[Scarabin]

 Vampyr, on 2012-December-29, 20:26, said:

I think that this is less true about unbelievers, since they have, in general, given a lot more thought to the matter and have come to a personal decision -- ie not one handed to them by a book or person.

True for unbelievers who were believers and decided to change. Not necessarily true for children of unbelievers, and for fans of writers like Dawkins and Hitchens.

[Vampyr]

 Scarabin, on 2012-December-30, 00:44, said:

True for unbelievers who were believers and decided to change. Not necessarily true for children of unbelievers, and for fans of writers like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Whatever.

[VMars]

 kenberg, on 2012-December-29, 06:49, said:

The other class that I failed was required. The instructor came to class the first day, faced the class, and yawned. As he lectured I understood the yawn, and as I read the text, written by him, I really understood the yawn. So I showed up only for exams, on which I did well. But he gave a ten point quiz every day, open notes and open book, taken straight from homework. He could have turned in my F well before the final was given. But I didn't know this, so after I took the final I figured I was done. I had always wanted to tear up a book so after writing obscenities on it I invited my roommate to participate in a ceremonial book ripping. When I found out that I had failed I was pleased that I had not yet emptied the trash so I signed up to retake the course and attended every lecture, bringing my shredded obscenity laden text with me. I have maintained a lifelong revulsion for attendance quizzes.

That's pretty awful. In all my classes, profs were required to have a syllabus with the grading policy and weights listed, so at least we had warning about attendance quizzes.

To bring this back to more related (albeit perhaps still tangential) topic: I really get frustrated when people display blatant hypocrisy, and don't recognize it as such. I had a person in my cohort who spent most of his time in class on facebook or playing games. Recently, he posted a complaint about his students posting on facebook, and how they were so disrespectful.

One of the things that turned me off of organized religion was this "do as I say but don't examine what I do" theme.

[blackshoe]

 Scarabin, on 2012-December-30, 00:44, said:

True for unbelievers who were believers and decided to change. Not necessarily true for children of unbelievers, and for fans of writers like Dawkins and Hitchens.

 Vampyr, on 2012-December-30, 01:00, said:

Whatever.

I always wonder which of the fifty two idiomatic meanings (some of which admittedly are redundant) of this word is intended by its user.

[mikeh]

 Scarabin, on 2012-December-30, 00:44, said:

True for unbelievers who were believers and decided to change. Not necessarily true for children of unbelievers, and for fans of writers like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Why do you think that believers who decided to change can't be fans of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al?

Btw, I don't think it is possible to 'decide to change', Once you see how utterly stupid virtually all religious teachings are, once you realize that the emperor has no clothes, it just isn't possible to believe. I don't think that I set out to be an atheist anymore than it would be possible for me to now decide to be a believer.

Btw, I don't mean that the ostensibly decent philiosophical 'teachings' are stupid. There is some good advice in the New Testament, as an example. But despite all of the sophistry of the Xian theologians, they worship the same genocidal, psychotic thug of the Old Testament as do the Jews and the Muslims. And the creation myths, and the very notion of a god to whom we are special is so absurd as to bring to mind the saying of P.T. Barnum.

[billw55]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-30, 10:20, said:

But despite all of the sophistry of the Xian theologians, they worship the same genocidal, psychotic thug of the Old Testament as do the Jews and the Muslims.

I wasn't aware that Muslims worship anyone from the Old Testament. Can you elaborate?

[Fluffy]

 billw55, on 2012-December-30, 13:41, said:

I wasn't aware that Muslims worship anyone from the Old Testament. Can you elaborate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

wikipedia said:

including through Abraham, Moses and Jesus, whom they consider prophets

[mikeh]

 billw55, on 2012-December-30, 13:41, said:

I wasn't aware that Muslims worship anyone from the Old Testament. Can you elaborate?

Goes to show...altho a sample size of two proves little, the atheist knows more about religion than does the typical Xian believer. This is consistent with studies in the US that show that atheists generally have more understanding of the bible than do Xians.

Personally, I feel that these sorts of data do suggest that maybe believers are often believers for cultural reasons (i.e. being indoctrinated before the age of critical thinking) than because they understand what it is they profess to believe.

See the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. www.pewforum.org.

Thanks to Gonzalo for his link.

[Scarabin]

 mikeh, on 2012-December-30, 10:20, said:

Why do you think that believers who decided to change can't be fans of Dawkins, Hitchens, et al?

I do not think I said anything remotely like this. I merely pointed out to Vampyr the glaringly obvious fact that since Dawkins has written books on atheism it is possible to be influenced, persuaded,converted by these.

 mikeh, on 2012-December-30, 10:20, said:

Btw, I don't think it is possible to 'decide to change', Once you see how utterly stupid virtually all religious teachings are, once you realize that the emperor has no clothes, it just isn't possible to believe. I don't think that I set out to be an atheist anymore than it would be possible for me to now decide to be a believer.

I think your experience may not be universally shared. For me, and I think this may apply generally in the older generations, my progress to disbelief involved silently disagreeing with interminable sermons which I was forced to attend as a child. And usually some climactic event which triggered a decision.

 mikeh, on 2012-December-30, 10:20, said:

Btw, I don't mean that the ostensibly decent philiosophical 'teachings' are stupid. There is some good advice in the New Testament, as an example. But despite all of the sophistry of the Xian theologians, they worship the same genocidal, psychotic thug of the Old Testament as do the Jews and the Muslims. And the creation myths, and the very notion of a god to whom we are special is so absurd as to bring to mind the saying of P.T. Barnum.

Perhaps because I am not an extremist thinking in terms of simple absolutes, and because I value good manners, I find this part of your post offensive. Why do you do this? Surely you must be intelligent enough to realise that you do not influence people by offending them?

[Vampyr]

 Scarabin, on 2012-December-30, 21:12, said:

I do not think I said anything remotely like this. I merely pointed out to Vampyr the glaringly obvious fact that since Dawkins has written books on atheism it is possible to be influenced, persuaded,converted by these.

What is more obvious is how unlikely this is. The readers of Dawkins, Hitchins etc are, of course, self-selecting; so writers about atheism are mainly preaching to the converted. In any case, real faith stemming from serious thought and conviction will not be shaken by discussions of the low probability of the existence of gods. A few could perhaps be persuaded to turn their backs on organised religion, but these would not include people who are already members of a church they like.

Anyway who knows, maybe they have produced converts, but I do not understand what you are trying to say about them.

[mycroft]

I put a challenge in years (many years) ago. Put two tribes down in the desert with a nomadic experience. Give one Genesis 1/2 for a "creation story" and one the current scientific belief. Which one will be understandable, never mind helpful?

Literalist Fundamentalist Christian organizations boggle me to incredulity. When most of the last 2000 years taught by telling stories, and you tell stories and jokes-with-a-point, and the person you claim to worship *clearly* taught by telling stories - there's even a special name for his stories - how could you possibly believe that the rest of the truth only appears by reading literally? Have they ever *talked* to a rabbi?

On the other hand, atheists who argue against Christianity by treating the bible as a math text are either doing it knowing what they're doing (in which case, I am either just as boggled by them, if they don't get it, or if they do get it and are playing rhetorical games, that influences my reading of the rest of their argument), or are labelling all Christians by their most vocal brethren (at least in North America).

And the readers of Dawkins etc are not (at least not completely) self-selected; there are, in fact, proselytizing Atheists (capital A here). And yes, I do find them as annoying as the proselytizing Christians.

[mikeh]

 mycroft, on 2012-December-31, 12:46, said:

I put a challenge in years (many years) ago. Put two tribes down in the desert with a nomadic experience. Give one Genesis 1/2 for a "creation story" and one the current scientific belief. Which one will be understandable, never mind helpful?

Literalist Fundamentalist Christian organizations boggle me to incredulity. When most of the last 2000 years taught by telling stories, and you tell stories and jokes-with-a-point, and the person you claim to worship *clearly* taught by telling stories - there's even a special name for his stories - how could you possibly believe that the rest of the truth only appears by reading literally? Have they ever *talked* to a rabbi?

On the other hand, atheists who argue against Christianity by treating the bible as a math text are either doing it knowing what they're doing (in which case, I am either just as boggled by them, if they don't get it, or if they do get it and are playing rhetorical games, that influences my reading of the rest of their argument), or are labelling all Christians by their most vocal brethren (at least in North America).

And the readers of Dawkins etc are not (at least not completely) self-selected; there are, in fact, proselytizing Atheists (capital A here). And yes, I do find them as annoying as the proselytizing Christians.

I appreciate that many, and I suspect most (outside of certain large areas in the USA) christians are of your general persuasion rather than being fundamentalist. And I further appreciate that for believers such as you appear to be, the bible is more 'story telling' than literal truth.

This begs the question, however.

Are any parts of the bible, New and Old Testaments, 'true' in that they (accurately) portray actual events or statements?

My reading of the Bible suggests that the authors of the various, often inconsistent, parts do not give any explicit clue as to whether a particular passage is intended to be literally true or metaphorical, or allegorical.

If I am correct, then the bible becomes a very shaky foundation upon which to build a belief system.

I have previously suggested, and this is hardly original to me, that we 'create' our gods in our own image. Studies have indeed shown that we attribute to our 'god' (for those of us with one) attitudes that correspond to our own views of morality, rather than shaping those personal views to reflect the teachings of our holy books.

Once one sees the bible as a mix of historical fact and 'story telling' (ie fiction with or without various levels and shades of meaning), the bible becomes a mirror for us to see in it as true that which we would like to be true and to infer from the other passages the meanings that we (or our minister, priest, rabbi, parent, etc) wish to have be valid.

The histories of the churches, including the histories of Islam and Judasism, demonstrate the variation in interpretation of the holy books by different leaders over time, resulting in the schisms that have left the religions splintered and often embroiled in sectarian violence.

Moving on, there is, it seems to me, a huge difference between:

1. Using the philosophical guidance we extract from ancient texts and the teachings of those who have interpreted those texts in the moral conduct of our lives, and

2. Accepting that the creation myth has any legitimacy at all: that there is a Creator, let alone a creator to whom we should pray and who might in some circumstances interfere in our lives.

Frankly, the moral code set out in the bible leaves me cold, and a number of common interpetations of that scare the bejesus out of me, if you'll forgive a terrible turn of phrase. The NT is definitely more in keeping with what I would see as a positive moral guide, but I don't see how one can reconcile the teachings attributed to jesus with the conduct of the god whose son he claimed to be, metaphorically or otherwise.

As for your challenge, it is frankly trivial and I would sincerely hope that you don't see the challenge as at all relevant to whether an educated 21st century individual should accept the biblical creation myth as useful.

I don't know anyone who argues that religious explanations for the existence of the world, or 'us', were silly thousands of years ago.

Let me give you a challenge.

Explain how any passage or passages in the bible led to the invention of the significant working components of the means by which you post here. I assume you are using a computer, but you might be using a smartphone or tablet. Explain how the chips were designed by reference to biblical principles. Explain how the internet was established by the power of prayer, and so on.

To a nomadic, illiterate tribe, genesis would be 'understandable' tho of no apparent practical benefit, while quantum mechanics would neither understandable or useful. But to those responsible for building and maintaining current industrial and post-industrial societies, I respectively suggest that current scientific understanding is more useful, even if the average user of the technology has little understanding of how it works.

What I take from your challenge is simply common sense. To people unable to understand how the universe works other than through the very limited sensory perceptions available to an unequipped, uneducated person, the notion that we are the centre of the universe and that we were created for a purpose, and that we are in our current state because we, as a species, tasted the forbidden fruit of knowledge, etc, all makes some sense. Add to that the power of the astute amongst us to predict such things as the change of the season, and our innate tendency to see causation when there is only correlation, and we can see how prayer could be seen as a useful, if only sporadically effective, tool.

As nomads, maybe we pray that the watering hole will be full when we trek there in the spring, or that such crops as we sow in the spring will germninate. We sow seed. We pray for rain. It rains. Therefore the prayer caused the rain. We prayed to a god (or to spirits of ancestors, etc) and the rain came therefore the god or spirits etc listened, and so on.

That all makes sense but what does it have to do with being a believer in the supernatural now?

[onoway]

The thing I find unfortunate is that as far as I can see, atheists in general are totally unable to comprehend the need of some if not most people to find something outside of themselves to give their lives structure and meaning. Some people are able to cope comfortably with the concept of their lives ultimately being of no more significance than that of a starfish or a dung beetle or pigweed in terms of meaning, others might be driven to despair by the idea. They need to see a point to it all.

It's still incomprehensible to me how university educated, intelligent people would have committed suicide to go leap onto the comet's tail a few years back, except in that it shows how desperate people are to believe in something more than themselves to give their existence focus. Telling such people they should not need anything more is like telling someone they don't need anything other than Wonder bread to live on, a sterile,alien, unworkable concept.

A side note: I read years and years ago about people who went to Africa to do whatever they went to do there. The ones who denied being remotely superstitious and snorted derisively at those who took the "mumbo jumbo" of witch doctors and tribal leaders seriously, apparently were usually the first to succumb when informed of a ceremony which attacked them. Possibly food for thought, suggesting that respect for the belief systems of others is rarely misplaced, even if not shared.

[mgoetze]

 onoway, on 2012-December-31, 14:11, said:

Telling such people they should not need anything more

Strawman argument alert.

[mikeh]

 onoway, on 2012-December-31, 14:11, said:

The thing I find unfortunate is that as far as I can see, atheists in general are totally unable to comprehend the need of some if not most people to find something outside of themselves to give their lives structure and meaning. Some people are able to cope comfortably with the concept of their lives ultimately being of no more significance than that of a starfish or a dung beetle or pigweed in terms of meaning, others might be driven to despair by the idea. They need to see a point to it all.

Personally, I find the notion of the existence of such wonderfully complex living entitities as starfish, dung beetles or even pigweed....heck, even e coli...to be wondrous enough. The more one knows about the current theories underlying the existence of anything at all, the more wondrous it is to be alive and to contemplate the diversity of life as we know it. Some of my favourite books....books I pull out and re-read every 5-10 years just for the pure pleasure of it....are books on evolutionary history. Gould's book on the Burgess Shale fossils (I think Wonderful Life is the title) is one of my all time favourites. It's been rendered a bit out of date by the subsequent work on that era and the re-interpretation of some of the fossils, but the title remains very apposite.

I think it sad that people are brought up to believe that there has to be a 'purpose' imposed upon us by some unknown entity or force. The concept appears to me to be so limiting. I don't pretend to know the 'why' of the universe or the multi-verse, etc, and I suspect that the very question would make no sense to any person capable of and actually 'knowing' everything. But my lack of knowing 'why' doesn't make me want to invent reasons, the primary purpose of which is to constrain and confine my ability to be astounded by the very fact of existence.

And even if some people have such a 'need' and even if that need is innate as opposed to imposed by indoctrination, how does that validate, in any real sense, the answers that are provided by religious belief? How does that need invalidate or not apply to the FSM? The FSM was created to make a point about the absurdity of religion, but and perhaps because of that, it is a valid tool to use when encountering this argument. You 'need' a god in order that you can live a comfortable life? Ok, too bad but that's ok. Go ahead and invent whatever god makes you happy, but keep it the f*&k away from my life. Don't make laws based on your god. Don't educate my children to believe in your god. Don't discriminate against people who don't share your belief, and don't argue that your weakness makes your invention real.


It is ironic that my posts (perhaps I am guilty of conceit when I say 'my posts') have caused some to post remarks suggesting that the problem with some atheists is that they assert absolute certainty. I do express (almost) absolute certainty that the major religions are mistaken in their fundamental creation and god myths....even if there is a 'god', the odds must be astronomical that any current religion guessed the right one.....but the truth is, as I see it, that most atheists are most adamant about one thing and one thing only: we reject the false certainty professed by any organized religion, in favour of what appears to be obvious: we don't know and maybe never will know 'everything'.

To the mycrofts, my response is more nuanced because, as I understand his position, he agrees that the creation myths are just stories. I think, based on how I read his posts, that he sees his god as some 'force' or concept that underlies and in some unknown and maybe unknowable fashion created and maybe continues to be involved in the universe with some attention paid to humanity. His is largely, I think, a beneficent concept who has set out guidelines for us to follow in our lives. I suspect that if mycroft and I were asked a series of questions designed to elicit our view of the proper moral response to difficult circumstances we'd either agree on all or almost all of them and, when we differed, we'd acknowledge the legitimacy of the other's position. Where we might disagree most is on 'why', in that I would reject any reference to any outside authority and would rely on my own internal reactions.

Those reactions are of course influenced by cultural and educational factors, tho studies have shown that basic moral issues are generally seen much the same way across broad ranges of cultural and educational factors. I reject the teachings of the Catholic Church but I am not so naive as to think that the Sunday School lessons left no trace on my psyche, and so on.

[mycroft]

Well, getting the information (which we seem to have lost) that you, the humans are in charge of all the animals and plants in your domain (and that includes taking care of them so that they'll still be there later), is an advantage in my supposed challenge. But that wasn't the point.

The problem is that you're pulling a switch. "It's obviously story, so why would any rational person believe?" "well, at the time it was written, it was the most useful story, more so than the scientific facts; what, therefore, is truth?" "But how does that work in building our society?" "um, it doesn't. What does that have to do with anything?" You could say the same about history - which we know to be true, and the progress of which has led to this society, but doesn't do anything *now* - so?

I happen to like mythology. I am happy to believe that some of the bible, as Truth, is mythology, and that the truth is what you get out of the story, not the story itself. For that, I get it from both sides :-)

I know that I am alive due to something beyond myself. In the context of a Christian education, it comes out as a calling from God. In a purely rational explanation, it's pretty much utterly random, and luck. Now I'm alive due to an awful lot of luck, I don't doubt that, and an awful lot of modern medical science, too; but this particular case, if it was just luck, I'd rather it happen again, were I to be back in that circumstance again (which I doubt).

How can you believe, looking at the horrible writings and acts? Similarly, how can you not believe, seeing the magnificent?

[mikeh]

 mycroft, on 2012-December-31, 16:34, said:

Well, getting the information (which we seem to have lost) that you, the humans are in charge of all the animals and plants in your domain, and that includes taking care of them so that they'll still be there later) is an advantage in my supposed challenge. But that wasn't the point.

But why are we in charge? We aren't in charge at all, and thinking that we are has led to a lot of irrational behaviour. Many on the US political right, for example, believe that we can do anything we like because god wouldn't let us destroy his creation. Others, such as the pope, are against contraception. Some say that we are mandated to 'go forth and mulitiply' and the heck with the consequences.

None of which is to deny the validity or wisdom of your interpretation, but it merely highlights the problem with holy writings can be and invariably are read to serve the wishes of the reader.

A proper understanding, that we are but one species that has evolved along with all other current living entities, and that we are subject to the laws of physics, and of over-population just as are other species would be far more useful. I don't think those laws are quite as susceptible to being read purely so as to coincide with one's selfish view or wishful thinking.

Quote

I know that I am alive due to something beyond myself. In the context of a Christian education, it comes out as a calling from God. In a purely rational explanation, it's pretty much utterly random, and luck. Now I'm alive due to an awful lot of luck, I don't doubt that, and an awful lot of modern medical science, too; but this particular case, if it was just luck, I'd rather it happen again, were I to be back in that circumstance again (which I doubt).

I don't know what you mean by luck.

You and I are accidents, in the sense that we came about without any conscious intention to create 'us'. Our parents and their ancestors may have planned a pregnancy (or not) but they couldn't specify which sperm would fertilize the egg nor what mix of DNA would be inherited nor how our development would proceed in the womb and so on. Going back further, our more distant ancestors lacked conscious volition, and even earlier, lacked even a nervous system, etc.

But life was probably very likely to have developed and, once it started, its progression wasn't directed or narrowly constrained but, as I understand current thinking, it wasn't utterly random either.

There are only so many ways a piece of self-replicating molecule can be changed and still be self-replicating, and at both the molecular and higher levels of organization, even viable mutations face the risk of failing to preferentially survive. So it isn't 'utterly random' tho it seems to likely be effectively chaotic in many ways.

Quote

How can you believe, looking at the horrible writings and acts? Similarly, how can you not believe, seeing the magnificent?

I understand the first sentence. I completely fail to understand the second. I see the magnificence but why that should cause me to think in religious terms not only escapes me but saddens me that intelligent people are so limited in their imagination and sense of awe that they have to resort to a magic being as 'the explanation'.

[Vampyr]

 onoway, on 2012-December-31, 14:11, said:

The thing I find unfortunate is that as far as I can see, atheists in general are totally unable to comprehend the need of some if not most people to find something outside of themselves to give their lives structure and meaning. Some people are able to cope comfortably with the concept of their lives ultimately being of no more significance than that of a starfish or a dung beetle or pigweed in terms of meaning, others might be driven to despair by the idea. They need to see a point to it all.

I feel so sad for such people.

[kenberg]

 onoway, on 2012-December-31, 14:11, said:

The thing I find unfortunate is that as far as I can see, atheists in general are totally unable to comprehend the need of some if not most people to find something outside of themselves to give their lives structure and meaning. Some people are able to cope comfortably with the concept of their lives ultimately being of no more significance than that of a starfish or a dung beetle or pigweed in terms of meaning, others might be driven to despair by the idea. They need to see a point to it all.

It's still incomprehensible to me how university educated, intelligent people would have committed suicide to go leap onto the comet's tail a few years back, except in that it shows how desperate people are to believe in something more than themselves to give their existence focus. Telling such people they should not need anything more is like telling someone they don't need anything other than Wonder bread to live on, a sterile,alien, unworkable concept.

A side note: I read years and years ago about people who went to Africa to do whatever they went to do there. The ones who denied being remotely superstitious and snorted derisively at those who took the "mumbo jumbo" of witch doctors and tribal leaders seriously, apparently were usually the first to succumb when informed of a ceremony which attacked them. Possibly food for thought, suggesting that respect for the belief systems of others is rarely misplaced, even if not shared.

The thing is, we simply believe that that is the way of the world. This general notion that there must be a God because otherwise it is just too awful has many forms, but, speaking for myself only, I simply don't believe that there is such an entity, and so that's that. I took a course from Robert Ames in college. The course was on Greek humanities, Sophocles and such, but I talked to him some about other matters. He was, by his own description, a Christian Existentialist. Well, this was in the 1950s and we were all reading Sartre and Camus and so on back then, but they were Atheist Existentialists so this Christian Existentialism was of interest. He was very clear about it. With no God, life would have no meaning. He refused to lead a meaningless life. Therefore God exists. If I do his argument an injustice, it is not by much and not intentional. That's what I understood of it. Later I read Reinhold Neibur who I think had some sort of connection with this view but honestly I could never make head nor tail of his writings.

I go with the truth as I see it, and as I see it, that means no God. I don't find this to be unfortunate, not at all. I have had a lifelong distaste for being judged or even praised. For example in elementary school I got so tired of my mother telling everyone about my good grades that I set out to deliberately get bad grades. (I succeeded, even beyond my intentions.) While perhaps life everlasting would be lovely, I am not convinced. Life is a wonder, a miracle, with a beginning and an end. Live it in joy and gratitude.

Perhaps oddly, the one aspect of my disbelief that occasionally bothers me is that there is no Supreme Being to thank for this life. But then thanking my parents seems like a good idea. I'll go with that.

And, before I forget, Happy New Year.

[Vampyr]

 kenberg, on 2012-December-31, 18:53, said:

Christian Existentialism was of interest. He was very clear about it. With no God, life would have no meaning. He refused to lead a meaningless life. Therefore God exists. If I do his argument an injustice, it is not by much and not intentional. That's what I understood of it. And, before

Well, yes; in a sense all believers are a bit like this, and those who have made arguments for belief on these forums are no different -- ultimately people believe in God because they want to.