it’s “knowledge”, so I don’t think it’s helpful to use the word “faith” there and as you pointed out (and Trav is demonstrating in his posts) it can cause a lot of confusion. But essentially, faith is just belief without any good reason.

Personally, I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned and I will grant it tentatively. But I don't have faith. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have any evidence. (http://tiny.cc/jo4yh)

Dear Saltpetre,

Why are you saying that the concept of Spiritual Atheism is absurd? Would that include Buddhism for example?
I rather tend to think that Spiritual Theism is absurd, because if God existed, that would make Him (God forbid) an object, which lands you straight back into materialism - the opposite of spirituality!

(but although it is logically absurd, I think that the idea of God's existence still has a legitimate place for beginners while taking their first steps on the path of faith and still finding it hard to completely detach from worldly ideas)

A materialist may like the idea of an objective God because then, supposedly, God could do nice things for him/her, such as grant salvation and eternal life in heaven; or 72 virgins; and in some cases (such as in Judaism) national success.

A spiritual/religious person on the other hand, loves God unconditionally, not because He exists and hands out lollies - s/he couldn't care less about such requirements (to exist and to be omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent). It is through this unselfish love and faith that the worshiper eventually unites with God.

[The first definition of] Faith describes a state of mind: a steadfast trust along the surrendering of doubt, thus it is unrelated to belief (the third definition).

ahh yes post limits..we all had that one aj
[its why i usually avoid articles section]

but were here and debaiting our opinion
about what words mean..[and that gets me every-time]

i note that we all accord meaning to things..[ie materialism]
god isnt matter..god is annimous..[active/movement/flow..
..deeds not words

your parents abused you
because they had..*the wrong idea of good/god
[its not gods fault..god still does the things only god can do]

to reject the whole[god/good]
because your parents thought the wrong about god
isnt their fault nor gods..its the fault of religeons
DEMANDING FAITH in their materialistic mission...[not serving god nor goiod nor gods good creation...but ionly their materialistic adgenda]

im prepared to allow athiests spiritualism
even if strictly speaking they reject..the most holy SPIRIT
most wholly..*not materialistic..spirit of god/good..

that animates all life/living
much like electricity
animates our computers

they obsess about the computer
fully ignoring the power/program..that makes it go

its not your parents fault
it was the materialistic perversions of human thought/

limited thinking
blind leding the blind

mote in the eye
seeing others as sinner
not saved*..like you..

and at least..being spiritual
opens the mind to spirit...[good/god..]
that animates/activates/inputs..*life...into..the matter-ial

somer see things as they appear to be
and thats all they want to see

others need to see more
how/why/what/when/who/

ie logus logic...
that sheds the good light
/logic/love/life/good grace..mercy..;[god]

Dear Yuyutsu,

Sorry for causing confusion here. I should have been more specific in my post - my fault, no offence intended.

My post was directed to A J, Trav, and Pericles, who have been conducting something of a marathon discussion centred on Christianity. However, their deliberations were not restricted to Christianity, and anyway I should have avoided my broad-brush statement, with its unintentional coincidental inferences regarding non-theist belief systems generally. Sorry for that.

I quite agree with your rebuke, and I have come across a number of non-theist, but very spiritual religious, or cultural, "belief" systems to be found in various sectors of human reverence - including Buddhism and Confucianism. I am not a student of religious practice, and didn't really think about it much until prodded into contemplation by some of the articles on this forum, including this one, the SRI one, and the Exclusive Jesus one. Much to contemplate, and much soul-searching.

Some of the belief systems I came across also appear to hold a view that, although they don't subscribe to the proposition of an "external" God or spiritual entity, they seem to hold to a belief in the human soul as a spiritual force within the individual - so they don't "pray" to or revere any supernatural force, but only contemplate, and strive to perfect, the force for good within. I find this quite "pure" and beautiful, with much to commend it.

As for Christianity, and I can only speak for myself in this, God is held to be an external spirituality, with a connection to the inner soul. It is my task to keep my soul pure and without blemish - and that's no easy task I assure you, for one must strive to maintain a respectful and fully harmonious code of conduct at all times. So in my belief system God is a universal presence, but not an entity, and not fathomable. The only way to be "closer" to God is to strive for perfection in external and internal relations, as you have also said.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

AJ,

I work up to 10 hours a day and have plenty to do outside of those times.

I’m over responding to implications you clearly made, only to have you deny that you made them, and so forth.

The time it’ll take me to scroll up the page and quote the part where you did imply such a thing (for example) simply is no longer worth it. It would be worth it if the points we were discussing were more substantive but they not longer fit in that category.

A few quick things on the points you have made on substantive issues.

You have said time and time again that Opinions are not evidence, and cannot be evidence.

So, what is evidence? Lets do a 5 second google search:
from Wikipedia:

“Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion”

dictionary.com:

“that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”

So clearly, if one can show that their opinion is true, or at least more plausible than the alternative views (on any given subject) then an opinion absolutely can be used to demonstrate the truth of some other thing, and thus an opinion can be evidence.

An opinion cannot be SCIENTIFIC evidence, but it can undoubtedly can be evidence.

continued....

Regarding naturalism and authority, your argument misses the point I was making.

You say that there is nothing “inherently” authoritative about naturalism and thus referring to it as “dogmatic” is ludicrous.

This is irrelevant, because my point was that people DOGMATICALLY stick to their BELIEF in naturalism and refuse to consider opposing views. This means that for THOSE people, naturalism becomes a dogmatic belief system. This precludes them from being free thinkers.

Remember, the context of our discussion is who can and cannot be a free thinker (ie: Critically think and be willing to examine presuppositions). This depends more on the person’s epistemological beliefs and their attitude towards thinking than it does on the other beliefs that they hold.

Therefore, I do not claim that naturalism is a dogmatic belief system for everyone who adheres to it. This is why I said “there are plenty of atheists” for whom naturalism is a dogmatic belief system. I said plenty, which clearly implies SOME but NOT all.

Likewise, there are Christians who think critically and are willing to examine their presuppositions. And there are also many Christians who refuse to question certain beliefs. Thus contra your claim, there are undoubtedly some Christians for whom Christianity is a dogmatic belief system, but equally there are some who are willing to examine their presuppositions, and thus they are free thinkers who do not hold to a dogmatic belief system without question.

The issue of whether or not each belief system is “inherently” against critical thinking is a separate issue, and it is irrelevant to the question of whether adherents of said belief systems can think freely, because that depends on a person's epistemology and their view of thinking. Clearly, Christianity is a big enough tent to contain both epistemologies.

Pericles, I haven’t forgotten about your post, btw

Trav,

Every time I see that you’ve posted again, I think to myself, “Now what on Earth could this guy possibly have left to say?” Then you disappoint me with the same old discredited arguments.

<<You have said time and time again that Opinions are not evidence, and cannot be evidence.>>

Correct. Opinions are formed on evidence but opinions do not constitute evidence as they say nothing about how the holder of the opinion arrived at their conclusion.

<<So, what is evidence? Lets do a 5 second google search:>>

This’ll be fun.

<<...from Wikipedia: “Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion”>>

Yes, and opinions don’t come under that definition for the reasons I just mentioned. An opinion doesn’t say anything about how it was arrived at. The explanation does that and the explanation would describe the evidence.

<<dictionary.com: “that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.”>>

Same as above.

<<So clearly, if one can show that their opinion is true, or at least more plausible than the alternative views (on any given subject) then an opinion absolutely can be used to demonstrate the truth of some other thing...>>

Exactly!

You said it yourself: “...if one can show that their opinion is true, or at least more plausible than the alternative views...”

And they do that with the explanation, not the opinion.

You used an opinion [that you personally would expect the 7% figure to be higher if religion were divisive] as a control mechanism to gauge whether or not the7% of religious wars was adequate for my claim. To back this up (i.e. your explanation), you failed to take into account the fact that external factors cause people to cherry-pick the good bits in the doctrines of their chosen religion and assumed that everyone who adhered to an inherently divisive belief system would necessarily be out for blood and war.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Regarding naturalism and authority... my point was that people DOGMATICALLY stick to their BELIEF in naturalism and refuse to consider opposing views.>>

How do you know this? You don’t know how others think and basing your argument on such an assumption is asinine. All we can really look at is the belief system itself and whether or not it encourages others to, or dictates that others, be dogmatic.

Nice try though.

<<This means that for THOSE people, naturalism becomes a dogmatic belief system. This precludes them from being free thinkers.>>

And it’s at this point that I would remind you of what I mentioned about the contrast between theists and atheists in regards to the attitude that is often displayed towards evidence and whether or not it would change their minds.

<<Remember, the context of our discussion is who can and cannot be a free thinker (ie: Critically think and be willing to examine presuppositions).>>

No, not so much “examine”, but the willingness to “change” them if the evidence dictates.

<<This depends more on the person’s epistemological beliefs and their attitude towards thinking than it does on the other beliefs that they hold.>>

Precisely.

The difference with religious belief, though, is that is has the ability to completely change the all important “attitude” that you mention.

<<Likewise, there are Christians who think critically and are willing to examine their presuppositions.>>

Oh they "examine" them all right, but the nature of the belief (as I have demonstrated) prevents them from "changing" their presupposition (i.e. that a god exists).

<<The issue of whether or not each belief system is “inherently” against critical thinking is a separate issue...

No, it’s not, because the belief system has the ability to influence the epistemology greatly.

They are not separate issues at all.

Trav, you're interested in being earnest about reflective thinking, you obviously understand the importance.

Words, being our only currency in the exchange of ideas, unfortunately never have the nuance of meaning we give them by the time they are received.
The eloquence in the (chat) room?

Fortunately, there are many ways to test our ideas whilst retaining all the nuance of the argument and with a perfectly captive audience – thought experiments, internal dialogues. At the least they help to better phrase an opinion – at their best they reveal another aspect of the numinous universe.

Perhaps these will help with your thinking about your thinking about your beliefs. Something simple yet serious to start with prompted by an earlier question about evidence?

A miracle is anything impossible done by god… How would/could you recognise a miracle?

You might try thinking backwards…

Begin with the last thing that you now hold as a belief. Remember how you thought/were when you didn't believe this. What changed, that changed your thoughts? Move onto the next part or aspect of your beliefs; then the next. A visual analogy for what I'm suggesting is that this is like arranging your beliefs as ornaments on the mantelpiece then taking them down one at a time to remember the circumstances – the when, what, where, why, who and how – of their acquisition.

Re-engineer the 'no true Scotsman' axiom…

Think of someone who identifies their basic belief the same as yourself (for example, Christian), now imagine this person belongs to a non-mainstream sect (anything far removed from your usual religious community). The question to contemplate is… What would they say is wrong or apostate with your beliefs? In other words, why would they think you're not right in your thinking?

Of course, all these type of exercises are derivative. Coming up with a test for critical or free thinking is a challenge for any system involving intangibles. A bit like debating what is the ideal of beauty? Though this is made more difficult when the example is music and the other person is deaf.

salty i agree..with near all you said
except this....""It is my task to keep my soul pure""

just like words are slippery
so too are tasks..we are ALL* sure to fail

this comes about by not recognising spirit..is one word
soul is another....[a soul is the essence..of our id/self/our life experiences]that we presently embody..

and made embodied
in our life term

spirit is the life force
allowing us to have certain qualities
[life/logic/the living essence sustaining the body..[and soul body]..to freewill/act/re-act..[life]..live*

spirit enables..the being
of whatever we are..*chosing to be
what we are/were..is reflected in our soul

everyone has stains *on our soul
but gods living life spirit..is pure
.."and without blemish"

thus god is god/creator
and we his creation/children
but as i said..this is only a minour point
but the difference is huge

we as gods creation...are required to love others
AND ourselves...

to make..*EVEN..*ourselves suffer..is to make god suffer
[just as to make others suffer..is to make good [god]..suffer

by striving to be perfect
in an un*..[in]-perfect world
is missing..what this world/time..is created to be

[a place where we can chose to do good
or chose to not do good

without the sure knowing of that we do
to the least we do to him]

what is important is..
whats in our hearts

not that we didnt chose to do a vile...for hope of some reward

[if our heart lusts to sin...[in our heart]..
it will eventually sin
[wether its here..or there]..

but then again
what is sin.....except judging others
[and that right..is held..by one alone..and he dont judge]

recall saul..sought to end the christ experience
then grew out of his need..to hurt
and then,..paul did his bit..

ie saul is gone
every essence..that summed up 'saul'
was subsumed along with his name..thus his new name

yet saul and paul are still embodied
into the soul...of saul
and of paul

continues