Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
I performed a religious rite this morning...
...I trimmed my fingernails.
OK, let me explain.
***
20 years ago, as I was working on a MA in Lit, I had to fulfill some language requirements. I already had a BA in German, so decided to branch out a bit, and did a couple of semesters of Old Norse. I never really was very good with the language, but did develop an appreciation of a whole world-view and literature with which I had been previously completely ignorant.
Now, if you've ever read any of the Viking sagas (there are plenty of good translations available), or the Eddas, there is a whole lot of Norse mythology in there. If you're not familiar with this literature, except by reference from modern culture, it is worth looking up a couple for some reading - the level of violence in the culture as seen in something like Njal's Saga is most impressive. But even more interesting is the complete difference in mythology and mindset in the pre-Christian era: it is surprisingly bleak.
In short, the Norse Gods were screwed, they knew they were screwed, and yet they willingly went on to meet their fate. And this was considered a good code of conduct for how us mortals should live our lives. One good example: in the End Times (Ragnarok), the Gods will do battle with Chaos in the form of Giants, monsters, and lesser Gods. The Gods know through prophecy that it is their fate to die, and exactly how the whole final battle will play out - who will kill whom, what the sequence of events is, that chaos will triumph - the whole bit. And part of this knowledge is that the forces of evil will be led by a ship named Naglfar, carrying most of the bad guys. Now, this ship is made from the fingernails and toenails of the dead.
And in one of the major sagas (I think that it is Njal's Saga, but it could be Egil's Saga or one of the other more common ones - c'mon, it's been 20 years) the narrator takes a moment to pass along a bit of religious wisdom to the reader, and instructs him to be sure to always keep his fingernails and toenails trimmed close, so as to leave less material for the construction of Naglfar when he dies. Because, see, you know you are going to die, and it could happen suddenly (and frequently does in the sagas), so you should always be prepared and help out the Gods a bit by not aiding their enemies in the afterlife.
Delightfully pragmatic advice, that. And something I always think of, and get a chuckle about, when I trim my nails. Because it makes just as much sense, and was believed as devoutly by a whole culture for several hundred years, as anything that Christianity or any other religion has to offer.
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Waiting on that bridge
Note: This comment is in the wrong place and should be downthread a ways. My bad.
My standard for objective reality is independently verified experimentation. Presumably God could submit to such testing at a time of His/Her/Its choosing. Objective reality, for example the speed of light, the charge on the electron, the gravitational constant for instance are not a matter of your or my opinion. They are discovered and quantified through experimentation. Anyway back to the bridge.
A) The Objective Universe exists.
B) The Objective Universe is a complex place.
C) Our planet (a tiny subset of the complex universe) contains a large amount of complex life including human life.
(Insert bridge here)
D) All of the multitude of other non-verifiable creation stories are false and the Christian non-verifiable creation story is true.
E) Jesus is the son of God/is God. There is a third entity/force called Holy Spirit which is also God (sort of).
F) There is a nebulous, ephemeral yet eternal entity called a soul. This 'soul' is in some undefined way associated with a human brain (unless you would define a brainless body as 'human'). This entity will be transitioning to a different world/plane of existence (depending on thoughts and actions) after the cessation of brain activity and will exist there for all eternity.
I accept A,B & C. Please explain to me how A, B, and C necessitate D, E & F.
A clear and concise chain of logic linking the two would be preferable.
Please note 'Because I believe they do.' and 'because this other person/these other people believe they do' are not acceptable answers. What people believe does not change reality. I could be perfectly convinced that I was not subject to gravity and then jump off a cliff. We both know what would happen if I did that and it would not be pretty.
cart before the horse
I would submit that an atheist fussing about a particular creation story or religious version is not the place to start. If you don't even believe God exists in the first place, of what concern is it which creation story is "correct"? Aren't they all incorrect? Isn't it unprovable to you that my creation story is correct when you don't believe we were created?
And, I don't get how the A B C list is related to the D E F list, where you'd ask how A B C necessitates D E F.
I gathered
That you believed A,B, & C and that you had some sort of link to make to D, E and F from some of the comments in your posts. For example:
I understand now that you have no such logical argument to make. You believe because someone told you the Jesus/Genesis/God/Heaven story was true and you accepted it. You either expect or hope that someone here might accept it on that basis as well. I am sure there is a story of creation. It is my hope that science will uncover it. Religion offers nothing besides: "Believe this because I said so."
quite a stretch
Usually, Jim, you're spot on with your arguments and such. And I can appreciate a literary metaphor as much as the next guy.
But to equate that story with what you perceive christianity "has to offer" is more than a little Harrisesque.
Not much to say in defense of christianity if one has to go by way of Norse mythology.
That doesn't show anything positive or negative about christianity or any other religion.
I am a bad atheist.
Well, Bisch, it was before you showed up here, but allow me to summarize a post I wrote sometime last year: I am a bad atheist. I've never read much of Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris. Which doesn't necessarily negate what you say when you call the post "Harrisesque", just points up that it wasn't intentional. I'm not working off of someone else's script.
I wasn't being metaphorical. The Norse belief system is just as I described it, and existed in that form for several centuries in Northern Europe prior to the advent of Christianity. That is historical fact, well documented.
My point:
...is what bugs you, of course. Having your religious beliefs compared to another culture's rankles. Sorry about that, old chap, but there's just as much evidence for what you believe as there is for what the Norse believed. Both provide explanations about the nature of reality within a culturally-dependent framework. And from my perspective, both are just as 'true' in conveying the reality of the world around us. Were Norse mythology the prevalent belief system now, I might well still disbelieve in it as I do in Christian myths, but I'd probably be somewhat more circumspect about saying so...my days of weilding sword and shield competently are behind me, I'm afraid.
Which, I suppose, is a compliment to you and your belief structure. Current Christian belief usually doesn't allow for the outright murder of non-believers. That's progress.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
unintentional
Cool. I guess I didn't figure it was intentional to stir things up just for the sake of stirring things up.
It's also cool that you don't jump on the flavor of the day. You didn't impress me to be a fella of that mold (in your disbelief of God and your other interests), and the fact that you haven't read much of those guys reinforces that.
Not especially. It's the part about the fingernails. If another culture's prevailing belief system wasn't so goofy, to have my beliefs compared to them wouldn't bother me per se.
I guess we don't need to rehash this subject, but let's just say I respectfully disagree.
I'll take it!
What are ya, Goofy?
Goofy? Oh my. Bisch, you walked right into that one. Talk about a big fat juicy fast ball right down the middle of home plate. I could go on and on about how goofy christian rituals and superstitions are, but I have a better idea...
Here is a great video that explains the different 'bubbles of delusion' Mormons, Muslims and Christians live in. Please don't consider this an attack on your faith. It is not. It is simply an excercise in logic. Brain candy, if you will.
The video is not just for Bisch. It is a must see for atheists as well. It helps explain things that we already know.
video
First off, that movement needs a different spokesman. That dude's voice is like fingernails on a chalkboard.
He uses phrases like "recognize the obvious," "christians are delusional," "any sane, intelligent person would see that..."
So I protest. I say, it's not obvious, I am not delusional, I am sane and intelligent and I don't see that...
"Ahhhhh HAAAAAA!" The video announcer says, "by DEFINITION you are delusional. Did you not listen to me earlier? I said that if you don't recognize the obvious, call yourself a christian, and not see that..., you are delusional, not sane, and definitely not intelligent. Do you have a hearing problem, too?"
Well, sheesh, if you put it that way!!!
So at the end he asks me to ask myself the three questions about proving scientifically that prayer is superstition, about why I, being rational, believe in heaven, and about why I believe in God with no empirical evidence.
I found one study, whose authors were of questionable moral reputation, and another, the results of which were not favorable to the believer. Let's throw out the one, the results of which were favorable to the believer, but whose authors were morally lacking. The other one could be biased, and probably is, but I am okay with admitting that it didn't work in this study; I can't see chucking my whole worldview on one possibly biased study, though, nor would I expect you to. I have heard much from liberals about the studies that have been done with respect to life expectancies of homosexuals that they are biased, and therefore the results cannot be trusted.
Belief in heaven is the second question our grating-voiced friend posits next. What can I say? It exists if I'm right and doesn't exist if I'm wrong. I guess I'd tell someone to see the rest of my argument, as proving the existence of some specific part of my belief, one that is a pretty small and also unprovable, is rather difficult.
Ah, the third one is a bit more direct. Why would I believe God exists with no empirical evidence? I admit there's no direct evidence of God's existence, but as we've discussed before, I am perfectly happy and content to say that my proof of God's existence is all the complexity around me. You say it's reasonable that all this complexity could have come about by chance with no creator directing it. You say it's delusional to think that a being that we can't see created all this. I say for me to look around and to think all that has been "created" by man could have come about by chance is ludicrous, and you agree, but to look at humans and animals and to say that these beings, which are many orders of magnitude more complex than the house I just built, came about with no guidance from some manner of creator, is delusional.
Our gravelly-voiced narrator keeps repeating that I am delusional, as if repeating it makes it so (OJ), and uses phrases like "recognize the obvious." You can, with a straight face, look me in the eye and tell me you really think all this started with nothing? Your brain, which is allowing you to read this and consider it, really tells you that there is no more powerful force that led all this along? There's nothing there at all? If you can, then that's cool. I'm just fascinated by the fact that we're all reasonably intelligent, and have differing opinions on how things came about, but that I am delusional and you are thoughtful and intelligent.
With all respect, Dirk, if you don't understand them, of course they are goofy to you. Wouldn't you agree that you have a preconceived notion about God and view anything to do with him goofy?
I think to believe with no evidence that something came from nothing and that with no guidance bacteria became humans over x years is goofy.
So where does that leave us? We're both reasonably intelligent fellas that have differing opinions on the origin of the species.
Bridges
I will agree with you that the origin of the universe is a very important question and deserves full investigation. However I don't believe that the faithful encourage this investigation since they can easily say "God did it" shrug their shoulders and go back to whatever they were doing before. Science on the other hand is not satisfied with such pat answers and dwells on little details like how it all happened. But that aside there is one thing that I find endlessly puzzling about the faithful. Just because the universe and all that is in it was created by a god why does that necessitate that it was your particular god that was the right one? The existence of beauty and/or complexity doesn't necessitate the existence or divinity of Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, or Shiva. Just because there are pretty flowers doesn't mean there is a designer god. (and why is it nobody ever gives god credit for all the bacteria and viruses? Do you think maybe its because it makes people uncomfortable to worship a being who designed the black plague?)
The fellow in the film has a point though (one made many times previously). You have a standard of truth by which you exclude the veracity of other religions. Atheists simply apply those standards to all religions.
The logic is simple: Just because something was written down millenia ago doesn't mean that it is necessarily true (and in regards to natural processes it is a good reason to be skeptical of it).
"I will agree with you that
"I will agree with you that the origin of the universe is a very important question and deserves full investigation. However I don't believe that the faithful encourage this investigation since they can easily say "God did it" shrug their shoulders and go back to whatever they were doing before."
I guess your not very clear on the history of science then? Astronomy more than most, but science in general, first developed from believers trying to understand the world their deity/deities made. Your free to dispute that "science" didn't appear until more recent times, but you would find few competent historians that would disagree that the foundations were often laid by priests. If you don't think that there is any interest in the origins of the universe amongst believers... well, just consider this post one of your own delusions.
But God did do it!
I agree that my fellow christians usually aren't ready with a defense of their faith, as the Bible implores.
I would implore you to continue to be puzzled by this, but please don't let it have any effect on your believing or disbelieving. If you don't believe right now, and you encounter evidence that allows you to consider God's existence, I could see this question being a distraction. The first step should be to consider that some intelligent force created the universe.
I appreciate your being puzzled by this, and the short answer that I'd offer is that Jesus is the only one of the belief systems of which I am acquainted who said that he's the only way to salvation. But to argue this with a bunch of atheists is a little bit beside the point. Actually a lot beside the point...
why does that matter?
I fail to see why this matters in the choosing of which belief system is right or wrong. The real answer is likely that you did not go around looking at religions to see which made sense, but that you instead went with your natal religion. But then, I suppose the statement that "I am the only way to salvation" being convincing or not convincing depends entirely on whether you are the type to trust or distrust the word of a stranger.
law of non-contradiction again
Either I am correct in my belief in Jesus being the only way, or I am not. Since Jesus says "I am the way, the truth, and the life, nobody gets to the Father but through me." He doesn't allow the possibility that other belief systems are one of many ways to get to heaven. I believe the story and the claims of Jesus, so of course I wouldn't discount one part of what Jesus said. Is it exclusionary? Yes and no. Since he's inviting anyone to come to him, I don't see it exclusionary.
Jesus saying that doesn't effect what I believe in and of itself, but since I do believe what Jesus said, including his being the only way, that logically means that other systems are incorrect. It is possible logically that Jesus is wrong and all the other religions which allow that they are just one of the many ways to God are all collectively correct.
But like I said before, I think it's a bit of a moot point for atheists to fuss about which type of theism a theist believes.
With respect, what in the world do you know? You're going to sit on your couch and speculate about something in my life?
whatever
With all respect, I don't know exactly what process you went through to come up with what religion to follow, that is why I didn't state in the absolute. However, having read some of what you've written you do not seem the type to experiment with other religions, and so I would guess that Christianity is your natal religion. If it's not than why don't you try correcting me instead of objecting to the characterization of you as just another ignorant Christian.
8th grade
Neither of my parents were christians, and I became a christian in 8th grade. It's true that I didn't experiment with other religions. I've read much on Mormonism and Islam.
Would you hold the same skepticism of an atheist who became an atheist early in their life?
Sigh.
well sorry
That's why I missed it. The people I've been around that experimented with religion looked at Wicca and old polytheistic religions too.
Anyway, sorry about that.
Self Centered
Bisch-
I am glad you brought this up. This is exactly the line of thinking that made me realize just how crazy religious people really are and there is no God, at an early age. Being self-centered must be a common component in religion in general and Christianity in particular. How else do you explain the fact that there are 6000 religions on this planet right now all condemning each other as heresy? I am terribly amused by hearing this group or that group claiming they have the upper hand on God. Isn't that the very definition of facetious?
This is exactly how we ended up with the countless religous wars and conflicts throughout our history. Look at the violence in Iraq yesterday. The Golden Dome mosque was just hit again. Or you can look at yesterday's Israel/Palestinian violence to observe two groups who believe God gave them the same shitty little piece of land.
it's actually quite the opposite
In reality, Jesus's words implore us to be exactly the opposite of self-centeredness. Speaking of dying to ourselves, loving others as we love ourselves, that kind of thing, shows, I believe, the exact opposite.
I used to umpire college baseball, and one of my lines I liked to use when a coach would argue not my judgement, but my application of a rule, was "I don't write the rules, I just enforce 'em." Obviously I'm not "enforcing" biblical rules by mentioning them, but I do want to point out that I or any other christian didn't write the rules.
And again, if many groups are saying they are the only ones correct and the others are wrong, logically, either one or zero of those groups are correct, right? And assuming exactly one is correct, why would the rantings of the incorrect have any effect on the truth? You can't logically blame God or the correct group for the blatherings of the incorrect groups, can you? So I would explore that idea further, Dirk, if you used that faulty thinking to come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Sounds like it might be worth thinking some more about it.
Another short answer: if Satan exists, having 5999 other religions competing for the attention of humans away from the truth, is a brilliant plan. And it's working. Again, you can't logically blame God or the correct group for the other 5999 groups' words, nor does it bolster nor diminish the truth.
Circular Logic
Sorry B, but this is becoming tiresome. God did it. Satan did it. Pretty much explains everything in your view. How convenient not have to make sense? I am sure these are very convincing arguments in your brainwashed eyes, but it is just more circular logic as far as I am concerned.
By the way, the bible was written by men, not God. Yeah, yeah, I know...divinely inspired. Whatever. How many times has it been interpreted and translated into what you read today? Gee, do you think they may have made a mistake or two given their stone age mindset? I don't blame them, they thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe at the time. They had no concept of the universe the way we do.
The old testiment was written hundreds of years before Jesus and the new testament was written at least a hundred years after Jesus' death. The bible was put together around 325 CE at the council of Nicea. The council was made up of hundreds of religious scholars who picked a few scrolls out of thousands, wrapped it up and gave us their version of the God delusion. Forgive me if my facts are a little off, but you get the idea. After all, it's been 15 years since college.
you misrepresent
This came up in a discussion about why I believe my version of God-belief is correct and not someone else's. I prefaced all that discussion with the disclaimer about how I thought here with a bunch of atheists was probably the wrong place to have this discussion, but went ahead anyway. I wouldn't go to a NASCAR site and try to tell them what I thought about the favorites in the Westminster Kennel Club dog show this year. (For the record, I know next to nothing about the Westminster Kennel Club. :-) )
But really, I haven't made any compelling arguments to you? The last month of posts, and you can summarize my view like you did above, seriously?
I have seen this movie before.
Pretty much. I think we can have good discussions about politics, sports or other undiscovered topics, but not science and religion. That seems to be the line at which you no longer use logic and reason. This was your summary in the previous post not mine:
Satan made the other 5999 religions? Sheesh. It's frustrating when it all boils down to supernatural explanations and a waste of time to have further discussions on the topic.
I have seen this movie before and really, it is my fault for engaging you. The tipoff should have been when you used the word 'goofy' to describe another religion but were offended when it was applied to yours. Why I thought it would be different this time is my own mistake. I think Hank, Brent and others have stayed away from discussions with you because they already knew the outcome. My bad. I should have seen this coming. PZ's site has a wise mantra- "Don't feed the trolls."
Don't take this the wrong way, I don't think you are a bad guy. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I tried to explain
Don't hold it against me to answer a question I knew would go over like a lead balloon. I knew talking about the different forms of God-belief and their merits would be pointless here, and stated as such before answering. Talking about that is a whole, entirely different ballgame.
We probably should stick with just whether or not God exists.
What's the one point you remember best where I didn't use logic and reason in discussing science? And I presume in saying this that you believe you do use logic and reason in discussing science.
Two Millenia
You need not fear, it is likely that I will continue to spend the rest of my life puzzled by existence. I would be the first to admit that I don't know how the universe came into existence. It may be that our brains are not equipped to understand the process in which case our mission is clear: We need to design a brain or computer which can understand how this happened. However, I believe any valid answer to this question will result from scientific investigation. Science is the only real marker of progress that our species has. Science extends our limited perceptions out to the stars and inward to the atoms. Peer reviewed science is not perfect, but it is the best means we have available to discover objective reality. Religious explanations of reality amount to nothing more than 'this is the way it is because someone said so'. I find that unacceptable. I understand that not everyone finds that unacceptable.
Two thousand year old knowledge is highly questionable. According to the bible in those times demonic possession was quite common. Do you believe in demons and demonic possession as an explanation for what was likely mental illness?
To repeat myself. What was written down millenia ago is not necessarily true. If you have a counter argument to make against that statement then please make it, and while you are at it please state the criteria for how you decide which old writings are true and which are not. I cannot accept "because I believe this group of writings to be true and this other group to be false" as sufficient. To my knowledge there is no 'Gospel of Jesus' i.e. he is not the author of any works of the bible. So you cannot say that 'Jesus said' anything. The best you can get is that someone said that Jesus said something. And he is saying that Jesus said that decades after he said it. That seems like a shaky foundation to build your view of reality on.
Oh and in regards to heaven I cannot help but note that none of the people writing about it have been there and returned. I am thinking that the Islamic Viagra heaven with the re-hymenizing virgins sounds pretty nifty, better than being a little spiritual music box saying 'praise god' for all eternity anyway.
I agree mostly
Vox Day has an interesting blog post today on science, and one yesterday. It's at the top today at voxday.blogspot.com, called "The Lies of Science" and the one yesterday "Rejecting Evolution" is a bit farther down. Might be worth a read. He puts the arguments much more clear and eloquent than I could.
That's a bit of an unfair strawman. You are perceiving my beliefs inproperly if that's how you think I think.
I agree. And what was written down three hours ago is not necessarily true. And what was written down twenty seconds ago is not necessarily true.
Have you heard a christian say "I believe the gospel accounts are true because they were written down 2000 years ago. That gives them legitimacy to me. Any earlier (or later) than that, and I would have my doubts..."? I haven't.
I have accepted the Ecumenical Councils' decisions on canonizing books of the Bible.
Goofy Continued
Bisch,
First of all, it's not a movement, it's a website, and a very fascinating one at that. Lots of great questions people of faith will find very uncomfortable. Especially the name of the website 'Why won't God heal Amputees'. Good question. Why not? Why are there no stories of Jesus growing limbs back for people? I think I know why. It's because that would be real proof. Actual evidence and not coincidence or trickery of a miracle.
Earlier, you called the Norse belief that armeggedon warships are made of fingernails goofy. I agree. What he was pointing out is that all religions have goofy beliefs. With that, I also agree. We just speak about Xianity because that is the prevalent religion here in our country. Nothing personal. No offense intended. This is an atheist website, afterall.
I also would like to know if you agree with the premise of the video regarding Muslims and Mormons. Is it goofy that Muslims believe Mohammad flew to heaven on a magic horse? Is it goofy that Mormons believe Joseph Smith found magic plates and seer stones then translated them into the book of Mormon? I do. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me. If you answered yes, why can't you admit that Xianity has some pretty bizarre notions as well? If you stand outside of the bubble, it is very easy to see. That is the point of the video. Can you stand outside the bubble of your faith for a moment, or is it impossible to be objective in this case?
I have seen numerous studies showing prayer does absolutely nothing. Sorry no links and it really isn't that interesting to me anyway. Who cares? I already knew that. However, if you could provide a link to a study that shows the opposite, I would be happy to take a look.
I never understood the purpose of heaven other that a carrot and stick to induce compliance. What kind of existance would heaven be for a human? No choices, motivation, drama, etc... How dull would that be?
This paragraph makes me think of so many philisophical questions, my head hurts. If there is a creator, who created the creator? And who created the creators, creator? And so-forth, etcetra, blah blah blah....
Also, I see you think complexity is evidence. Not much point in discussing this because you don't believe in evolution despite the mountains of evidence.
Yes I can look you in the face and say that I don't believe in a supernatural creator.
Ya know, scientists no longer believe in ex nihilo theories like the Big Bang. BB is so thirty years ago. After BB came three String Theories and now they are working on a unifiying 'M' Theory which has incredible potential. Basically, scientist theorize our universe may have been created when two membranes or dimentions crossed paths. Way over my head, but fascinating.
I apologize if I was being disrespectful, but yes, all religion and supernatural explanations of the universe sound goofy to me. People make shit up all the time. It's fun. Stephen King is one warped dude. Other people make shit up for more diabolical reasons. That is what I think of religion...mind control.
Goofy III
That's right, atheism is solely the lack of belief in God, nothing more. Sorry.
That insistence is also fascinating to me. But I digress.
I obviously don't know why that hasn't happened, but I have a guess.
To me, the world that surrounds me makes it just as obvious that God exists than if I had seen an amputee healed. The world around me is "real proof." My opinion is that if there were an amputee that was healed, a high percentage of skeptics would come up with another reason that they wouldn't believe that he existed. (But since I'm a contractor and not the Pope or some other important position, don't take that as the official line. I'm just flapping here.)
God isn't a sideshow in the circus, and doesn't serve at the pleasure of humans, especially ones who don't even believe he exists.
Bizzare notions if they aren't true. To someone who doesn't even believe that God exists, I completely admit that several of christianity's notions are bizzare. You speak of the bubble of delusion of my faith. I would posit that you are inside a bubble of disbelief. Why is it considered delusion and lack of objectivity for me, but not for you?
Bro, c'mon. You don't understand the purpose of heaven? I don't understand corn farming techniques, but I believe there are farmers in Iowa right now who earn their living doing exactly that. My best friend's fatherinlaw does. You don't even believe that there are any farmers doing this AND you don't understand these non-existent farming techniques.
There is a book simply called "Heaven" by a dude named Randy Alcorn. Just one chapter and you'd take back your presumptions about heaven, definitely.
But again, it seems odd for you to speculate about a place in which you don't believe exists.
Starting with the assumption that God exists, either he is eternal and wasn't created (the unmoved mover), or there is an endless string of creators forever back to infinity (reductio ad absurdum). I'd suggest that Occam's Razor would tell us that if those are the two possibilities, that God is eternal and wasn't created is clearly the least assuming of the two options, and is the correct option.
As I am biased, so are evolutionary scientists, and so are you. Besides, there are a couple issues with evolution that gives me cause for concern, that I can't buy.
And in another 20 years we'll have another version, and when it's proven inadequate in 11 years after that, we'll have another version. Is it obvious to only me that these fellas are working within their preconceived notion that there isn't a God, and moving forward from there?
The theory has incredible potential? What does that even mean?
These ideas are revered, and yet when christians state Jesus rose from the dead, they are mocked. I think I need to start smoking pot.
I didn't take anything you typed as disrespectful. You are a good guy, and I like the back and forth we're having.
I find it curious...
...that you chose to respond to Dirk's comment rather than mine. But whatever.
Here's some correlation for you.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
PZ is angry
Honestly when I first read this site I thought Brent's subtitle to the site was one of those "Methinks though dost protest too much" moments. I admit I was wrong about a great many of the posters here, especially the host and subhost.
PZ's not among that group. Dude is very angry.
But to the point, the Republican connection doesn't mean as much to me as it perhaps should since I don't subscribe to the neocon movement, and actually shun it.
He's right about the preponderance of believers not having a defense of their faith, or having a shoddy defense, though. I do hope the new movement of atheists coming to the limelight to support their views will spur my fellow christians to explore and tighten up why they believe.
No He's Not
Sorry Bisch, but you're 100% wrong. PZ is an acerbic, satirical, sometimes sarcastic, but always very funny writer. Frequently his targets are your pet biases, so he seems to be angry - to you.
I can assure you, he is not. I have met and talked with him and he is quite literally the quintessential "mild mannered professor". He is soft-spoken and polite. He smiles a lot. Frightfully intelligent and incredibly witty.
You know what? I've heard Dawkins described in much the same way.
My point- with my tagline and with this comment - is that we all employ a kind of confirmation bias when we listen to conversations and opinions about religion. ESPECIALLY when we listen to opinions that are critical of, or that make fun of our own religion. So, we tend to classify those folks who don't agree with us as "angry".
Nine times out of ten that is absolutely not the case. They just disagree with you. Sometimes they might disagree with you in a bitingly sarcastic, or acerbic manner that just rubs you the wrong way...
...but that is not the same as "anger". Ridicule can sometimes come into play, but again, that is not the same as a raw, red, emotionally-charged, angry rage.
Atheists can be guilty of this as well. In myself, I have to guard against the tendency to classify the folks who don't agree with me as "stupid", or "unintelligent", rather than "angry", but it's the same confirmation bias working. Again, nine times out of ten they are not truly stupid or unintelligent, they just don't agree with me.
Basically, we all need to thicken up our skins and process the ridicule, the sarcasm, the tongue-in-cheek humor, the prankster-quality jokes, the actual arguments, and counter-arguments, as a whole. Stop getting hung-up on one snotty thing someone said and instead address the whole argument.
People are people are people. Atheist or theist. We all operate in much the same range of emotions and responses. Realize that and get past the petty snarks and you're halfway to being "not angry, just disagreeing with you."
I don't think it'll happen. Faith is ultimately a lazy way to view the world. It doesn't require any work - intellectually, or of the physical sweaty type - to sit back, fat and happy and say "I believe!". Studying apologetics, and - the great ghod ghu forbid - actually making up new apologetics for your own particular flavor of theistic madness, is so far beyond the average lazy believer that it is laughable.
Atheism that is arrived at through concious thought and study, however - not the baby atheists or the mentally retarded atheists who just lack god belief due to physical circumstances or limitations - is hard. It is a long, hard, arduous, mentally challenging, and emotionally draining experience. Especially if you start out as a firm believer, like many of us did.
Given a choice, most folks would rather wallow in comfortable ignorance, hopeful superstition, and scream "I believe!" from their worn-in and soft living-room couch, or padded pew at the megachurch rather than actually, you know, think about why they believe, or even what they believe.
You'll get a few of the more rigorous Christian thinkers try and address the arguments, but really, the only level of argumentation that'll get through to Joe and Jane Christian is the Bill O'Reilly's and the Chuck Norrises of the world. Entertainment, not actual thinking.
Just my six and a half cents. ;)
perception
Copy that. I should have wrote that he seems angry to me. I will take your word about meeting him and observing him.
Who are you with? (Seinfeld reference...meaning I don't get it)
Sadly, neither do I, but a fella can dream.
Thank you so much for pointing out that there are unthinking atheists as well as unthinking christians.
Man, are you crazy? Talking about Chuck Norris in that manner? You have a death wish or something?
Chuck, I profusely apologize on Brent's behalf. Please have mercy on his temple and his trachea...
curiosity intrigued the atheist
I didn't have time today. I hope to address what you wrote tonight...
But that's the point.
But that's the point, Bisch. From your perspective, it is goofy, yet it was normal cultural belief in northern Europe for centuries. Where do you draw the line? Is it just because that faith was 'displaced' by Christianity? Then do you consider Judaism goofy for the same reason? Or is it just a matter of numbers - say the of San in South Africa, who are few in number but have a culture tens of thousands of years old - is their religious belief in the spirit world goofy?
Then how about large, modern religions different than yours?
Do you think that the Hindu pantheon of gods is "goofy"? Hinduism is fervently believed by about a billion people world-wide - people who take those beliefs just as seriously as you take your Christian belief. Do you think that the Islamic belief system is goofy, with the invocations of Allah's name in support of violence, or even the requirement that the faithful pray towards Mecca five times a day? Something over a billion people hold that belief.
See, the thing is that you can objectively look at those other belief systems and say "that's goofy". And I would agree with you. I just also detach myself from the cultural imperative of Christianity in all of its flavors and say that it is goofy, as well. (I use the term goofy only because you do - generally I'd be somewhat more circumspect in my characterization in all those cases.)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
goofiness, redux
I've drawn the line at Jesus.
It's immaterial that these belief systems have lasted hundreds or thousands of years, or that they have pushing a billion adherents, or any of the other sets of criteria that you list.
"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."
Um, Bisch, that's capitulation. Or trolling. I have resisted the urge to just dismiss you, as others have advised, because you seemed almost sincere in your desire to engage in rational conversation. But in saying that:
...you are saying that you do not even consider other major religions worthy of respect, because without Jesus they cannot be true religion. I suspect that if we pushed you hard enough, eventually you would state that only those who accept Jesus as their personal savior truly believe (which negates several of the 'Christian' sects as well).
This, to me, says that you have made up your mind already based on solely what you've been told to believe, and no discussion of anything which challenges your belief is worthy of any merit whatsoever, and that you're just here to mock us poor atheists for our blindness.
Or am I wrong?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
law of non-contradiction
I'd say they cannot be correct religion. Since Jesus said he was the only way, either he is or he isn't. Either I'm right or I'm wrong. That's not to say there's no benefit or anything positive from other beliefs, but there's definitely correct and incorrect.
On what I've been told to believe? To a certain extent. I don't believe you came to your atheism completely on your own with no outside influence, nor did I come to believe what I do completely on my own. It's a bit of a low blow to phrase it that way, though, as it portrays me as someone who will believe anything someone else tells me to. But I believe partially based on what others have said to me, but certainly not solely.
A comment from RoonDog a month ago said that he didn't believe God exists, that he couldn't imagine anything in this world convincing him that God does exist, and (the best part) if someone came to him with proof that God exists, he'd dismiss the proof, explaining it that the someone probably was an alien or something that had better control over the physical universe than he did, and the conclusion would still be that God doesn't exist.
Do you believe this way? If so, why is it okay for you to have made up your mind?
Not true, not whatsoever.
I don't mock anyone (well, except for city councilmen who vote against my projects). Of course I'd like to show you God's existence and Jesus's goodness, but I also know the odds are stacked against me in that regard. I enjoy the discussion.
Why the urge? Do you feel it is a waste of your time to discuss with me?
Others have advised you to dismiss me?
Our conversation before this has or hasn't been rational? You're steadfast in your belief, and I am steadfast in my belief. Do these facts change whether our conversations have been rational?
Re: influenced by others
I realize that your comment was directed to Jim Downey, but I have to say, that I came to the conclusion that I no longer believed in any god COMPLETELY on my own. Let me tell you, I desperately wanted to believe in him, I was at my all-time low point in my life, I wanted god to help me out of my situation. I didn't WANT to be an atheist, I WANTED there to be some "higher purpose" in my life ... and then I realized my prayers were not only not being answered... but they couldn't be answered because nobody was home to answer them.
That was roughly five years ago. Now, looking back, I find the situation I was in both sad and amusing at the same time, but I'm glad I went through it. All I'm saying is, don't tell me that all atheists were influenced in some way to reject god -- the pain I went thru in shedding my old belief system was that much worse precisely BECAUSE there was no one to help me through it.
I really don't want to hear that I was influenced by atheist writers, the media, etc. It all came down to a conflict inside my brain. On the one hand, my lifelong beliefs told me X was true, and on the other hand empirical data (or lack thereof) indicated to me that Y was more likely to be true, so I decided to follow the evidence.
Intellectual honesty.
OK, right off the bat I am going to apologize: the migraine I've been holding off the last couple of days is getting the better of me now, and I am likely to be neither as cogent nor considerate as I usually attempt to be. Sorry about that.
I've said before that many of my close friends and loved ones are people of faith. Now, I don't have a lot of control over who I'm related to. But I do have a lot of control over who my friends are, and who among my relatives I respect. And without an exception, I respect those who are people of faith who are intellectually honest about where faith 'fits' in their life.
I'm not one of those people who insists that everyone is pure or consistent in their beliefs. We are frail humans, complex in ways most of us don't even realize, and a certain amount of inconsistency and hypocrisy is to be expected.
So having someone say "sorry, I know my faith isn't logical, and I can't prove what I believe" is OK by me. But I at least expect them to have that level of self-awareness and intellectual honesty: to recognize that there are limitations and contradictions.
In this thread, Bisch, you have indicated that you are not willing to do this. Rather, you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that you (or, more accurately, your religion) do not have a monopoly on the 'Truth'. It's either your brand of Jesus, or nothing. No room for doubt, no room for admitting that others who have a religious belief different from yours (or no religious belief at all) may have a different but equally valid grasp of reality. This was the entire purpose of my initial post: to show that religious beliefs change with time and culture, and that with a little bit of distance (geographic or temporal) there are goofy aspects to all religions. If you were intellectually honest with yourself (and us), you would admit this. You might even say "yeah, I know, from the outside, my religion looks as goofy as those others do, but it still makes sense to me on other levels". But no, you claim that Jesus is the sole valid criteria, and that belief in him isn't in the slightest bit goofy.
This is the worst aspect of fundamentalism of any stripe: the absolute conviction that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Taken to its logical conclusion, it allows for the imposition of one belief on others by even lethal force. (Please note that I do not claim that you or anyone else in mainstream Christianity supports this at this time, though we have seen plenty of examples of just that behaviour around the world historically.) Further, it is intellectually 'dead', in that it squelches any questioning of the core belief, and allows for no doubt.
Heretofore I wasn't sure exactly whether or not this was your position. Now that I see it is, I can only assume that you are here not looking for rational discussion, but either to troll, or more charitably, to just share perspective. Most of us here, if pressed, would say that in our conclusion that there is no god we still allow for the admission of new evidence - we remain open to doubt about our conclusion, however secure we may be in that it is the correct one. Sure, the standard is set pretty high - most of us were once believers, after all, and know just how powerful a hold faith has on shaping one's world view. You do not share this fundamental openness.
So, yes, I see limited value in discussion with you. Some, certainly, since it is good to know how the true believers see the world. But I also understand now that your unflinching belief is such that you cannot help but see us non-believers in a certain light, and that said light is not favorable. We are, after all, unwilling or unable to see your Truth, and our own truth holds no value in your estimation.
Or am I wrong?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
2-sided coin
Jim, I wanted to think a bit more about this one before I responded, since the comments seemed to be more serious than before. Sorry for the delay.
I do think my faith is logical to me, but acknowledge it's illogical to others. And I definitely can't empirically prove what I believe. I haven't expressed myself well if I have come off differently.
I believe the Bible, but I didn't write the Bible, so it's hard to defend other than to say that Jesus welcomes anyone to come to him.
But logically, why on one hand do you say that truth is absolute through science, and in science, either something is true or false, and on the other hand, you shun the idea that someone who believes something could believe that he is correct and others are incorrect? That appears inconsistent. Is it because religion is such a personal and controversial issue?
I was chided in the beginning of our discussions for speaking of "my reality" and "your reality." How is it logically possible that my grasp of reality is correct, and a believer in a different religion that contradicts what my belief says, also has a grasp of the same reality that is correct?
I unequivocally admit that from the outside, my religion looks goofy. To me, believing Jesus is what and who he said he was isn't the slightest bit goofy, and it's certainly understandable to me that you wouldn't believe any of it, and would think it's very goofy.
I'll give you Islam, whose scripture says to kill people who don't believe the way they do. And of course we christians have some examples centuries ago where this happened (and much less pervasive than many commentators purport). But if we're going down this aisle, looking at atheism in the same manner might be valuable.
Vox Day has explored this idea on his blog, so instead of doing a bad job of rehashing his points, here is the link to 2 of the posts. You spoke of imposing one belief on others by lethal force, and usually that would be on a fellow countryman, but war is related if its impetus was to push religion or atheism, so it's the same concept. And Vox does mention, in the first link, the five governments currently that are run by atheists, three of which are committing violence against their citizens for the expressed purposed of eliminating religion.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/06/most-violent-group.html
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/06/dance-little-atheists-dance.html
So if it's imposition by force of a belief system that concerns you, I'd submit that atheism is a worldview much more to be feared than christianity.
I don't agree with that at all. I don't think it's possible to have no doubt about anything, and the verse
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."
to me implies testing the reasons for our belief.
As would I, absolutely.
Absolutely not. I really think there's a big difference between being confident in conclusions and refusing to entertain competing ideas. I reject your saying they are the same in my case and different in your case. You and I are doing the exact same thing, and I am being held to a different standard than the standard to which you are holding yourself.
I hold most of you in esteem and respect, and like to hear your ideas. It's true that I believe you are wrong, but to say I hold you in an unfavorable light is quite an exaggeration.
PS: I hope your migrane has passed and you're feeling better.
Don't feed the trolls.
Thank you. The stresses of my situation do not allow for much respite from this, but the worst has passed.
Beyond that, I see very little reason to discuss anything further, and henceforth am adopting the suggestion made downthread of "Don't feed the trolls".
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
In the pudding
All that it would take for me to believe in God would be incontravertible proof of his/her/its existence. What would it take for you to NOT believe in God?
I strongly suspect the answer to that question is 'nothing'.
incontrovertible is in the eye of the beholder
It's an interesting question. Since I already believe he exists, there would have to be a pretty serious onslaught of proof for me to stop believing. Since a big part of why I believe is the world around me, there'd have to be some data that I could understand that would show that the world couldn't have been created.
But when you say you'd need incontrovertible proof, that's where it's, I think, nearly impossible. Talking about the amputee healing last night, I believe if an atheist saw some occurrence like that, it wouldn't be incontrovertible to them. I know that's speculating on my part, so if it seems unfair, I am sorry. Let me know if it's the case or not.
So why not set the parameters? Tell God specifically what it'd take for you to believe he exists. Definitely nothing to lose.
Sure, here's a list of a few
Sure, here's a list of a few things I'd change, because if this universe was designed, it was a shitty design! If gawd did these things I'd accept that he exists! I don't know that I'd worship him or even think he's ok, I might still think he was an a****** but hey I'd say, yep he's there.
1. Reverse the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, or offset it with a steady influx of new matter. Seriously, who would willingly create a universe where entropy continually increases, and expect its followers to accept the existence of a higher "order"?
2. If there was some "limitation" preventing #1 from happening, how about just converting all life forms (on Earth) to use chloroplast so they could all derive their energy from the sun, instead of the current situation where all life forms survive by ... consuming other life forms? Technically, if you wanted "free will" to exist, all life forms could still extinguish each other, it just WOULD NOT BE ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED FOR SURVIVAL like it is now.
3. Related to #1, why create such a vast and pitifully empty universe, 99.9999% of which is empty space? Put all the life forms within a few star systems of each other, and let life teem everywhere within this much smaller universe.
Any omni-max god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) should be able to carry these out. Not that any such being exists, as this definition is inherently logically inconsistent but hey that's what people believe in :D
OK, this I gotta respond to
Note: satirical remarks following. They are to be taken as a healthy dose of fact mixed with a sugary fiction.
1: This is a very nice idea, but do you know how much work it would take? Sure it doesn't seem like a big deal to an omnipotent god, but that's a lot of work. Lets see, I suppose it could be done if I decided to stop time, but you'd hardly notice it would you :)?
2: Please, before even asking this look up some information on carniverous plants. Sure you could technically create a world in which everything derives energy from the sun, but you've still got to get the chemicals needed to build a body from somewhere. At first this can be accomplished by simply gleaning them from the surrounding environment, but what about when the nutrients are all used up? Scavenging is the art of extracting nutrients from a dead body, and predation is the art of creating dead bodies to scavenge. Unfortunately a world where death does not occur is incompatable with a world in which individuals grow and reproduce. Again, the easiest way to fix this is simply to freeze time, but you'd never notice, so why bother.
3: Well if you assume that the laws of thermodynamics cannot change and that species will always get to the point where they are, to quote the phrase "fruitful and multiply" than one can assume that the dominant species in any ecosystem is likely to be predatory, under the idea that it takes more intelligence for a coyote to catch a rabbit than for a rabbit to catch a lettuce leaf. Therefor, any species that became advanced enough to leave its mother planet would likely be predatory, and so dangerous to neighboring planets. To prevent one species from destroying the majority of life on all planets they must exist at an unrealistically great distance from each other to decrease the likelyhood of interstellar travel occuring. This is done to preserve the biodiversity of each world, and trust me on this, you don't want the dominant species on the next planet over eating you any more than they want you strip-mining uranium (that was an experiment in an ecosystem based on primary producers that derive energy from what you typically think of as harmful radiation, interesting results by the way, quite a few jelly-like creatures, they move over a large piece of radioactive material and just sit there plastered all over it).
Note: the radioactive planet was a result of a thought-experiment I did based on the question: If we nuked ourselves into oblivian what kind of creatures would evolve to derive energy from the resulting radiation (and could we use such creatures to clean up the mess, if, unfortunately, we were still alive)?