Why is Buddha on this list? Wasn’t Buddha just a creative, deep-thinking, compassionate and insightful guy who developed some good ideas and practices? And isn’t he viewed by Buddhists as such?
Budda is technically just the first person to become enlightened, and not a god. Buddists strive to become like him, but do not worship him like a deity.
Atheists can technically be buddists. The religion is actually the opposite of mindlessly beliving something. Budda taught his followers to question all of his lessons, and not just mindlessly accept them.
In Buddhism, there are no external saviors; rather deity is often used as a translation for “yidam” representing an enlightened quality used as a meditation support. http://www.bodhipath-west.org/glossary.htm
Buddha is on the list because the Christians consider him to be a god and view Buddhism as a false-religion. So, there had to be a counterpoint for the atheists.
This goes along with the commonly recited line about how many gods atheists and christians don’t believe exist, and how, for atheists, it’s just one less. I’ve tried this approach on christians and been surprised to find that it isn’t always accurate. Some of them believe that a number (or all of) these gods also exist, but that they are lesser or false gods. For such christians, the argument of god-by-god atheism is ineffective. This amazed me at first, but then I realized that some people believe a realm exists which is populated entirely by supernatural good and evil entities. With this level of disconnection from reality, they have the capacity to believe that many gods exist. To me, this reveals one of the major problems with faith- to be honest about the unobserved, it is necessary to take an all-or-none approach. If faith is enough to declare that one incorporeal being is real, then it must be enough for them all.
J.S. Brown is right, though it’s not so much that they believe these other gods exist as gods.
They are demons sent by Satan to tempt men away from the true faith or evil spirits hoping to gain earthly power through false worship.
Growing up (Baptist) I was never taught that these entities don’t exist, but that they’re evil and in opposition to Jehovah.
1. For Christians, God is not “incorporeal”. Jesus Christ is God. Believe me, I know from experience that you don’t want in on the debate about how exactly this is. Just understand that Christians believe there is one God, fully Jesus Christ, who is a body, just like you or I. All Christians believe this – see the 3 basic creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian).
2. From a basically logical standpoint, this argument does not demonstrate anything. It would be like claiming that being from Canada and Russia are the same on the grounds that there are x number of countries two people aren’t from. “You aren’t from all these other countries, therefore you must not be from Canada.”
3. This ‘argument’ misses the heart of the issue. Christians do not not believe in all those Gods for the same reasons as atheists (or, more accurately, based on the same more basic beliefs). Christians have a variety of reasons for believing in our God, and so do atheists have a variety of reasons for not believing in ANY God whatsoever.
4. A related point might better defend atheism: Making a convincing argument for the existence of ‘god’ (a theistic argument) does nothing for proving the existence of a Christian God. Seriously atheists, get some real arguments. How about: How can God die? or How can Jesus be both fully human and fully divine? What does that even mean? Why no eschaton yet? etc…
5. Why not rip on other theists, why always Christians?
To me, any religon that outright bans any other “gods” is an obvious sign that it is a man-made religon. A truly almighty god would never so petty as to be jealous of other gods – real or imagined.
How many gods you believe in is patently different from whether you believe in a god or not. There is a finite difference between theistic Faiths but an infinite difference between Theism and Atheism. This is the untraversable relationship between something and nothing whereas the gulf between Theists can be wide, but is always traversable.
So if this list was used as suggesting that Christians are as bad as Atheists then you need to think a little more about your ridiculous assumptions.
This is simply an illustration of the quote by Stephen F. Roberts: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Christians hate this stuff, because they, like almost everyone else, INSISTS that there’s is the only true god. And they can use whatever justifications and anecdotes they want, because they can’t do just one tiny little thing: Prove it.
BryanJ is right, some forms of Buddhism do regard Buddha as a divine being, although maybe not a full omnimax god in the Western sense. Most Westerners have only read about Zen Buddhism which is pretty atheistic and might be closest to the original teachings of the Buddha. Check out this Wiki page. It can get pretty complicated:
I’ve been to many Buddhist temples in Japan and they are filled with statues of different gods or spirits (depending on how you want to translate it). There is a lot of variety in the world of Buddhism!
As a former believer, I’ve always thought this was another very weak argument. This and “who created god?” since you can’t have an infinite regression. As a believer, you think your god is a special case by definition.
The better approach is to present the positive evidence against theism. There is a lot of it. I think many people are open to considering the evidence if they see it.
1. I’ll take your word for it, because I certainly don’t get it.
2. I don’t really follow your analogy, but before we get to that I have to disagree that this list is an “argument” at all. It’s more like an illustration or rhetorical device. So I don’t think it has much value beyond that.
3. Good point! I agree.
4. Sure, but I don’t think Hemant was posting this list as the final and best argument for atheism. You wrote, “Seriously atheists, get some real arguments.” Who are you addressing here? There are hundreds of books and web sites overflowing with real arguments. It sounds like you are judging the whole community of atheists and their world view on this single blog post.
5. But we do! If you spend any time on atheist web sites you will see plenty of criticism of Islam for example. But 75% of of Americans claim to be Christian. Every other religion in the US is a small minority. Atheist bloggers are going to write about what they know best. If atheist bloggers could exist in the Middle East without being assassinated I’m sure they would harp on Islam most of the time. I visit some Japanese atheist forums and all they talk about are crazy Buddhist cults that are common there. So there you go.
There are no ‘gods’ per se in buddhism. Only people who have attained a high level of enlightenment. Buddhism acknowledges that the road to Nirvana has many paths – actually, everyone has a unique path (which encompasses all other religions and non-religions. As long as you feel at peace with yourself, you’re on the right path.)
There are icons however but the purpose of these is to appeal the ‘lesser man’, who needs inspiration and guidace through iconic statues. Others will find hidden knowledge in these statues and icons.
The closest God like concept in buddism is the ‘Cosmic Intelligence’ which is not an diety, but rather an entity composed of illuminated beings’s compiled knowledge…. a bit like the internet.
So yes one reveres the different incarnations of said ‘cosmic intelligence’ to their liking. Christians labeled this a ‘god’ and gave him a human name. Arabs labeled this intelligence as the same ‘god’ as the xtians, but with a different label.
Buddha was the 4th ‘prophet’ in buddhism cosmology, and the last prophet and 5th one will come… during the apocalypse
People need to look into this “Buddhism” thing they love talking about. Eastern buddhism has been so distorted by the west it’s hard to understand where people get their ideas about it from. I’m not going to get into talking about buddhism because I don’t have time, but suffice it to say that it’s no “atheists solution to spirituality” and it’s just as supersitious as any other religion (in general, obviously different people believe different things, I’m an atheist quaker but I do not an atheist religion make, nor do all these atheist buddhist westerners remove “Buddha,” a term they’re using improperly in the first place, from the standing of a god).
Besides that, I think the use of shintou gods is funny, but obviously, you’ve missed a few thousand (notably elvis, depending again on who you talk to).
I agree with others here. I am an athiest. I am also a Buddhist. Buddhism is non-theistic philosophy and practice, meaning there are no gods involved. Wikipedia it up and you’ll open the pandora’s box to a bunch of crap that people have added on to something that should be really simple.
Buddhism to me is a philosophy, not a formalized, organize religion or practice, although other forms of buddhism involve ritual and addendums to the dogma that I don’t concern myself about.. I’m technically a ‘dhammist’- someone who adheres to dhamma principles as taught by the S. Gautama the Buddha in the Pali canon.
Buddha is not a god, nor a diety in my opinion. Just a guy who made a deep realization and achieved something mentally/spiritually and then taught this powerful technique to the world. Someone to be revered, like MLK or Ghandi or Mother Teresa
Buddha a god? You’re truly a moron. He was just a man, and a teacher. He himself specifically instructed people not to worship him as a god but to use his teachings as a tool to look inward and to achieve better understanding and unity.
I don’t see the argument so much as being anti-Christian but rather as anti-monotheism.
It is natural to think the sun goes around the earth, and it is natural to think that YOUR god is the correct one, but from a Copernican standpoint the atheist’s position is more logical (although that doesn’t make it more right).
This is certainly NOT a strong argument for atheism, but it IS a very strong argument against believing that YOUR god is the correct one and that the others are all incorrect. To see it another way, it is not an argument against any of the 100 gods on the list, but merely an attempt to get their followers to look at their beliefs a little more closely and wonder why THEIR religion is special and the one Absolute Truth.
[...] document.write(”"); } )() //A great list of all the gods atheists appropriately dismiss and a similar list of the gods that Christians dismiss. It’s amazing how close Christians [...]
A Brahmin once asked the blessed one, ‘are you god?’ ‘No Brahmin’, replied the blessed one. ‘Are you a saint?’ ‘No Brahmin’, the blessed one said. ‘Are you a magician?’ ‘No Brahmin’ said the blessed one again. Brahmin asked, ‘what are you then?’ ‘I am awake’.
The post mainly illustrates how man-kind over the years have thought up (invented) lots of god concepts. It then suggests that the Christian concept of God is just one of many…. and maybe not so special as some seem to think…
I’m Christian, I believe in God. Does this means that I know that God is exactly the way Jesus said? I don’t know. But I believe that there is a supernatural being, and I call him “God”. Therefore I accept other Gods too(that the real God could be different of what I believe in).
You know you are here thinking, look at your hands, there is no robot that could do what they do, look at your eyes, we don’t know how to make a machine think, you are here. For you natural selection created everything, and what created sexuality before?, and what created ADN before sexuality, and what created live before ADN, and what created the world before, and what created the Via Lactea before, and what created big bang?,and what was before Big Bang.
We don’t know, you don’t know, I don’t know. Your choice is believing, there is no supernatural being, my choice is the contrary.
Oh, and personally I know people that are agnostic and Buddhist, so please remove Buddha from the list. My experience with people remembering past lives(look at any good hypnosis book) had made me believe in reincarnations too.
Have a good day, when I see an article made by an atheist that is respectful with what he don’t believe I rejoice. I see a lot of unhappy people that don’t respect saying they are not respected.That’s a vicious cycle of war.
Some of them believe that a number (or all of) these gods also exist, but that they are lesser or false gods.
It does make a kind of twisted sense. If there were no other gods, what would be the point of the first (?) commandment about having “no other gods before me”. Kinda silly if there’s only one god….
Is there someplace in the bible where it does say there’s only one, as opposed to only one right one?
Claire ,
the bible starts as a story of a god between many gods (i am a jalous god etc.), and only during the stay in babylon they switch from one-god-between-many to there-is-only-one-god. That’s the reason why the christian god has a name. The bible has been rewritten to accomodate his project, but many traces can be found.
[...] Interesante lista que refleja que los ateos y los creyentes no somos tan diferentes despues de todo. Sin embargo, soltar escapar de esa ultima diferencia para los creyentes es un suplicio demasiado grande … Porque ? [...]
“Allah” is the Arabian word for “God”. Some Muslim people do translate it when talking in other language other than Arabian but other don’t (I think there are issues with the Koran being translated). On the other hand Christians talking in Arabian would use the word Allah to refer to their deity.
I have reached the point where I am actuallty amused by Dawkins and all the others who seem to think that religious faith can be subjected to rigorous logical analysis. Faith is the irrational belief in an unprovable proposition; if we could prove it, we wouldn’t need faith. Numerous medieval philosophers attempted to logically prove God’s existence, and they all failed.
I’m a Christian. My faith is irrational and illogical, but it works for me. I am agnostic as to the other deities named here (even Buddha), mostly because I don’t see any need to care about their existence. Christianity is an arbitrary choice, primarily resulting from the fact that I was raised in the church. My faith brings me comfort, strength, inspiration, and (sometimes) joy. That makes it worthwhile for me.
This list, like the other “arguments” against the existence of a deity, is only threatening to the believers who have shaky faith and want to bolster their faith with a little logic. Can’t be done. In the end, those who look to logic for support will only be disappointed.
Empiricism answers a lot of questions, but I am not convinced that it can or will eventually answer ALL questions. There are many who believe differently, but they cannot prove empiricism holds all the answers. Perhaps for those people, we should put “Empiricism” in the second column..
What about Gods that atheist do believe in? Hitchens, Darwin, Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer. They quote from their “authoritative” books just like any Sunday preacher.
You Buddhism apologists are just like the “Those odd folks aren’t TRUE Christians” people who crop up all the time. Go do some research. Check out the wiki links in my previous comment. Yes, some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, like Zen, but many forms of Buddhism are not. Maybe you’re right and your personal belief is the TRUE Buddhism, but that doesn’t change how millions of self-labeled Buddhists actually practice their religion in the real world.
Besides “god” is a vague term. Are all the so-called “gods” on that original list truly “gods”? What’s a “god”? Is Zeus a god? He didn’t create the universe, so maybe not if you’re going by that definition. Is Yahweh equivalent to Vishnu, or is Yahweh equivalent to Brahman? These questions are meaningless since every mythology is unique.
HEY! Speak for yourself! I happen to LOVE inari! I have some in the fridge right now! I love me some kibi dango and tonkatsu too, but they’re not on the list.
I think Stomper gets the award for honesty. If it feels good for you then do it regardless of the truth. Empiricism cannot answer ALL the questions and anyone who thinks so doesn’t understand the philosophy of science. But it is pretty much the only thing we have. It is a bottom-up approach where you build on what you know (with a certain degree of uncertainty) as opposed to starting at the very top with absolute knowledge of your concept of God and working down. Just because “empiricism” can’t determine everything doesn’t mean that things you make up to bring you comfort, strength, inspiration, and (sometimes) joy are equally valid.
As for the list of gods it is only a tool to illustrate the fact that people throughout history have invented and worshiped different gods with contradictory values and abilities. And they all had just as much evidence as you do–nothing except for a deeply rooted tradition (and some oral or written stories passed down through the generations). So what makes you think you’re right? It’s more of a challenge just to try to get someone out of their ethnocentric world view than it is an argument.
I’m a Christian, but I love this post, thanks! I think people have way more in common than they think. If we’d all just sit down and talk, and agree that we will never be clones of each other and were never meant to be clones of each other.
Yeah, we have more in common, and more to bring us together, than reasons to fight. I’m tired of it!
“Hindus believe that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, so that might be why he’s up there.”
That was actually a propaganda tool used by the Brahmins to destroy and coopt the Buddhist threat. It worked to perfection since Buddhism is completely dead in India (not counting the insignificant “untouchable” conversion to Buddhism).
“Thank you, I will cherish this honesty award, and I want to thank the producers, the directors, and most of all my agent.”
I like empiricism. I’ve spent a lot of money teaching my kids to be empiricists. I also take them to church and teach Sunday School, because I want them to develop their spiritual sides as well.
Based on my empirical observations, most people have a rational aspect as well as a spiritual aspect. Some work hard to develop and cultivate one or the other while letting the other aspect wither. I prefer to work on both.
The mystery of spirituality is a beautiful aspect of human nature. If you have that aspect and ignore it, then you are missing out. It is analogous to poetry or music. Most of us have the ability to appreciate it, but you have to put some effort in, if you want to get the most out.
I’ve heard Dawkins make this point, but besides being a clever little joke to stick into a talk, I don’t think it makes much sense.
Theist – believes in one or more gods
Atheist – believes in no gods
You can’t be an atheist about a particular god, theism is a larger worldview or paradigm that includes any variation on believing in a deity or deities. To go from Christian Theism to Atheism does not require “just one more step,” but a major shift in your beliefs about the nature of the universe.
One of my favorite quotes… “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
” That was actually a propaganda tool used by the Brahmins to destroy and coopt the Buddhist threat. It worked to perfection since Buddhism is completely dead in India (not counting the insignificant “untouchable” conversion to Buddhism).”
Buddhism completely dead? Ever been to Ladakh, or Sikkim?
All you buddha-is-or-is-not-a-god people; take one step back and think about this. This list points out that neither Christians nor atheists believe that Buddha is a real god. Get it? No one’s arguing with you.
Fantastic list. You’ve really stuck it the Christians this time. Now they are sure to renounce Yahweh and become obsessed, like you, with disproving that which cannot be disproven.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe they will go on keeping the faith and remaining perfectly content, despite the incessant ridicule, which is not intended to help them in any way, but only to make you feel better about the conclusion you have reached.
If only your conclusion provided you peace. But apparently it does not.
My wife is buddhist. She is Vietnamese. I have been all over Vietnam with her and to many pagodas. They have statues of Buddhas everywhere and pray to them like gods and ask them for things etc. To a Christian I can sure see how that would seem to put Buddha up there with the gods. Buddhists pray to many different gods/buddhas also. So you could probably add all of them to you list. They are a bit like the Romans in that they have a god of the house, god of money, god of being safe, many things. You can pray to each one depending on what you need.
My understanding is that Buddha was and is worshiped by many as a god. He did not intend for that to happen — it is counter to his teachings — but that generally doesn’t stop folks. Especially when it’s easier to just worship Buddha than to figure out what he was saying. Same goes for Confucius; he also ended up being worshiped as a god.
Having said that, I continue to find it odd that Atheists are so often surprised and delighted that monotheists believe in only one god.
I know everyone in the atheosphere likes to put forth Buddhism as an example of an atheistic religion, but it’s not really so straightforward. Most Buddhists see the Buddha as some sort of cosmic being. Why, just the other day I was visiting a Buddhist temple. They were talking about how Damu Amida Butsu (a Buddha) was willing to save everyone, even people in hell (much nicer than Jesus, huh?). Then they’d talk about a place that sounded remarkably like heaven. They don’t think this is in contradiction with the Buddha’s original teachings, so why should I?
Yes…I must chime in here…The Buddha…Sidarta…specifically told his followers he was NOT a god, but a man who had found enlightenment. I realize that from the monotheistic religious perspective they will lump Buddha in with all of these others…but I think that as rational people we have to exclude a man who said he is not a god and who is not considered a god by his followers.
Okay…that is just ridiculous. Those entities you mention are called PEOPLE or AUTHORS, not gods. To claim that we atheists worship Dawkins like a Christian might worship Jesus is just a bad comparison all around. A better comparison would be Christians and C.S. Lewis. You don’t worship him (after all, HE did not rise from the dead), yet you highly regard him. Same with Atheists and Sam Harris. In fact, you may find some disagreement over his viewpoints. Hmmm…Christians do the same with Jesus. Maybe you’re right…..
On a side note, Dagon is probably listed twice in each list because of the god of Copy and Paste!
I think this Buddha into god question is important from atheistic point of view. I think most Buddhist scholars and biggest Buddhist traditions agree that Buddha was not god (might have perfected supernatural skills tough). But how did he become godlike person for so many people even when he specially said he is not god, and said that Buddhist should not practice any “supernatural” stuff of his time.
Buddhist texts explain this by saying that most people are “hearers”. Those are people who don’t have deep spiritual need to know things intimately, but still have deep need to hear how things are and how people should behave. Thus when authoritative figure lays out how they should act and behave, they happily try to follow the rules.
While Sidartha did teach that he was not a god, he did so in a different context. Westerners are used to thinking of the supernatural as a special, not everyday kind of thing. You can tell by the way they stick ’super’ on the beginning.
They have their Jesus, but they have Him in Heaven, where He belongs. Kind of like the canned peas are in the cabinet by the fridge. You only see those Peas on a special occasion like death.
Sidartha taught in a context of the everyday supernatural. Genus loci were not supernatural in his day- they were natural phenomena. A fox might have certain powers. So might your neighbor the sage. That the dead were not always quiet was a simple fact of life.
To understand the buddhists who pray to spirits, one must first accept that the word supernatural as used today derives from a rationalist standpoint, and so does the concept. For many (if not most) human beings today, this remains the case- there is no supernatural, merely natural phenomena westerners describe as such.
to all the buddha-is-not-a-god-people: do you realize that “standard buddhist mythology”, if such a thing exists, deals with more than one buddha? the best known one, and the one with the qoute about not being godly, is shakyamuni, but maybe you should read up on Amida or Amitabha, another buddha who has been and is still worshipped as savior of the weak and creator of the pure land in Pure Land Buddhism, the dominant form of buddhism today together with Chan(Zen).
gosh, know what you’re talking about before you start talking about it.
and yeah, right, this list is not an argument (or not a good one) to use in a debate. well, duh. glad you figured this out, sherlock. it’s just something like a “fun fact”, since it doens’t prove anything. it’s as valuable as an argument as “it’s true because it says so in the bible” is.
and matt, we do not “believe” in these people. we agree with them to a certain point and respect and hold up their scientific work. well, most do. atheism is constantly mistaken for just a different approach on religion, without naming a god. but here’s the important part: faith. speaking as an atheist, i have faith in other beings in a sociallly interactive way only, e.g. that my girlfriend will not cheat on me, that my mom will be there when i need her etc., but no religious faith here. no sir.
furthermore, there is no canon to atheism. you can live under a rock in a cave somewhere in papua-new guinea and never have heard about dawkins. NOT BELIEVING IN ANY GOD suffices. atheism is not a religion, it is the lack thereof.
The other gods are parties, events and elements of nature, but: to worship nature if I can worship their creator? And God spoke at least, not nature, but nature is alive.
While atheists benefit from the adjustments heathen of the Catholic Church to say that Christ is a myth, I will continue testifying of God’s love.
Well, I am a Christian, and for me, the other gods exist: they are events and parts of the wilderness, sometimes statues, sometimes feelings. For worship nature if I can worship their creator? But nature does not speak, if it does its creator.
“I simply believe in a God more than you. Where understand why I do not dismiss God, understand why if discard the other gods.”
In God we do not believe, as is done with other gods, because God is owed KNOW, and Christ taught us how to do it very well.
If atheists do not want to enjoy, nor does it want to try a fraction of God’s love, because sorry for them because seek refuge in a diminishing success, and its purpose of life will be passenger, but Christ remains the rock, which always stays.
I could believe that the universe has always existed, but would be discarded life, because life itself tells me: God loves you and wants what is best for you.
Religion does not necessarily leads to God, in fact, Christ taught us to know God through faith, not through any religion.
Furthermore, the Greeks believed in God unknown, which is not related to nature, and that they felt the presence of God, even when nature was still their gods.
God loves atheists, Christians, Muslims and others. bye.
Noru, thank you. Anyone who has visited a Buddhist temple in Japan with people praying and incense burning knows that it is far from the yuppy weekend philosophy in the West.
Listen, if in 100 years people are truly worshiping Elvis as a god, and building churches to Elvis, then he should be on the list! Yes the real Elvis was just a guy, and he never said he was a god, but it won’t change how this future Church of Elvis views him.
My guess is that the the “sterilized” Buddhism popular in the states is mostly due to the majority of importation coming from Zen Buddhism which lacks much of the spiritual decoration adorning other Buddhisms.
Ahora, which Buddhism are you talking about? It’s like saying “In Christianity there aren’t any Saints.” (Which version?) Did you see the Wiki links above? Look at this guy:
“In Buddhism, the Adi-Buddha is the “Primordial Buddha.” The term refers to a self-emanating, self-originating Buddha, present before anything else existed.”
That sounds like more than a spirit. (Assuming Wiki is trustworthy, who knows?) But you’re right, where do you draw the line between a “spirit” and a “god”. How the heck should I know? The words don’t have any meaning for me in reality. (Maybe if I was playing D&D: A spirit becomes a god when it goes above X hit points! etc.)
In at least one version, Buddha expressly denied being a deity. There are many who follow Buddhist teachings without worshipping Buddha as a deity. However, there are many others who DO worship Buddha as a deity. Because of those people, no matter how misguided they may be, Buddha belongs on the lists. Why is this discussion still going?
[...] finalizar, lembre-se de que ateus só acreditam em um Deus a menos que você, pressupondo que você não seja, obviamente, um ateu — ou politeísta. E sinceramente, se Deus [...]
Brian B. said:
If only your conclusion provided you peace.
For many, there is an emotional and psychological need for a framework in which to live their lives. Religion offers one such framework which has been manifested in different ways throughout history and in different cultures.
Atheism is a skeptical challenge to religious frameworks. Atheism by itself, though, isn’t a replacement or alternative to religious frameworks. If one has a psychological need for a framework, then atheism by itself will not be enough. One must add something like Humanism or Buddhism (that is Buddhism without the supernatural elements). Another option is Christianity without the supernatural elements. See Thomas Jefferson’s bible
Several comments on this thread cry out for a response. To address a few:
- Altogether mankind has almost certainly believed in thousands of gods. I don’t suppose for a moment that the compiler of this list (of around 600) thought it was complete, so criticising the list by pointing out a few others is pointless.
- Jehovah is certainly not missing; the people who say this have missed the entire point of the list. Jehovah is the last entry, in the alternative spelling of Yahweh, and the only difference between the two lists.
- While the name Jehovah/Yahweh is not (AFAIK) used in the New Testament, the god there is unambiguously identified in numerous places with the god of the Old Testament. The Christian God is thus Jehovah/Yahweh.
- Allah and the Christian God undoubtedly share a common origin, but they are equally undoubtedly not the same. To take the most obvious point: the central tenet of Christianity is that Yawheh/God had a son who came to earth in human form. The central tenet of Islam is that Allah is one alone, and thus has no relatives or competitors. The Koran explicitly denies the existence of a son.
And finally, yes these sorts of lists are a relevant part of the atheistic argument. They demonstrate that inventing gods is a common human occupation. They demonstrate that the reasonable position is to assume that all gods are invented unless and until someone provides evidence to the contrary. And they also demolish the commonly heard (though frequently incorrect) Christian claim that atheists reject Christianity without knowing anything about it, and that atheism is therefore invalid. After all, Christians happily reject huge numbers of gods without knowing anything about them.
[...] somos ateos He encontrado en menéame un enlace muy curioso. Se trata de dos listas de dioses, cada una de las cuales contiene los dioses que no [...]
[...] Gods We Don’t Believe In I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (tags: religion) [...]
Budha was himsef a hindu and thats true that he is now worshipped as a god. Allah an Christian God “share” the same origins just because of man called Mohammad, who copyed stuff from scriptures to his “bible”.
I think most westerners mistake Buddhist ceremonies as worship when they actually are more like reverence and directing your mind towards your goal. Physical actions like bowing talk directly to unconscious mind. Bodhisattvas and “non-historical Buddhas” are mental ideals, usually representing perfection of some desirable mental aspect X, when you pray to them, pray for ideal within yourself.
What makes things even more confusing is the concept of Upaya (skillful means, similar to Platos golden lie). Buddhists don’t think that it is so important that people have precisely right concepts in their minds (mental constructs are always imperfect), but that they make right actions and have right intentions. Thus it may be OK to even pray and worship Buddha as god. That is just bakhti-yoga, practice of devotion.
This relaxed attitude towards philosophical truth is what emphasizes the practical and personal training aspect of Buddhism. Buddha himself describes his teaching as toys or leaves made of fake gold. They are used to lure children out of burning house. In other sutra he likens his teachings to raft, when you get to the other side you are fool if you carry the raft in your back.
Fischer goes on to explain to his students that bowing is a mental training method that helps us cultivate an attitude of love and appreciation for the Buddha-nature within our own nature. Piety and devotion are okay as long as one doesn’t get hysterical about it; they are tender and splendid states of mind.[xlii]
He says that by appreciating how the figures are actually symbolic manifestations of oneself, then we become more comfortable with them as “other,” and external. The more familiar we get with ourselves as we actually are, the more comfortable we get with the images that are “other.”
“Ordinary people often wish to see the immortals and to meet the Buddha and they firmly believe that only by their prayers ad their entreaties will these come to their assistance.
The “well-understood” acts otherwise: when he believes that he may be in the presence of these superior beings he immediately goes in search of them. The “all-understood” seeks nowhere, knowing full well that the Buddha is omnipresent and dwells within oneself.”
Fantastic list. You’ve really stuck it the Christians this time. Now they are sure to renounce Yahweh and become obsessed, like you, with disproving that which cannot be disproven.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe they will go on keeping the faith and remaining perfectly content, despite the incessant ridicule, which is not intended to help them in any way, but only to make you feel better about the conclusion you have reached.
If only your conclusion provided you peace. But apparently it does not.
If only YOUR conclusion provided you peace, you wouldn’t have such a pathetic little persecution complex, and you wouldn’t have flipped out over such a harmless and fun little comparison. It was to simply show that we’re all atheists in one way or another. Get a grip.
Due to such a defensive post, I’m guessing you’re not one of those who are “perfectly content” with your faith.
It is missing “Satan” in the atheists list, as christians believe in the existence of an anti-christ, an angel once named “Lucifer” that changed his name, as if it is the “bad” power that mislead people from their god’s “good” power. So, if you believe in two powers, you believe in two gods. And as some christians religions refer to Jesus Christ as a god, you should put also “Yashua” on the atheist’s list.
Speakin of that, where’s the greek god named after the planet that stays near Neptune? (I don’t know his name in english, Uranum maybe)
i was gonna say they forgot yahweh (which is like, a biggy) but then i got to the bottom. so…yeah. anyway, i agree with the “buddha would be insulted” thing.
Was he? How do you know? Can you find any reference of Buddha actually writing anything himself? I couldn’t. It’s the same for Jesus.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a historical Jesus existed, as did a Buddha so they seem equivalent to me with regard to the issue at hand. (Ie. candidacy for this list.)
Buddha, the enlightened one, came to believe, not that he was God, but that he was ONE with god and all that is. This, for Buddha was a realization the He was One with this Ultimate reality.
While I’ll not argue here why Buddha was deceived, he would be on the list because he (and others) therefore thought that he was god – and that ALL was god. That there was no distinction.
Pantheism isn’t far from atheism in the sense that for the material atheist all that is, just is and we are just part of what is – for no REASON whatsoever.
Buddha, however believed in an intellect (buddhi) that was driving the expression of the ALL.
EVERYONE has a god (ultimate meaning), while not a relational God as Christians believe is possible. While many atheist will try to deny a meaningful claim about reality while unkowingly making one. You cannot meaningfully affirm that reality has no ultimate meaning without making a meaningful claim about reality. And backing off from the attempt dilutes the argument.
Of course it would also take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate God.
Regardless of how many gods there are – in fact this list could be MUCH larger, there could be only ONE God that would be worthy of ultimate worship. A God, if he exists that is the Uncaused Cause of all contingent existence. A fully actual being that transcends space, time and matter (that we KNOW is finite). A fully ACTUAL being that has no potential whatsoever in regard to its existence. An existence that causes all other potential existences.
While I undeniably exists, I cannot cause my own existence. I am contingent upon the actualizing act of another. This “Other” is the cause of all contingent beings and cannot also be contingent. There cannot be an infinite regression of causality. If there were you’d never get to the current effects. You cannot have an infinite number of seconds prior to this one – it would never be reached. And contingency is an effect and the Uncaused cause cannot be both contingent (caused by another) and fully actual, therefore it must be necessary. There must necessarily be a cause of all contingent reality. And it must necessarily be absolute and fully actual.
And if you say that all reality necessarily exists – there’s your god and Buddha was right.
And if this is true – then why are the atheists working so hard to “dis-prove” god? For even the theist is a manifestation of, or a part of, this ultimate reality. EVERYTHING IS!!! which is why Buddha sat and did nothing.
For me ultimate reality is not created by the minds of mere men, but one that REVEALS and has PURPOSE and has WILL and is universally TRUE.
dude, you are sooooooooo cool, you can’t imagine. like, the coolest person walking on the earth. coolest person existing in the Universe. i might even build a temple for your coolness and awesomeness and start a new religion.
please, I’m begging you, give me some guidelines, anything, a direction for becoming as cool as you are, having your intellect, your sense of humor, your talent of writing amazing posts like this one. please, give me just a particle, an atom of your awesomeness.
And if this is true – then why are the atheists working so hard to “dis-prove” god?
We are? That’s news to me. As has been said over and over, the burden of proof does not rest on the atheists’ side. It might be possible to disprove certain logically contradictory god models, but I don’t think atheists are “working so hard” in that department. We are more concerned with political issues like separation of church and state, and trying to live freely without oppressing or being oppressed by others.
Heck, your pantheistic god model could be right. How should I know? I admit it seems more reasonable than the more popular mythologies, but the hierarchy of reasonableness is still not evidence.
On a side note, quantum theory says there are uncaused causes happening all the time. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but there it is.
There cannot be an infinite regression of causality. If there were you’d never get to the current effects.
Are you sure? You’re right, it sounds crazy, but it could be true. What about causal loops? In the end it all boils down to: Why is there something (universe, god, whatever) rather than nothing (or something else)?
I don’t mean to nitpick. I do enjoy discussions along these lines, but for me, entertaining these interesting ideas doesn’t mean I will invest actual belief in them without good evidence.
As mentioned earlier, these items you mentioned are not even close to comparable to the way that Chrsitians worship God (Yahweh? Jehovah? Yeshua? I’m so confused!) or Muslims worship Allah.
We Atheists admit science has been wrong at times and could be wrong now on certain items. That’s why we keep challenging it and looking to improve it! Besides, it’s a method.
You would also be hard pressed to find any of us that agree we “worship” Hollywood. I, for one, think that Hollywood has put out some crappy stuff sometimes. As for ego, well, we all do that! Even you “believers”!
So, let’s dispense with the Atheist worhip nature, Richard Dawkins, science, etc. It’s just not comparable and it’s foolish to pretend it is. I like Dawkins, but if he coerced me to kill my own son, slaughter innocent people, stone homosexuals,tell people how they could avoid being tortured in hell eternally, I’d drop him like Preisdnet Bush drops the word “nuculur”. I can’t see Christians doing the same with Jehovah-Yaweh-Jesus-Holy Ghost, etc.
NYCatheist:
“We are? That’s news to me. As has been said over and over, the burden of proof does not rest on the atheists’ side. It might be possible to disprove certain logically contradictory god models, but I don’t think atheists are “working so hard” in that department.”
Hasn’t there been a recent string of atheist writings that argue their point?
THE ATHEIST MANIFESTO, THE GOD DELUSION, ATHEISM, GOD IS NOT GREAT, just to name a few of the many books that have come out in recent years.
“Heck, your pantheistic god model could be right. How should I know? I admit it seems more reasonable than the more popular mythologies, but the hierarchy of reasonableness is still not evidence.”
There are so many holes in the pantheist model, I don’t know where to begin. But let’s suffice it to say that there would be no distinctions between ANYTHING. For ALL would be a manifestation of the IS. There also would be no reason to spend so much time on political issues, as ALL just IS and there is no ground for what is good or evil. No such thing as “bad politics” or “good politics”. ALL JUST IS.
And of course what has caused this amnesia that Buddha “enlightened” himself free of. Why do we experience OURSELVES as selves and not ONE with this ALL. If Buddha was right there would be no YOU & I.
“On a side note, quantum theory says there are uncaused causes happening all the time. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but there it is.”
Making the claim doesn’t make it so, as atheist like to say. Perhaps they just haven’t discovered the cause of those effects yet. Just like the Big Bang itself. They really don’t have a clue as to its cause (oh, they like to pretend – that’s how they get grant $$$). Yet they do not deny it was CAUSED.
“Why is there something (universe, god, whatever) rather than nothing (or something else)?
EXACTLY!!! WHY is there anything at all??? WHY, WHY, WHY???
EXACTLY!!! WHY is there anything at all??? WHY, WHY, WHY???
Why does there need to be an explanation? Or, in a less rhetorical fashion; there doesn’t need to be an explanation, and the explanation doesn’t have to be god. There are only people who need an explanation, and people who need the explanation to be god.
Hasn’t there been a recent string of atheist writings that argue their point?
Their point is not, as you put it, “to dis-prove god”, but to make the case that religion is not a good thing. Either you didn’t read them, or you have sorely misinterpreted them.
The abuse of religion is not a good thing, but the same can be said for children or most anything else of value (power, money, prescription medications, etc). There is nothing wrong with religion itself, and I am beginning to resent the attacks.
Re: the atheist books, Claire made the important point already. I will also add: have you looked in a book store? What’s the ratio of pro-religion books to anti-religion books? Something like 1213423 to 1 (exact of course.) Not all atheists agree with all those books anyway. We don’t recite Dawkins writings like it’s the Nicene Creed or something.
Please banish the word “prove” from your mind. There is no proof in science. There is only proof in mathematics, whose models might have nothing to do with reality.
I’m not going to argue about pantheism with you. When I said it was “more reasonable” than other models (Eg. Christianity) that was like comparing 1 and 2 on a scale of 100. I agree with you, it really doesn’t make any sense, but the same can be said for the more popular monotheisms.
Re: quantum mechanics:
Making the claim doesn’t make it so, as atheist like to say. Perhaps they just haven’t discovered the cause of those effects yet.
Of course! I’m glad you’re learning atheist catch phrases. Einstein didn’t like it either. He could be right, or he could be wrong. How do we find out? We need to do a lot of experiments. Get data. Keep researching.
Just like the Big Bang itself. They really don’t have a clue as to its cause (oh, they like to pretend – that’s how they get grant $$$).
I think saying “no clue” is going too far, but what’s wrong with saying “we don’t know yet”? Maybe we’ll find out, maybe we won’t. Don’t you want to try? It sounds like you don’t think fundamental research should be done at all. You want to fire all the theoretical physicists in the world and rehire them to design new plastic toys for Chinese factories? Aren’t you curious about the universe? We’ll find out more truth about the foundations of reality through “Big Science” research projects than ancient stories about Adam and Eve, or Buddha’s “all is one”, etc.
On the other hand, the Dalai Lama has said, “”If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism.” How about that? So props to his version of Buddhism there.
Yet they do not deny it was CAUSED.
Depends which physicist you talk to.
EXACTLY!!! WHY is there anything at all??? WHY, WHY, WHY???
I don’t know.
Do you? Why do you think you know?
P.S. I have to figure out that quote feature.
The way I do it (is there another way?)
1. Copy and paste the other person’s text into my comment box.
2. Highlight it.
3. Click the “bquote” button above. (Same as “b” for bold, “i” for italics, etc.
The abuse of religion is not a good thing, but the same can be said for children or most anything else of value (power, money, prescription medications, etc). There is nothing wrong with religion itself, and I am beginning to resent the attacks.
Which attacks are you referring to? I hope not on you here because I’ve enjoyed the comments you have made. Do you mean books like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc?
Whether there is anything wrong with religion is one of the key questions. The second question is whether a god actually exists. Those two questions can be discussed separately. I think Dawkins is more interested in the latter. Sam Harris makes a clearer point that the problem is not rooted in religion itself but in blind faith in dogma, which doesn’t have to be religious. Whether it’s a religion, or a political system, etc we should be able to question and criticize in a free manner. Intellectual honesty and free inquiry are the ideals we (ie. most atheists) are striving for. (I say most, because every demographic has its nutters.)
Point on my previous comment was that OP is trying to compare atheism and religion where such comparison is impossible. Most religions got something in common, because every religion sets some rules of conduct for its followers. However they may seem irrational, they are practical. Atheism is very different in that context, and only common ground between atheists is their nihilism and its implications.
I meant there Hollywood as in (false) idols, examples, moral code, “only truth”, etc. Could’ve been Money, or anything else atheist people chose to be their temporary values.
There is ego, and then there is Ego. Difference might seem small until you face it.
Ok, how about this? Science is the main excuse for not believing that there is “something else” whatever you call it, which we are unable to calculate or even comprehend, yet science itself is just as irrational as any religion. You disagree? Please talk to quantum physicists first.
It’s just that people chose to believe it’s not, which I reckon it’s all about: what we are prepared to accept as true on hand of our experience. I am convinced that more you know, more you are able to distinguish. And I don’t mean “knowing” as in science “methods” only, I mean experiencing as well. Heck, whole science starts with at least one big dogma, which is that this world is real. That should teach you atheists something, unless your always present fear of consequences is still too great to learn anything. You see, I think one is atheist only for one of those two reasons: don’t know much or petrified that there is something (not you) controlling everything and calling you to judgement. I would love to be proven wrong.
And atheism can be misused same as any religion. For example, Nazi ideology was mainly atheistic.
Call me pedantic, but I do have a problem with the frequent abuse of the term “atheist.” Many who profess to be atheist are actually agnostic (i.e., willing to believe, but for the absence of proof), and simply choose to ignore agnosticism (perhaps it seems too “wishy-washy”?). Then Dawkins attempts to re-define “atheist” by appending modifiers: “strong atheists” who affirmatively deny the existence of a deity, and “weak atheists” who (to me, at least) are indistinguishable from agnostics. So many of the people who describe themselves as “atheist” really mean “weak atheist,” but provoke a reaction from others who conclude that “atheist” really means “strong atheist.”
Of course, atheists don’t have a monopoly on that sort of imprecision. As detailed above, “Buddhist” can mean many different things. And “Christian” beliefs are like snowflakes: no two are exactly alike.
By the way, a “strong atheist” who affirmatively denies the existence of a deity is affirmatively advancing a proposition. By the rules of logical discourse, that strong atheist thus has the burden of proof. It’s a burden that can’t be met, and can justly be characterized as simply another brand of faith (ie, belief in an unproveable proposition).
Seems to me these discussions would be more civilized if people used the terminology more clearly and consistently.
Atheism is very different in that context, and only common ground between atheists is their nihilism and its implications.
Are you saying every atheist is a nihilist? Wikipedia definition: “Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.”
I’m sure some atheists are nihilists, but most I know are not. The only common ground between atheists is their lack of belief in deities. Some think there is no ultimate meaning, others do, others just have no idea (me).
I meant there Hollywood as in (false) idols, examples, moral code, “only truth”, etc. Could’ve been Money, or anything else atheist people chose to be their temporary values.
Can you give some more specific examples. I’m imagining some atheist worshiping Steven Spielberg. (Although I do know some who worship George Lucas, but they might be jedi not atheists. hehe) Some people do seem to worship money (atheists and theists alike), but is it really the same kind of “worship” as religious worship? Or is it just plain old greed?
There is ego, and then there is Ego. Difference might seem small until you face it.
I don’t really understand you here. Do you mean considering yourself a god?
Ok, how about this? Science is the main excuse for not believing that there is “something else” whatever you call it, which we are unable to calculate or even comprehend, yet science itself is just as irrational as any religion. You disagree? Please talk to quantum physicists first.
Sure I disagree! Are there really atheists who say “I don’t believe a god exists because of science”? I haven’t met any. Science is just a method for answering questions. Certain scientific theories might lead people to atheism. (See Dawkins who once believed a god created life (it was the only explanation he knew of as a child), but then learned about evolution so the god hypothesis was no longer needed.) As for me the more I learn about science the more I realize I don’t know and how mysterious the world really is. The mysteries of the world are much deeper in modern cosmology than in ancient flat earth Biblical models.
Which part of science is irrational? Are you talking about the implications of quantum theory? They are unintuitive, and maybe they aren’t rational, but that is the data. Don’t confuse the experimental results with the method. Question: Why is the sky blue? What methods would you use to answer that question? Do you really think such methods are irrational?
It’s just that people chose to believe it’s not, which I reckon it’s all about: what we are prepared to accept as true on hand of our experience.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying I chose to believe science is rational? I have studied and done science. I only choose it as an appropriate method to answer questions because it works.
Heck, whole science starts with at least one big dogma, which is that this world is real.
Wiki:”Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.”
I’m not sure your example is a dogma. And some physicists have even discussed the possibility that our universe is just a virtual simulation (ie. not “real”). They can discuss these ideas freely, there is no authority. The only “dogma” in science is intellectual honesty. That’s the ideal of course, but some people will lie and science tries to minimize it with various checks etc. but no human endeavor is perfect.
That should teach you atheists something, unless your always present fear of consequences is still too great to learn anything.
I don’t know what you mean here.
You see, I think one is atheist only for one of those two reasons: don’t know much or petrified that there is something (not you) controlling everything and calling you to judgement. I would love to be proven wrong.
Hmm, maybe you’re right! I am an atheist because I don’t know much. I don’t know anything about gods or ultimate truth. How can I believe something exists that I don’t know anything about?
I think your second reason is wrong though. But I can’t prove it. I can just say I’ve never met any atheist who is afraid of something controlling or judging them. If such a person existed who had such a fear, why would they be an atheist? It doesn’t make any sense.
And atheism can be misused same as any religion. For example, Nazi ideology was mainly atheistic.
That’s news to me. Do you have references? Wiki says:
“Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations (such as the German Freethinkers League) and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith”
It doesn’t matter though. Other tyrants, like Stalin, were atheists. But he was dogmatic pushing his ideology of Stalinism. Atheism is not a value system or a way to live life. Many atheists are humanists, but Stalin wasn’t. Atheism is just lack of belief in gods. It doesn’t tell you how to live life. I assume Stalin also didn’t believe in fairies. Why people don’t talk about Stalin’s “afairieism”. It’s irrelevant. Stalin was more concerned with any competition threatening his power, whether it was a church or a god people believed in.
I’m game to continue the discussion here, but if you want we can move it to the new friendly atheist forum.
I agree the terms cause a lot of confusion. Depending on who’s asking I’m either an atheist or agnostic. Dawkins didn’t start the strong/weak qualification. He did confuse matters by asserting agnosticism was on the same “scale”.
I think a lot of atheists prefer the weak/strong qualification because as you said there are hardly any people in the “strong” department, but “agnostic” was not quite accurate either. If you look up “atheism” on Wikipedia you can see all the various nuances and semantic controversies laid out. Technically I should be an agnostic, but the problem with that term is that the “man on the street” would think that it means “undecided” (somehow 50-50) and wasn’t a firm philosophical position.
But I also have a problem with some agnostics who claim it is impossible to know about god(s). That’s going too far. So maybe I’m a double weak agnostic atheist. (Can I order that at Starbucks?)
You made me think. Yes, you are right. And I keep hearing over and over again that most atheists are actually agnostic. And the term “weak atheist” always intriqued me.
You said that an agnostic is someone who is “willing to believe, but for the absence of proof.” But what of the kind that is “willing to believe, but for the absense of dis-proof.” Is that person also an agnostic?
What you said got me thinking, and I think perhaps most theists are also actually agnostic.
And the die-hards on either side of the spectrum are just people who are extremely fearful or extremely angry.
Do you think it’s possible that most of us who classify ourselves as theists are just part of that grey area who are confused as to where they stand? Are they the same kind of people who identify with the majority just for the sake of being agreeable?
What was the definition of ignostic again? (i’m slow) Can we think of something else that does not start with “igno?” It sounds too much like another word that does not describe you at all…
But I also have a problem with some agnostics who claim it is impossible to know about god(s).
So you think that it is possible to know all about God?
Your question comes at NYCatheist’s point, but from the other direction. I am a Christian, but I am also an agnostic (I choose to believe, but I cannot KNOW). Many theists claim to KNOW, but that is just another example of linguistic imprecision.
So agnosticism is not really just the middle area on a spectrum that runs from theism to atheism (one of NYCatheist’s points). This is where I have to go to meeting, though. I’ll check back later.
What was the definition of ignostic again? (i’m slow) Can we think of something else that does not start with “igno?” It sounds too much like another word that does not describe you at all…
But I am!
Wikipedia has a page on ignosticism, here’s the intro:
“Ignosticism is a word coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine to indicate either of two related views about the existence of God.
The first view is that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by God?” before proclaiming the concept meaningless.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Regarding the strong/weak qualification on atheism, Wikipedia says this:
“The strong and weak names did not come into common usage until the early 1990s, their popularization assisted by their common usage in the alt.atheism Usenet group at the time. While the terms themselves are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common; these terms were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.[3]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
So you think that it is possible to know all about God?
I didn’t say all, but then again why not? It depends what kind of god you are talking about. If a god wants to stay hidden, we will never know. Or if it’s like the god of the Mormons maybe they do end up knowing all because they can become gods.
In short there is no way for me to predict what is and isn’t knowable about any subject.
Re: Stomper’s comments I don’t have much to say since I agree. So I’ll just say “hear hear”!
“willing to believe, but for the absence of proof.”
I keep looking at that, and it just doesn’t make sense to me, for two reasons: A) Doesn’t this describe everyone? If something is truly and unarguably proved, then who could dispute it?, and B) if something is proved, then it becomes fact and is no longer a matter of belief, which may be more of a quibble, but still…
“willing to believe, but for the absense of dis-proof.”
If I’ve parsed this correctly, it means someone willing to believe, since no one has managed to disprove it. Did I get that right? If so, that describes people who will believe in anything (unicorns, pixie dust, aliens) just because no one can prove it’s not true. I’m thinking that must not be what was meant. Is it?
Taken literally and carried to extremes, but yes, that’s what “agnostic” means. For a more formal definition, try dictionary.com:
ag·nos·tic
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Of course, the word kind of loses any significance when it is applied too literally and universally. That’s why you usually only see it in discussions like this one. Well, that, and because a lot of people just don’t have that word in their active vocabularies.
To me, any religon that outright bans any other “gods” is an obvious sign that it is a man-made religon. A truly almighty god would never so petty as to be jealous of other gods – real or imagined.
—————————————————————
Robert, here’s where you’re wrong.
Look at it from the perspective of a “Parent-Child relationship”.
Let’s say you have children. YOU were responsible for the creation of these children. They are YOUR’S & YOU are their father.
However, your children insist on calling someone else their father, rather than you. They reject YOU as their father, & give the credit & love to someone else.
They also think that you’re being “petty or unfair” because you’re jealous, or upset, or angry about it. After all, a “Real Father” wouldn’t be bothered in the least bit that his own children refuse him, and prefer to honor someone else.
THAT is essentially the same relationship with US & GOD.
I think this is something many people fail to think about, & assume it’s some sort of impersonal relationship between God & man.
Hopefully this will help some people understand the context of the situation.
Look at it from the perspective of a “Parent-Child relationship”.
OK, but this is how I see that analogy: my children have been sent away to live in another country from when they were babies. They don’t even know I exist because I have not given them any clear communication. Why should I care if they believe in me? I would only hope they were living good lives, helping others and doing as little harm as possible. I certainly wouldn’t punish them for doubting I exist. In fact, given the situation I would expect them to have such doubts!
Hopefully this will help some people understand the context of the situation.
So what you are saying is that god has the same issues and level of immaturity as the average deadbeat dad? Nice.
I don’t know why religious types complain so bitterly about what atheists say – we can never show religion in as harsh and unflattering light as they do themselves.
Stomper – I wasn’t actually questioning the definition of agnostic in general (just that one definition), but the definition you posted is most interesting, especially #2. So, I can be agnostic about anything, not just god? I can be agnostic about art, I can be agnostic about conciousness, I can even be agnostic about kittens. I like it!
Why does there need to be an explanation? Or, in a less rhetorical fashion; there doesn’t need to be an explanation, and the explanation doesn’t have to be god. There are only people who need an explanation, and people who need the explanation to be god.
Isn’t ALL of this discussion about WHY? If there is no answer to the ultimate why, then why bother with anything? Why not just eat, drink and be merry and not worry about any consequences? Why worry about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet when ultimately it has zero meaning whatsoever.
Is it for the future generations? wouldn’t they be better off not existing at all?
Why do you spend time on these sites? Why are you in this dialog? Is it just to score mental points of some kind? Is it strictly entertainment? Really, why?
I am not going to answer the question why, because you already presuppose it’s not real. I will argue, however that there IS a why.
My existence is undeniable, yet I am not a necessary being. My existence could cease. I am not the CAUSE of my existence and the cause of my existence MUST necessarily exist. Why necessarily? Because I do exist. There must necessarily be a cause of my existence, because my existence is undeniable.
The WHY I exist would come from this Ultimate cause of reality. While I may not know it, it is there because I do exist.
While the explanation doesn’t have to be “god” an explanation of the ultimate WHY exists necessarily and would necessarily point to the Ultimate Reality. The nature of this Ultimate Reality I’ll leave up to you to figure out, but I’ll say the REASON for our existence would be objective and universal.
Their point is not, as you put it, “to dis-prove god”, but to make the case that religion is not a good thing. Either you didn’t read them, or you have sorely misinterpreted them
.
Good point. I have never read them entirely, just bits and pieces. I do think though, that their writings (and you are missing the point) do point to the ultimate question of WHY while not always explicit.
Perhaps we should, instead of trying to convince theists of their errors, just eradicate them from existence. Think of how much better our world would be? There really would be world peace!!!
What’s the ratio of pro-religion books to anti-religion books? Something like 1213423 to 1 (exact of course.) Not all atheists agree with all those books anyway. We don’t recite Dawkins writings like it’s the Nicene Creed or something.
Theist out number atheist by a ratio of 1213423 to 1 (not exact, of course). so this is not surprising.
Please banish the word “prove” from your mind. There is no proof in science. There is only proof in mathematics, whose models might have nothing to do with reality.
No proofs in science? has this been proven? scientifically? (sorry I just can’t banish it)
And are you saying that science is the only method of knowing reality? Has this been proven scientifically or mathematically?
Let’s see if I understand this: there are no proofs in science, but it’s the only way to know reality and the “proofs” of math don’t correspond to reality.
Has this been proven? (sorry, I just can’t help it)
While a mathematical model might not correspond to reality, there are real numbers. As are the rules of logic real: such as the Law of non-contradiction and the Law of the excluded middle. Even though “science” cannot prove (sorry again) their existence, they are nevertheless REAL.
I think saying “no clue” is going too far, but what’s wrong with saying “we don’t know yet”? Maybe we’ll find out, maybe we won’t. Don’t you want to try? It sounds like you don’t think fundamental research should be done at all. You want to fire all the theoretical physicists in the world and rehire them to design new plastic toys for Chinese factories? Aren’t you curious about the universe?
There’s nothing wrong with saying “we don’t know yet”. and I never said anything about not looking.The point is they are looking and for OBJECTIVE REALITY and a CAUSE. It’s because there IS something there and it has LAWS or as John Warwick Montgomery put it “The Law Above The Law” that we look. the Buddhist doesn’t look because he believes it’s an illusion. The Christian looks because he believes he is “fearfully and wonderfully made” with purpose and order and design and intelligence.
We’ll find out more truth about the foundations of reality through “Big Science” research projects than ancient stories about Adam and Eve, or Buddha’s “all is one”, etc.
So there is TRUTH?
Do you? Why do you think you know?
I do think I know, but you already PRESUPPOSE it’s not true or real.
And I like this quote from Blaise Pascal:
“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
If there is no answer to the ultimate why, then why bother with anything? Why not just eat, drink and be merry and not worry about any consequences? Why worry about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet when ultimately it has zero meaning whatsoever.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Just because there is no ultimate ‘why’ does NOT mean there is no meaning in life. Life has the meaning you give it. It’s possible to worry a lot about justice and the right candidate and saving the planet, and work on those as well, without ever worrying at all about the ultimate ‘why’.
Just because some people can’t see a meaning without god, that doesn’t mean that other people can’t.
I submit that time spent worrying about the ultimate why (and if there is one and what it is), instead of “about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet” as you put it, is time more or less wasted.
I do think though, that their writings (and you are missing the point) do point to the ultimate question of WHY while not always explicit.
No, it’s you who are missing the point – just because you project your questions onto works you admit not having read, doesn’t mean that that’s what they were really about. They weren’t.
Perhaps we should, instead of trying to convince theists of their errors, just eradicate them from existence. Think of how much better our world would be? There really would be world peace!!!
I think you should start a movement.
Oh wait, Stalin tried that.
I’m getting really tired of the Stalin thing, so let me give you a different example. Under the suppression of religion by the USSR, the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians in Yugoslavia lived side by side, intermarrying and integrating just fine – not perfect, but good enough. Then that oh-so-nasty atheistic government went away, and then there was genocide, so many dead they still can’t agree on the count, orthodox christian against catholic against muslim. Hmm…. on one side, no religion and no genocide, on the other side, religion and genocide. Tell me again, how is the second one better?
No proofs in science? has this been proven? scientifically? (sorry I just can’t banish it)
Wow, you really don’t get science, do you? Science is a way of acquiring knowledge, and it doesn’t have ‘proof’ because it’s never done. Oh, and to add to what NYCatheist said – logic as well as math does have proofs.
While a mathematical model might not correspond to reality, there are real numbers.
Ok, I guess you don’t get math either. Real numbers don’t have much to do with ‘reality’, as the word is generally used.
The point is they are looking and for OBJECTIVE REALITY and a CAUSE.
Well, I suppose it’s reasonable that if you don’t get science, you won’t get scientists, either. That’s not what scientists are doing. They are trying to figure out how the universe works, and deciding that there is some big primal cause of it all, in advance of the evidence (of which there isn’t any), gets in the way of that.
It’s just as much a religion to believe there are no gods as it is to believe their are gods. Either way, a person is believing totally on the basis of faith with no scientific facts to back him. As far as I know, nobody really know for sure it’s there’s a god or not.
No proofs in science? has this been proven? scientifically? (sorry I just can’t banish it)
Nope. But science is a defined method, and there is no proof involved. Your question sounds like this:
Me: Cooking spaghetti doesn’t require any proofs.
You: Can you prove that?
Me: There’s boiling and straining, but no proofs. It’s jut not how the method is defined. I probably can’t prove that because it’s apples and oranges.
I’m curious what method you would use to try to prove another method doesn’t use proofs.
And are you saying that science is the only method of knowing reality? Has this been proven scientifically or mathematically?
Re. 1st question. I don’t think I said that. I said I think it’s our best method, not only. I’m interested in answering questions: Why is the sky blue? How did I get sick? Is there life on Mars? My question to you is, what method would use to answer these questions?
It sounds like you want answers to very hard questions like the meaning of life and origin of reality. These questions are currently beyond our scientific knowledge. So why complain science can’t answer them? It’s like complaining your spaghetti recipe doesn’t make toast.
Re. 2nd question: Whether the answer to the 1st is yes or no, the answer is no.
Let’s see if I understand this: there are no proofs in science, but it’s the only way to know reality and the “proofs” of math don’t correspond to reality.
Right there are no proofs in science. Wrong, I didn’t say it was the only way. Regarding mathematical proofs: they only prove things within their own formal systems, which don’t necessarily correspond to reality. You still have to assume certain axioms to be true.
While a mathematical model might not correspond to reality, there are real numbers.
The point is they are looking and for OBJECTIVE REALITY and a CAUSE. It’s because there IS something there and it has LAWS
What else would they do? I don’t think there are any other options for scientists than to work with our objective reality.
Using the word “law” sounds like the fallacy of equivocation (ie. Scientific “law” = God’s “law” = the “law” of the land.) Science has found reality follows certain patterns, but we can never prove those patterns have always been the same or always will be the same.
Example: Boyle’s Law. Robert Boyle discovered various gases behaved in the same predictable way with regards to pressure and volume. Is it exact? No, it’s for an “ideal gas”, but it is a pattern. How do we jump from that to a cosmic law giver? Especially a certain specific law giver.
Regarding Christians and science, you could very well be right. I don’t know enough about history and psychology to know if Christian cultures have directly caused science to flourish more than in other cultures. But if it is true, so what? A certain religion may encourage scientific advancement, but that doesn’t demonstrate their particular doctrines are true. And it certainly hasn’t been ideal. Maybe if we had a different religion it wouldn’t have taken 2000 years to get to the Moon. And look what happened to poor Giordano Bruno.
So there is TRUTH?
I think so. As Mulder always said, “the truth is out there”.
I do think I know, but you already PRESUPPOSE it’s not true or real.
No I don’t. I try to keep an open mind. I also don’t think I know the truth.
And I like this quote from Blaise Pascal:
“People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”
I like it too. I do my best to try and believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible. Of course I’m not perfect and the amount I don’t know is overwhelming.
Are you suggesting by this quote that you have proof for what you believe in?
Actually, Christians DO believe in El and the Eloim. Yahweh, El and the Eloim are all mentioned in the Torah (first five books of the Christian Old Testament) and are translated as “God” or “Lord”. The idea that the Jews have always only worshiped one super powerful god is a convenient illusion of translation.
According to mainstream Biblical scholars, Yaweh was one of the Elohim and thus a minion under the god El. Not a very nice one, apparently. In fact, there is some confusion over whether Yaweh and one of the entities which Christians amalgamate into a devil god are identical.
In fact Christians believe in a serious of devil gods called Satan, Prince of Darkness, Beelzebub, Lucifer and so on. Once again, these are conveniently mistranslated as if they were all one entity.
Nope. But science is a defined method, and there is no proof involved. Your question sounds like this:
Me: Cooking spaghetti doesn’t require any proofs.
Science means KNOWLEDGE and USES a method to determine what is TRUE
While I’ll agree is doesn’t PROVE as in logic or mahematics, it may make statements about reality that are TRUE.this reality is KNOWABLE. Otherwise why ask the questions?
I’m curious what method you would use to try to prove another method doesn’t use proofs.
My point exactly.
It sounds like you want answers to very hard questions like the meaning of life and origin of reality. These questions are currently beyond our scientific knowledge. So why complain science can’t answer them? It’s like complaining your spaghetti recipe doesn’t make toast.
I don’t think I ever complained about science. I trust it as much as you do as a method of learning about reality. But I don’t believe it’s the only method.
Using the word “law” sounds like the fallacy of equivocation (ie. Scientific “law” = God’s “law” = the “law” of the land.) Science has found reality follows certain patterns, but we can never prove those patterns have always been the same or always will be the same
My use the the word law, as in first principles that are universally true. The Law of non-contradiction is a principle that is universally applicable for all time. It’s inescapable. And these laws imply intelligence. Why? because they are about knowledge and communication. It is a universal law governing thought and communication and is not selected at will, but ABOVE. They trandscend.
And because it’s intelligent and communicable, it’s source MUST be also. for a giver (cause) cannot give what it doesn’t have
And I completely agree with everything else.
I do my best to try and believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible.
But what is YOUR test for “true” and “false”?
As to your last question – no I do not have “proof”, but I have very good REASONS for my belief. and if you really do have an open mind – maybe you’re not looking in the right places.
Geez, the comments – pro and con atheist – seem to be totally missing the point.
The arguments I’ve seen here are:
1. Some gods are missing from the list…an inevitable truth for almost all lists.
2. Some gods listed aren’t considered as gods by some – though others obviously do…a fight over the mortality of a religious figurehead…what a waste of time. This has all the practicality of a Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument.
3. Some Christians believe in other gods, but think they’re lesser dieties – or demons. Interesting, I suppose, but the list seems mostly to deal with broad generalizations, not specific sects. The idea that some Christians believe in everything in every other religion does not surprise me, as one that door of belief without proof is open it’s hard to rationally disbelieve in all sorts of things.
4. The insoluble disagreement between people who will believe anything told them by authority, and those who have a more skeptical view…classic God vs. No God talk. The ultimate boil-down point between religious and non-religious persons. I make a prediction: no one will change their mind as this argument progresses. Anyone think anything different here?
…it seems the list here was a funny commentary on exactly how many religions and deities a Christian has to reject to be “true believers”.
Anyway, it got a laugh from me, and all the other arguments were interesting but beside the point. Thanks for taking the time to make the list Friendly Atheist.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Just because there is no ultimate ‘why’ does NOT mean there is no meaning in life. Life has the meaning you give it. It’s possible to worry a lot about justice and the right candidate and saving the planet, and work on those as well, without ever worrying at all about the ultimate ‘why’.
But what if the meaning you give it – is meaningless. A meaning you give it is just a justification for why you do what you do. My WHY goes much deeper in that it’s from the cause and effect relationship. All causes are the why. Cause = why. This effect occurred BECAUSE of this cause (why). We have a cause for EVERY effect and an effect cannot cause itself. You cannot have a self-caused cause either.
Because we have this long chain of cause and effects. The WHYS producing effects, we have to have a beginning. You cannot have an infinite cause and effect series going backward just as cannot reach the end in an infinte series going forward. You will never reach the end. And if there were an infinte series backward, you would have never reached the current cause and effect.
Point is, all these causes are WHYS and it stands to reason that the first Un-caused cause is a WHY as well. And this WHY gives us our TRUE meaning of life.
Just because some people can’t see a meaning without god, that doesn’t mean that other people can’t.
I submit that time spent worrying about the ultimate why (and if there is one and what it is), instead of “about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet” as you put it, is time more or less wasted.
I’m getting really tired of the Stalin thing, so let me give you a different example. Under the suppression of religion by the USSR, the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians in Yugoslavia lived side by side, intermarrying and integrating just fine – not perfect, but good enough. Then that oh-so-nasty atheistic government went away, and then there was genocide, so many dead they still can’t agree on the count, orthodox christian against catholic against muslim. Hmm…. on one side, no religion and no genocide, on the other side, religion and genocide. Tell me again, how is the second one better?
We do have a body count of the atheist regimes – they are in the TENS OF MILLIONS. You could add all the deaths of the religious caused wars in history and it wouldn’t come close to those numbered by the atheist regimes – not even close.
but all the is justifying bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior and is realy going nowhere.
Oh, and to add to what NYCatheist said – logic as well as math does have proofs.
Agreed and logic implies first principles that govern all thought and communication. They trandscend and are universally TRUE.
Ok, I guess you don’t get math either. Real numbers don’t have much to do with ‘reality’, as the word is generally used.
A lot of mathematicians that would disagree.
Well, I suppose it’s reasonable that if you don’t get science, you won’t get scientists, either. That’s not what scientists are doing. They are trying to figure out how the universe works, and deciding that there is some big primal cause of it all, in advance of the evidence (of which there isn’t any), gets in the way of that.
Duh, They’re not looking at objective reality in trying to figure out how the universe works??? If they’re not looking at and for reality, what are they looking for that determines how it works?
“trying to figure out how the universe works”? DO YOU MEAN THE CAUSE(s)!!!
Science means KNOWLEDGE and USES a method to determine what is TRUE
While I’ll agree is doesn’t PROVE as in logic or mahematics, it may make statements about reality that are TRUE.
That’s OK, but I’d like to stress that the “truths” science uncovers are always provisional, and aren’t the capital “T”, “Truths” that are discussed in philosophy. Depending on the amount and quality of evidence scientific truths cover the complete range of confidence, from completely hypothetical to confirmed facts. However everything is open to new data, tests, and theories.
At least that is the ideal. Remember scientists are just people with the usual faults and foibles. Some are protective of their pet theories and others lie, but the majority due their best to be intellectually honest.
My use the the word law, as in first principles that are universally true. The Law of non-contradiction is a principle that is universally applicable for all time. It’s inescapable. And these laws imply intelligence. Why? because they are about knowledge and communication. It is a universal law governing thought and communication and is not selected at will, but ABOVE. They trandscend.
I’m not sure I can follow you down that same path. Could the god you are imagining have created the laws of logic without the law of noncontradiction? I’m also not sure they imply intelligence, but I don’t deny it either. I really have no idea.
But if you could convince me that an intelligence is behind the laws of logic and mathematics then I would just be a deist (or pantheist, or panentheist…) The jump from atheism to deism is very short compared to the jump from deism to Christianity, Hinduism, etc.
How do you know the true creator god isn’t waiting for us to find his true revelation deep in mathematics or physics?
But what is YOUR test for “true” and “false”?
I try to think scientifically about things. I don’t believe claims without good evidence, and I try not to cling to attractive conclusions or “facts”. I’m not perfect at it, but I’m always trying to learn more. I value skepticism over faith. (And before you ask, yes even skepticism of skepticism whatever that entails.)
if you really do have an open mind – maybe you’re not looking in the right places.
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe. But I’ve been around. Read this and that, talked to all kinds of people in my life. The quest for truth is never ending. Anyway, the same can be said about anyone. There is always more to learn and nobody is an expert on everything.
From your dialog with Claire, you wrote:
We do have a body count of the atheist regimes – they are in the TENS OF MILLIONS. You could add all the deaths of the religious caused wars in history and it wouldn’t come close to those numbered by the atheist regimes – not even close.
Is it really that much? The big ones are Stalin and Mao, right? They are atheists, but they were pushing their own oppressive personality cults. Atheism is not a world view or a way to live life. It’s just lack of belief in deities. Most atheists are humanists, which is their positive philosophy on living the good life. Stalin was not a humanist. Stalin also didn’t believe in fairies, should we blame his regime on that lack of belief? Stalin was more concerned with eliminating any competition for his power.
I should also point out that religious wars and the inquisitions of the past didn’t have the “advantage” of modern death technology and the dense human populations of the 20th century so the comparison isn’t really fair.
…what a waste of time. This has all the practicality of a Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument.
You’re just annoyed because my Federation star ship blew your star destroyer out of the sky! Photon Torpedos for the win!
Serious reply: I don’t think it’s a waste of time. I enjoy having these discussions sometimes. It’s good brain exercise. Also it’s not true that no one ever changes their mind. You can read countless de-conversion stories on various forums and often online discussions were a big part of the process. It usually doesn’t happen overnight from one blog thread though.
It’s just as much a religion to believe there are no gods as it is to believe their are gods. Either way, a person is believing totally on the basis of faith with no scientific facts to back him. As far as I know, nobody really know for sure it’s there’s a god or not.
That idea is repeated often. Do you really think the typical atheist is just as religious as the typical Christian? The average Christian is going to church, studying the Bible, praying, etc. What are the equivalent behaviors that an atheist is doing that makes you think they are religious?
Some atheists (the “strong” ones) do have a kind of faith that no possible gods exist, but I think the majority just lack belief. How can the lack of a belief become a religion? An atheist is not pushing any religious dogma. (Note this does not make atheists immune from other dogmas, like marxism, conspiracy theories, racism, radical environmentalism etc. On a side note I heard Penn of Penn & Teller tell a story about their show Bullshit. Out of all their shows attacking religion, psychics, environmentalists etc. the scariest people were the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Only from that group did Penn get numerous death threats, and had people calling his home and stalking him. So there you go. I’m not saying those nuts were atheists, but atheists can be as nutty as anyone else.)
Anyway here’s the standard snappy reply: “If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color”.
What does Siddhartha not wanting to be seen as a God have to do with anything as far as THIS argument concerning whether or not Buddha is considered a God NOW? Yeah, he may have been against having his followers consider him to be a God, but that does not change the fact that MANY sects of Buddhism DO consider him a God nowadays, does it now?
Also, I find it highly irritating that many in the “Buddha is not a God” camp see certain Buddhists’ prayers and idol-worshiping as “anti-deity behavior,” where as similar practices by people of the Hindu faith are unequivocally deity-worshiping. I highly suggest some of you folks do some research on Hinduism and see the similarities between it and Buddhism. The fact that the latter essentially pulled many of it’s doctrines from the Hindu and Brahmin faith should raise an eyebrow or two regarding the true intentions of Hinduism. Yes, it has many “Gods,” but ultimately, the Hindu faith is about the procurement of knowledge and the truth–areas that Buddhism is widely associated with.
It can be argued, and quite easily at that, that Hinduism is a “way of life” just as much as Buddhism is. One need only take more than a cursory glance at what is behind the rituals and idol-worshiping to see this.
I’ll stray from the religious discussion…why is this list an image (jpeg)? Is it some feeble attempt at copy protection? It doesn’t look good (visually), and seems a little silly.
Thanks for posting the info on absence of evidence.
Re the followers of founders of religions, followers will always distort the original teachings. Hence Buddhists turn the Buddha into something to worship. They worship the finger that is pointing to a way of life.
I think Bertrand Russell said that there was one christian, and he died on the cross
I submit that time spent worrying about the ultimate why (and if there is one and what it is), instead of “about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet” as you put it, is time more or less wasted.
The question is never Why, it’s always How. How to hell are you going to know what’s “right”? HOW? Its just rethorical question I know you can’t answer if you are atheist. If you really need to spend time asking Why, then ask your self why is your “right” right? How are you going to decide what is “saving a planet”, “justice”, etc?
“If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color”.
Signed.
However, I changed my mind about one thing at least, and that’s this discussion’s cause. The intension of OP was probably to show similarities, and in that way was positive. Although the amount of ignorance contained there is almost unbearable, that intention makes up for some of it I guess.
The question is never Why, it’s always How. How to hell are you going to know what’s “right”? HOW? Its just rethorical question I know you can’t answer if you are atheist. If you really need to spend time asking Why, then ask your self why is your “right” right? How are you going to decide what is “saving a planet”, “justice”, etc?
You were replying to Claire, but I’ll jump in here if you don’t mind. I’m an atheist, and I think I can answer your question. How do I know an action is right? Off the top of my head there are two ways. One is my gut feeling. I feel murder is wrong. It’s just like my other senses, like my sense of taste. I feel (sense) sugar is sweet? Why? How? That’s the way my brain is wired. I can’t choose to taste sugar as bitter anymore than I can choose to feel murder is right. (Note my analogy does not rule out a theistic explanation of why the brain wiring is the way it is, but it does not necessitate it.)
The second way for less black and white issues is to use my judgment and reason. I look at the consequences and try to minimize harm. But why is my ultimate goal to minimize harm? Because that is what I feel as I wrote above.
How does a theist know what is right? From written scriptures? How do you know the author is a trustworthy moral authority? How do you know the Bible is true, and not the Koran or Book of Mormon? (At least the Book of Mormon has actual signed witnesses!) Personally I trust a person as a moral agent more if they are basing their ethics on their own common sense and good nature, than on a book or religious authority.
Signed.
Signed?
Although the amount of ignorance contained there is almost unbearable
Welcome to the Internet. Are you referring to the original list of gods? What part is ignorant? Do you mean the choice of gods? Just curious.
Personally I trust a person as a moral agent more if they are basing their ethics on their own common sense and good nature
If I may interject, where do we get this common sense and good nature? Could it be that we learned through co-existing together (for many many years) what works and what does not work in order to continue and grow as a species that loves life?
You were replying to Claire, but I’ll jump in here if you don’t mind. I’m an atheist, and I think I can answer your question. How do I know an action is right? Off the top of my head there are two ways. One is my gut feeling. I feel murder is wrong. It’s just like my other senses, like my sense of taste. I feel (sense) sugar is sweet? Why? How? That’s the way my brain is wired. I can’t choose to taste sugar as bitter anymore than I can choose to feel murder is right. (Note my analogy does not rule out a theistic explanation of why the brain wiring is the way it is, but it does not necessitate it.
That’s one way, and what you are saying is wrong. It’s not that you feel something is sweet, you feel something that someone or someting compared with tells you that it’s sweet. Eg. if everything is sweet, what’s bitter?
Your broken logic would then mean that if my “gut feeling” tells me you it’s “good” to kill you, I’m right because you agree with it. Values must be universal, and “gut feeling” is hardly such.
Truth is, whatever you consider “good” or “better” is based on values that you learned through your experience, and all your values are defined by some religion. They defined your virtues long ago, and you are now accepting them thinking that it’s your “gut feeling” when it really isn’t.
Boy children are more valuable than girl children? Gay people are evil? Those are widely held beliefs in many parts of the world, many people would call them “gut feelings,” but they are not values I share. Values are NOT “universal,” as proven by those two examples.
As a Christian who happens to be a United Methodist, I base my values on prayerful consideration of (1) the Bible, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) personal experience. See:
Scripture is paramount, but it informs only my spiritual and moral decisions — the decisions in which empiricism offers little help.
The Bible is not a scientific document, and was never intended to be treated as one, while empiricism is ill-suited as a moral or spiritual resource. The Old Testament provides a historical and mythological foundation fior the New Testament, and the New Testament contains the new covenant found in the teachings of Christ. Christ taught through stories and stated principles, but He avoided the Old Testament trap of laying out detailed rules.
This means there is room for differences of opinion between people who can follow different rules and still consider themselves followers of Christ. (See Romans, Ch 14). Values vary, and that is okay — so long as the innocent are protected from the selfish values of others..
That’s one way, and what you are saying is wrong. It’s not that you feel something is sweet, you feel something that someone or someting compared with tells you that it’s sweet. Eg. if everything is sweet, what’s bitter?
I disagree. The sensory impression of sweetness is not dependent on other tastes. Color is the same. If I was raised in a room with only white objects and one day someone showed me a rose I would experience the color red. It won’t matter that I have never seen blue. (Likewise if I was blind and my sight was restored, it wouldn’t matter that I was seeing nothing before.) Or closer to your point, if I was raised in a red room my whole life I would still be experiencing the color red and I could compare it to the “nothing” of closing my eyes (comparable to not having food in my mouth for sweetness, or the choice of not murdering someone.)
Your broken logic would then mean that if my “gut feeling” tells me you it’s “good” to kill you, I’m right because you agree with it. Values must be universal, and “gut feeling” is hardly such.
You would think it was right, but then you would be a sociopath. Your brain is broken. I think the majority of humans tend to operate along certain universal values. Cultures vary a great deal, but those differences are just details.
Truth is, whatever you consider “good” or “better” is based on values that you learned through your experience, and all your values are defined by some religion. They defined your virtues long ago, and you are now accepting them thinking that it’s your “gut feeling” when it really isn’t.
Personally I wasn’t raised with a religion. I never went to church.
Maybe we are leaning towards a nature vs. nurture debate. Certain cultures might encourage their members to do actions that another culture would deem immoral, but again I think those are just details. Many anthropologists have shows that there are certain universals that transcend all cultures, such as “murder is a bad thing” or “you should respect elders” etc. Other things that people still call “values” are not universal, such as “sex before marriage is bad”, so it depends what you are talking about.
I think evolution has worked on the brains of social primates causing human brains to tend towards a certain general system of ethics. It’s not exact, and can be influenced and pushed this way and that. Who knows, maybe our brains will continue to evolve to develop an even finer moral sense. This subject is very complicated and I’m no expert.
If I may interject, where do we get this common sense and good nature? Could it be that we learned through co-existing together (for many many years) what works and what does not work in order to continue and grow as a species that loves life?
Yes, but I think it’s two things. The “software” given to us by the things you mention; our family and culture. Plus the “hardware” of our brain structure that is the legacy of our evolution as social primates.
How to hell are you going to know what’s “right”? HOW? Its just rethorical question I know you can’t answer if you are atheist. If you really need to spend time asking Why, then ask your self why is your “right” right? How are you going to decide what is “saving a planet”, “justice”, etc?
Research by behavioral scientists has shown that a person’s moral beliefs and behaviors are the result of the combination of innate trends, education, social development, intelligence. and the influence of mass communication. Kohlberg’s moral development scale, which has been around for half a century, provides a schemata which parallels the stages of intellectual and cognitive development outlined by Piaget.
Here is a summary of Kohlberg’s six moral stages.
1. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.
2. Children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
3. (Early teens). Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.
4. People at this level make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole. The emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained.
5. People at this level believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all
6. The principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity of all people as individuals. Democratic processes are insufficient because a majority may vote for a law that hinders a minority.
The Yaweh god depicted in the Jewish and Christian scriptures is stuck on the lower rungs of this scale and often does not even make the first rung. Directing his followers to engage in the wholesale and complete slaughter of innocent women and children in neighboring tribes can only be termed “moral” by impressive linguistic gymnastics or by redefining the meaning of that word.
American-style fundamentalist Christians have generally developed morally beyond the god they think they worship but are frequently still stuck in the childhood stages of moral development. They use a text book written from the perspective of Stage One morality, cherry-pick the contents to match their own level of moral developement vis a vis current society and then arrogantly assume that they and/or their current leaders can infallibly interpret the passages. They ignore the ominous sign that there are almost as many moral interpretations of these writings as there are followers who believe themselves to be divinely inspired while interpreting them. The result is a group of dangerous individuals who believe that their stage of moral development is benignly divine and who are not open to the higher forms of moral reasoning.
The intension of OP was probably to show similarities, and in that way was positive. Although the amount of ignorance contained there is almost unbearable, that intention makes up for some of it I guess.
As is usual in these kinds of discussions, most of the ignorance is unfortunately displayed by those who believe that they are supernaturally guided. The ignorance which most Christians have about their text book and the development and history of their current belief set is absolutely extraordinary. While all devout Muslims read their religious text book from start to finish on a regular basis very few Christians have managed to read their text in this fashion even once.
The American Gideon Society promotes this by distributing Bibles which are poorly translated from the original languages into a language which no-one speaks and few can fully understand these days. Try asking a Gideon member how long it last took them to read their distribution material from cover to cover. Then ask them why a book which they claim is at least divinely inspired is so unclear and/or unreadable that it is necessary to include instructions on “How to become a Christian” at the front of the manuscript. Can it be because people who do manage to read the book sequentially in its uncensored entirety are unlikely to come up with the same “executive summary” of its contents? Is it put there as an easy-reading alternative to the turgid text to follow in order to lure people away from discovering the moral bankruptcy of the main god described within? It is sad but true that the higher one rates on the Kohlberg moral scale the more likely it is that reading the Christian text book will result in a-theism rather than continuing theism.
It sounds somewhat arrogant, don’t you think? I might be mistaken.
Other problem I got with your scripture is that you name people, like Christians, Muslims and Jews. That is pretty much one and a same culture. How much you know about truly different societies and cultures, their customs, values and moral codes? (Kohlbert and Piaget excepted, good and extensive knowledge on them I guess )
Oh, and ignorance is exclusively displayed by ignorant people. OP qualifies 100%, whereas I’m not too sure about your “fundamentalist Christians”. There are many that call themselves Christians, but are light-years away from being what they claim. Obviously there might be some ignorance involved, I agree. It’s not limited to Christianity of course. People claim to be Muslims same way, without accepting basics of Islam. You can’t take them as example for the rest of people who really are practicing their religion. It’s also a little bit ignorant from your side.
And you NYC didn’t understand my comparison. Let’s try again with your room and colors:
You live in a room where everything is blue, and there are 5 other people in there. One of them makes red pile of poo in the middle of the room. Now, it happens that you are color blind. Two people will tell you that poo is red; two other people will tell you that they would rather call that color green, and to you it looks bluish like everything else. My point is that you are probably not going to start investigating its color, because it’s still piece of shit. You might try to get bastard who did it to clean it up as well.
True_believer said,
“Higher forms of morality”!
It sounds somewhat arrogant, don’t you think? I might be mistaken.
Yep. You’re mistaken.
There is a mathematical formulae for deciding what is “higher” or “lower” on psychological scales of development. Mathematics does not possess human emotion or characteristics. Progression from one stage to another on a developmental hierarchy requires demonstration that the movement is linear and uni-directional. You cannot progress to a higher stage until you have mastered the earlier ones. Regression to earlier stages is only seen during the transition period and thereafter only in times of stress, illness and cognitive impairment.
True_believer said, Other problem I got with your scripture is that you name people, like Christians, Muslims and Jews. That is pretty much one and a same culture.
“My” scripture??? What is that? While Christianity, Islam and Judaism originated from the same source I cannot agree that they are the same “culture”. Not even the various Christian belief sets could be defined as “one and the same culture”. When you add the Christian derivatives the cultural clash is even greater.
True_believer asked: How much you know about truly different societies and cultures, their customs, values and moral codes?
It’s irrelevant to the argument, but since you asked: I am a multi-cultured person who spent my formative years in a highly integrated and very multicultural country before spending months to years in several others. My profession requires that I am very aware of the differences between the culture I once took for granted and the cultures and belief sets of the people I work with. How about you? How many countries have you lived in? Do you work closely with foreign nationals?
True_believer states: Oh, and ignorance is exclusively displayed by ignorant people.
No. Ignorance is displayed by absolutely everyone. “Ignorant people” are usually those people who think that they are the exception.
Thanks for that example and the link! I never liked that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” chestnut, it’s just not always true. If you can’t find evidence of a rhino in your bathtub (such as, for example, the actual rhino), I’m thinking it’s just not there.
You were replying to Claire, but I’ll jump in here if you don’t mind.
By all means! I’ve been in and out with something nasty I can’t shake, so I keep dropping threads. It’s nice to know someone out there will set straight those who need to be set.
No. Ignorance is displayed by absolutely everyone. “Ignorant people” are usually those people who think that they are the exception.
Please refer to part of my reply to NYCatheist, you know, room, poo, color of it …
I will probably never be as multi-cultural as you, and for that I envy you. I only lived in 5 countries so far for longer period of time. I’m planning to visit some more in the future hopefully. But I didn’t mean how well you communicate or interact with your environment, what I mean is full grasp of what they deem as virtues, ethics and morality. It doesn’t include customs, local fashion or trends that come and go, I mean real deal.
That’s one way, and what you are saying is wrong. It’s not that you feel something is sweet, you feel something that someone or someting compared with tells you that it’s sweet. Eg. if everything is sweet, what’s bitter?
Complete and utter crapspackle! Sweet is sweet, and the brain is hard-wired to recognize that. It’s not comparative – if someone never tasted anything bitter in their life they would still recognize sweet. It’s a damn bad analogy. Now, the fact that you consider bitter instead of sour to be the opposite of sweet, that’s cultural.
Your broken logic would then mean that if my “gut feeling” tells me you it’s “good” to kill you, I’m right because you agree with it. Values must be universal, and “gut feeling” is hardly such.
Nope, NYCatheist and Siamang were right – anyone who feels that way has a broken moral sense, not fixable by religion or probably by anything, and values are NOT universal. You just think they should be. Oh, and by some interesting coincidence, those ‘universal values’ should no doubt be the ones you like, not the ones currently preferred by other cultures…..
If you really think all cultures share a universal set of values (which, again, is no doubt one you approve of) then you are very much seeing only what you want to see in those other cultures.
Kohlberg’s moral development scale, which has been around for half a century, provides a schemata which parallels the stages of intellectual and cognitive development outlined by Piaget.
Thanks so much for solving a decades-old question for me! I read about Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in high school, and wished I could remember the name and the levels often in the intervening years. It explains so much, so very well.
Nope, NYCatheist and Siamang were right – anyone who feels that way has a broken moral sense, not fixable by religion or probably by anything
That was exactly my point. You seem to side with them regardless. What does that makes you I wonder?
Besides, any cognitive scientist will tell you that you are wrong about perception, but that was only example anyway, so it’s irrelevant.
What is relevant was in that copy/paste Rosemary’s essay:
Research by behavioral scientists has shown that a person’s moral beliefs and behaviors are the result of the combination of innate trends (religion influenced), education (religion influenced), social development (religion influenced), intelligence (own choices probably) and the influence of mass communication (religion influenced).
That’s an old dodge, trying to claim that people are now agreeing with you, thus making you right all along. Ha! Not even close, unless your point was that we don’t need religion to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong. In that case, yes, glad you agree.
Besides, any cognitive scientist will tell you that you are wrong about perception, but that was only example anyway, so it’s irrelevant.
Name one. Cite me a reference.
What is relevant was in that copy/paste Rosemary’s essay:
Research by behavioral scientists has shown that a person’s moral beliefs and behaviors are the result of the combination of innate trends (religion influenced), education (religion influenced), social development (religion influenced), intelligence (own choices probably) and the influence of mass communication (religion influenced).
Exactly how dishonest are you, anyway? That is ABSOLUTELY NOT a quote of what Rosemary said – all that stuff about religion was added by YOU. That’s about the level of intellectual dishonesty I’m coming to expect from you.
Well, that was ABSOLUTLY OBVIOUS, captain. I just couldn’t be stuffed putting quotes 10 times in there, and I put brackets instead. Since you are such hypocrite, she actually copy/pasted someone else’s work without link or quotes. Come down, I don’t see a reason for such hostility, especially from someone atheistic (as in “religion causing wars” and similar accusations here somewhere). You may want to discuss it if you don’t agree with me, but please don’t lie or call me dishonest. There is not much point in it, proves nothing and puts us both in bad situation. Try to prove me wrong with real arguments instead.
You live in a room where everything is blue, and there are 5 other people in there. One of them makes red pile of poo in the middle of the room. Now, it happens that you are color blind.
I’m not sure what your analogy is illustrating. I was showing that my “feeling” of murder being bad is similar to my “feeling” that sugar is sweet. In your example the person is color blind which corresponds to someone being “morally blind”. In other words, the person is a sociopath and their brain is broken.
I know my original analogy isn’t perfect, but I think people are born with a general ethical tool kit that needs to be nourished and educated just like our potential for language. A baby raised by wolves might not develop a healthy moral sense just like they won’t develop language. But I think it’s easier to raise a child to be a good person, just as it is easier to raise a kid to speak a language. (Ie. they seem to just vacuum up new words and sentence patterns they hear in the environment. To raise a serial killer would take a concerted effort to “break” the inherent good nature of a child, and would require a warped moral sense in the parent as well.) So it is not as “hard wired” as our sense of color. (The wolf baby would still perceive the color red and the taste of sweet for example.) If I were to guess why I would say that the modules in the brain which process basic senses like color and taste evolved billions of years before the moral sense which evolved relatively recently in social primates.
Also it may seem I am diverging from other atheists here in supposing there actually are universal values, but I am talking about a certain specific subset of “values” which do tend to cross all cultural lines.
True_believer, did you read the Steven Pinker article I linked to? It’s very interesting.
Kohlberg’s scale is interesting, but I am highly doubtful of claims that it is mathematically proven and not subject to dispute. As I understand it, Kohlberg also concluded that very few people reach the highest level of development: Christ, Buddha, and Kohlberg himself being among the elite.
It is a useful tool, and it agrees with my own perceptions (sent my kids to a pre-school based on Piaget’s constructivist development model), but I just don’t see any possible way for Kohlberg’s hierarchy to be evaluated as an objective truth, rather than a subjective belief. Somewhere, somehow, you have to make assumptions — and those assumptions WILL be subject to challenge. In fact, I understand that his hierarchy HAS been challenged by scholars who are far more qualified than I.
Not saying Kohlberg is wrong. Just saying you don’t want to be . . . dogmatic about it.
Try to prove me wrong with real arguments instead.
I have, more than once, but you keep not replying to those parts. Still waiting for that citation from a cogitive scientist, by the way….
Well, that was ABSOLUTLY OBVIOUS, captain. I just couldn’t be stuffed putting quotes 10 times in there, and I put brackets instead.
I guess I mistook sloppy scholarhip and incorrect use of conventions for dishonesty, that can happen. But if that’s what you intended, all you had to do was end with ‘parts in brackets are mine’ and that would have been clear, but clarity doesn’t seem to be your strong suite.
Kohlberg’s scale is interesting, but I am highly doubtful of claims that it is mathematically proven and not subject to dispute. As I understand it, Kohlberg also concluded that very few people reach the highest level of development: Christ, Buddha, and Kohlberg himself being among the elite.
Kohlberg’s model is as open to question as any other. It does, indeed, have its critics and several holes in its logic have been established, including Kohlberg’s self-established status at the top of the moral rung.
As you point out, it cannot be mathematically proven in the same sense of rigorous physics or chemistry can be proven. The mathematical aspects of the model refer to its claim to provide a description of a valid heirarchy. Kohlberg himself has questioned this in relation to his 6th rung. Like every other scientific theory, its acceptance depends on its ability to withstand constant review. Like them, it needs to be revised or abandoned in the light of new evidence. So far it has survived with modifications and waivers.
Like intelligence and cognitive style, there are few absolute universals in the moral sphere. Like them, however, there is evidence that mankind is continuing to develop. Much of what was “intelligent” behavior in the iron age would be described as evidence of mentally deficiency in this century. Much of what was deemed to be “moral” in the iron age would be described in criminal terms today. In fact, we only have to look back fifty years to see how our concepts of intelligence and morality have developed. There is a curious phenomena in the US, however, where absolute measures of knowledge and intelligence strongly suggest that the average citizen’s intellectual competence has fallen dramatically over the last century. But let us not be side-tracked on that issue on-list.
Whether Kohlberg’s model is the ultimate descriptor of moral development is actually irrelevant to the original point of this on-line discussion. The point is that there is a well-established and well-supported consensus among behavioral scientists that there is ample evidence to support the notion that moral development is a natural phenomena which occurs regardless of exposure to belief systems which claim a supernatural backing. There is an equally strong and well-supported censensus that moral development may be hindered by over-exposure to environments which stress compliance with authoratively-based moral systems. This, however, needs to be put in context.
The main causes of what is collectively labeled as “immoral” behavior are neurological developmental defects and poor nurturing, especially in the early years. This is somewhat problematic for those who believe that a supernatural being creates people with such defects and/or places them in harmful environments without also providing the means of escape. It raises insurmountable conflicts relating to the benevolence and powerfulness of the supernatural entity.
Ah, I see. I certainly agree that the concept of moral/immoral behavior has changed substantially over time. In the Bible, this is reflected by profound differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament (in the values reflected by the stories, as well as in the covenants between God and the faithful).
I also agree that children learn (or fail to learn) moral values from their environment. Religion certainly does not have a monopoly on moral behavior, but it can be a useful tool for teaching moral values. Religion is not an exclusive tool — there are others.
The evidence seems to suggest that moral behavior is a social construct, and thus changes as society changes. The few “universal” moral rules (if any) would arguably reflect universal traits of all successful human societies, rather than any hardwired instinct to behave morally.
If true, then this presents a problem for traditionalist, fundamentalist, and literalist approaches to faith — as society’s needs change, adherence to old rules can become silly or even counterproductive for society as a whole.
Example of non-universal rule: Cannibalism is “universally” prohibited and condemned in all human societies — except in small, isolated (and sometimes temporary) societies in which cannibalism is necessary for survival (i.e., plane crashes in the Andes, stranded wagon trains, life boats, and islands with insufficient protein sources). If there are exceptions, then it is not “universal.”
Another example: Killing other people is also “universally” condemned — except as to warriors in battle, government execution of criminals, self-defense, defense of loved ones or property, or (in some minds, at least) euthanasia.
Anyone who claims there are universal moral rules should provide at least one specific example. I’ll bet posters here can identify at least 3 exceptions for each alleged example. There are no “universal” or “instinctive” moral rules — but society can instill the required rules without resort to religion, and it is a mistake to suggest that religion is an essential component of moral teaching.
You are certainly correct, that most believers struggle with the question, “Why do bad things happen to good (or innocent) people?” The Roman Catholics fabricated the concept of “limbo” or “purgatory” to address this very question. Other answers are likewise a bit strained or contrived.
I frequently ask God that question, and I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer. It is entirely possible that I am incapable of being satisfied by the answer, due to my own limitations. That possibility does not stop me from asking.
Whenever you pray to “god” you are in fact praying to yourself. Because you are god! Give yourself some credit for creating reality as you see fit. Only god can do this!
Fascinating list, but you could add Allah, Jesus, Jehova, eloheim, creator, Master, etc. etc. The God or Gods of the Bible have numerous names. I can’t think of any post you could have made that would elicit more comment than this one. Thanks for stirring up the dialogue.
Some of us look out there to the ever an expanding, infinite universe and hear modern science suggesting that galaxies rise and fall over time in some system of forces that we do not yet understand well and so they call it dark energy and dark matter because they have no idea yet what it is, but are quick to agree that it controls everything out there. Some of us prefer to think that these are tools of a supreme being, or prefer to just call it God. Am I right in my understanding that Atheists agree the unexplained forces are out there, but prefer to not agree that they are God centered?
Whether we view those infinite creative forces out there as God-centered or not, one still cannot answer the questions about where and how it all started, and why? Nor the questions about why it continues to perpetuate itself , with some galaxies and solar systems burning out while others are being created, on a perpetual basis. If there is either an Atheist, agnostic, or God believer out there that can answer those kinds of questions, I would be interested. Both science and religion know so very little so far about how it all came about and where it is all going from here. This earth is such an infitesimal small part of the whole, that it is scarcely a sand on the seashore. So, info on the creation of this earth only does not answer my questions.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to be up there and the list is even because Atheists believe in him, hell they created him.
Buddda is worshipped by a lot of Eastern cultures so he is considered a man that became a Deity.
I don’t know why everyone has such respect for Budda, he is a fat ass that would have diabetes if he lived today in America. He supposedly floated to Heaven, now thats a damn miracle getting his lard ass off the ground.
You are certainly correct, that most believers struggle with the question, “Why do bad things happen to good (or innocent) people?” The Roman Catholics fabricated the concept of “limbo” or “purgatory” to address this very question. Other answers are likewise a bit strained or contrived.
I frequently ask God that question, and I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer. It is entirely possible that I am incapable of being satisfied by the answer, due to my own limitations. That possibility does not stop me from asking.
Most educated believers do not struggle with that question. I’m not educated, but I could try to explain it to you the way I understand it and I’ll even try to generalise as much as possible to include most religions.
This life to me is a test, greatly simplified comparable to a game or even a race. In this “game”, I am given rules I am not bound to obey and rules I can’t avoid to obey. Ones I can disobey will influence my path, but my start and end point are always the same. Ones I can’t disobey will insure that I’ll get there. I am born, and I will die. No matter what I do, it’s inevitable. Where my path leads, how it’s laid out is more-less irrelevant to end result. Only relevant thing is how I do things, what I take as my guide on my path, all because of afterlife.
My path might have many obstacles, I might encounter terror, grief, sorrow, etc but that is only way to actually give me opportunity to make my choices, make my path, to do something with what I’m given. I can’t truly know if I can overcome such obstacle without facing it, no matter what I think, wish or declare. I could claim anything, but that is pointless without me acting accordingly and proving I really mean it.
The way I “played my game”, “ran my race”, “walked my path”, “fought my battle” or (to call it right name) lived will determine how I will be judged in afterlife. That judgement will decide how my afterlife will be. I of course know that there is afterlife. Compared to afterlife, length of this life is infinitesimal. That does not mean that life is not valuable. A chance to show how you are is precious gift. Cutting short someone else’s ability for same is hideous crime.
There is way more to this “game”, but I might spoil enjoyment of finding out on their own for some, so I’ll stop my theistic “game model” at this. I’ll only add: “Why do bad things happen to good (or innocent) people?” is in my eyes just plain whinge. See under here. You should be thankful for your chance and for everything else. I hope this is at least close to satisfactory.
If there is either an Atheist, agnostic, or God believer out there that can answer those kinds of questions, I would be interested. Both science and religion know so very little so far about how it all came about and where it is all going from here.
You know, the simple fact that you know of theories regarding dark matter, collapsing galaxies — or even the shape of the Earth or the makeup of our solar system is entirely due to science.
You are correct that science does not know the answers to the origin of the Universe question – yet. And science may never figure it out, but they’re the only ones trying to in a way that has a proven track record of working.
What gains in science can we credit religion? There were some religious people in the past (and present, I assume) who use the scientific method and learned more about our world, but religion and religious belief itself has not progressed man beyond creating bigger tribes of us vs. them (necessary as our civilization grew, but not a factor in scientific development).
…some system of forces that we do not yet understand well and so they call it dark energy and dark matter because they have no idea yet what it is, but are quick to agree that it controls everything out there. Some of us prefer to think that these are tools of a supreme being, or prefer to just call it God.
Feel free. And if science figures out what they call “dark matter” is and exactly how it works, you can do what all most religous folks do and stop seeing God in solved science and marginalize him further into the things science has not yet figured out. Or you can deny the science and instruct people to not learn it, I suppose.
There will always be mysteries in this universe we live in. If it makes one more comfortable to believe that the answer is God, that’s fine. Just don’t get upset if the people who want real answers keep looking.
Chuck Rowles: You are reacting to a vocal minority of ignorant believers. Most of us have no objection to science answering questions. Many of us no longer see religion as a tool for explaining the physical world. Religious faith is a tool for addressing our spiritual needs and desires. I don’t expect science to ever fill THAT role.
True_believer: If that explanation works for you, then I’m happy for you. But it is still true that most believers struggle to understand why “bad things happen to good people,” and most believers are at least uncomfortable (if not outright horrified) by the idea that birth defects, child abuse, rape, torture, starvation and genocide are all part of some “game.” Have you ever attended a funeral for a child? If most believers are not concerned about the issue, then why are there so many books, sermons and essays attempting to address this issue?
Fact is, a just, loving, wise and powerful God (the God I believe in) is not going to cause (or allow) the innocent to suffer and die without a really, really good reason. I have not yet seen any scholars, theologians, or religious leaders offer a reason that qualifies as more than “possibly good enough.” For me, the idea that this is a “game” or a “test” is a really BAD reason. So you’ll forgive me if I keep looking.
There will always be mysteries in this universe we live in. If it makes one more comfortable to believe that the answer is God, that’s fine. Just don’t get upset if the people who want real answers keep looking.
Stomper: I hope people everywhere and of every persuasion keep looking for better answers. I assure you I will not be upset with the search or with the results. What does upset me is religionists or scientists who start to think that they already have the final and total answers. Combined, I think they both know almost nothing compared to what there is to yet learn and to understand.
The world’s largest particle accelerator is under construction at an underground facility on the French/Swiss border. Its purpose is to try and discover more about the make up of matter. The scientists there jokingly say they are searching for the “God” particle. The current issue of National Geographic has a good spread on this. Maybe their serious work will contribute a little more to our fields of knowledge over the next decades. Tell me, Stomper, do you think that if they do discover some more basic elements of matter and/or forces that hold matter together at the microscopic level, that it will give us any hints as to how the infinite, macroscopic existence of universes and worlds without number that are out there, ever got started or what is in play to perpetuate their continual cycle of creation and re-creation?
I don’t think that anything is created from nothing. There is something out there that is causing matter and energy to be organized, then unorganized, then reorganized, and then re unorganized, etc, etc, in a perpetual process of creation. Now, I am not real good at philosophy, but I like to think that this perpetual process applies not only in the massive sense, such as with universes, but all the way down to blades of grass and microscopic life on any one specific planet out of the numberless ones, such as ours. Somewhere there is a controlling, driving, organizing force that is keeping it all in synch. I cannot see how any true scientist or searcher for truth can think that the process is haphazard.
Anyway, thank you for your response.
I saw the NG article. I hope they find the Higgs Boson. Better yet, I hope it doesn’t behave the way they expect it to, so they can learn more than merely confirming current theories. I want science to explain as much as it possibly can, and that means we can never assume that we already know all we need to know.
Either way, I believe that basic research ALWAYS pays off in the long run, and the US is losing its lead because it mostly quit investing in basic research after the Apollo program. We coasted on that research for a long time, but now we have lost our momentum. Remember the Supercollider project that was started in Texas, and then abandoned?
This new accelerator will teach scientists something, but I will not pretend that I can predict what it will teach them.
Sounds like you are talking about Intelligent Design, at least as a gap-filler. I am open to the possibility of Intelligent Design, but I will not be surprised if science fills in those gaps during my lifetime. My faith does not depend on God being an Intelligent Designer. In any event, ID is not science, and should not be taught as science — it is a matter of faith, and I do not trust our schools to teach faith appropriately.
Somewhere there is a controlling, driving, organizing force that is keeping it all in synch. I cannot see how any true scientist or searcher for truth can think that the process is haphazard.
I have absolutely no problem with viewing the process of creation and maintenance of the physical world and the universe as a haphazard process. What I do have a problem with is your suggestion that this disqualifies me as a “true scientist or searcher for the truth”. I think this qualifies as “wish fulfilment” on your part.
Fact is, a just, loving, wise and powerful God (the God I believe in) is not going to cause (or allow) the innocent to suffer and die without a really, really good reason. I have not yet seen any scholars, theologians, or religious leaders offer a reason that qualifies as more than “possibly good enough.” For me, the idea that this is a “game” or a “test” is a really BAD reason. So you’ll forgive me if I keep looking.
Bart Ehrman, former evangelical Christian, current agnostic and author of the best-selling “Misquoting Jesus,” has got a new book out right now on this very question: The problem of suffering.
He was interviewed on Tuesday by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. He goes through all the various Biblical explanations for suffering (free will, god’s punishment, etc) and concludes that none of them work. Which is a major reason he’s no longer a theist.
Stomper said: “Sounds like you are talking about Intelligent Design, at least as a gap-filler.”
After all these years on the earth, and being in technical and scientific work, I do not think my idea about God and science really fits the ‘intelligent design’ mantra, at least not precisely. I think that I am closer to the idea of a supervised or watched over or guided evolution. I am not willing to give up the idea of God. You are right, my soul seems to require a gap filler between my faith and my science.
Yes, I do remember the super collider. I was involved in helping my company get some nice contracts to help build some of the paraphenalia that was going to go into the project, and they all evaporated when the project was cancelled. So, I remember it well.
Rosemary:
I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else is not a searcher for the truth. Please forgive me. Let me try to make my point another way.
As I can allow my searching mind to get further and further out there into the expanse of universes, and try to look at the big picture from out there instead of a myopic view from this one little planet on which I live, I think I see a synchronous rythm in what is happening and what has happened, so far as I am able to learn about it. As I am moving along now into the last quarter of my life, my internal compasses and decision makers tell me more and more that it is not all by chance. I can see how many, perhaps like yourself, prefer to view it all as random, and that is ok with me. I just am coming toward the end here with a different set of understandings. It is not clear to me how the organization that I see in it all is not visible to everyone. PEACE.
Old Mormon Guy:
No great offense taken. The comments was meant to help you see that your world view may be a little bent I recall engaging in similar rationalizations when I was in the middle of exploring the beliefs which had meant so much to me in my younger years. It is an uncomfortable experience and I applaud you for hanging in there.
I frequently ask God that question, and I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer. It is entirely possible that I am incapable of being satisfied by the answer, due to my own limitations. That possibility does not stop me from asking.
Fact is, a just, loving, wise and powerful God (the God I believe in) is not going to cause (or allow) the innocent to suffer and die without a really, really good reason. I have not yet seen any scholars, theologians, or religious leaders offer a reason that qualifies as more than “possibly good enough.”
Yes, it’s definitely your “limitations”. You already answered it and I was aware of that, I just wanted you to contradict your self, so you may see it as well, all because I like you.
As for Science, I capitalised it there for a reason. Many (atheistic) people abuse science as their surrogate religion. Some science methods are very similar to religion. Sometimes you must believe in a theory beforehand to be able to prove it. You can prove prety much anything if you start with stuid enough presumtions. I don’t think that’s their main reason, it’s just because they feel empty and need something, anything to fill them. I’m just repeating what someone else said here in previous post, can’t be stuffed quoting. (please don’t kill me Clair, I really like you too, you must be redhead like me “You are not f-ing bleeping me!”
Perhaps I should have more clearly said that the reasons offered to explain suffering do not satisfy ME as more than “possibly good enough.” I did not intend to suggest that there is any objective, measurable standard for saying any particular answer is sufficient. In fact, I thought I was suggesting otherwise. Sorry if I confused you about my position.
There is no comfort in exploring the limits of our beliefs. Whether atheist, agnostic, or faithful, we accomplish nothing — either spiritually or intellectually — if we stay in our comfort zones. We can only learn and grow if we are willing to objectively confront our own comfortably-held beliefs.
If you are 100% comfortable with your beliefs, and you have nothing more to learn, then your spiritual and intellectual growth have atrophied. That’s common, but it is not good.
Some science methods are very similar to religion. Sometimes you must believe in a theory beforehand to be able to prove it.
Example?
You can prove prety much anything if you start with stuid enough presumtions.
Really? Where’s my Mr. Fusion then?
I don’t think that’s their main reason,
What wasn’t their main reason?. I’m not sure what “they” and “that” is referring to in your sentence. (atheists? scientists?)
it’s just because they feel empty and need something, anything to fill them.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about, but if you mean scientists doing science, they’re doing it because it’s their job. I assume they chose that career because they were curious about the field they are working in. If you’re talking about atheists treating science like a religion I haven’t met any atheists who do so. There might be some out there, but I would say they are nuts. Can you give an example of an atheist who treats science like a religion? Also, what do you mean by empty? How do you know they (whoever) are feeling empty?
I’ve never seen scientists praying to Darwin or Einstein. I’ve never seen them chant the scientific method before doing an experiment. And I certainly have never seen a scientist appeal to faith to back up a hypothesis.
I’m just repeating what someone else said here in previous post, can’t be stuffed quoting.
As for Science, I capitalized it there for a reason. Many (atheistic) people abuse science as their surrogate religion. Some science methods are very similar to religion. Sometimes you must believe in a theory beforehand to be able to prove it. You can prove prety much anything if you start with stupid enough presumtions. I don’t think that’s their main reason, it’s just because they feel empty and need something, anything to fill them, just impulse or instinct. ..>.”
======
True_believer:
Implying that someone is an idiot when you are confronted with your own lack of knowledge is not an endearing feature. Unfortunately it conforms to the stereotype which many thoughtful theists and non-theists have formed of the average American-style Fundie. If this is not the image you wish to portray, and you find yourself unable to refrain from this habit, then you may wish to examine your reasons for involving yourself in a forum which is likely to uncomfortably challenge your world view and painfully expose the gaps in your knowledge and understanding.
Forgive me for expressing my frustration but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are out of your depth in this discussion. It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you when you persistently fail to understand the logic of what is said, insist that we answer questions which make no sense and repeatedly attribute thoughts and feelings to other people and to groups which you acknowledge you have never been part of.
For the record:
• Non-theists are no more likely to feel emptiness or lack of meaning in their life than someone who has given up a belief in Santa Claus, Fairies, the Easter Bunny or the omniscience and total benevolence of their parents. The transition period from belief to non-belief can be extremely uncomfortable. After that, the rest of life simply continues from a different perspective. There is no “gap” to fill. The gap is a mental projection of those who are terrified of losing their familiar world view. They think it should exist so they invent it. It does not exist in reality.
• Educated and intelligent people throughout recorded history have struggled to resolve the cognitive contradiction between the concept of an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful entity and the pain and suffering which happens to innocent and good people. Short of throwing out the god-concept or changing the characteristics attributed of the god, the only safe haven from this discomfit is the possession of an authoritarian personality with a narrow construct tolerance. This largely genetic feature allows the person to engage in ostrich-like denial of logical conflicts. The rest of us are not so lucky.
• It is extremely difficult to treat the scientific method as a religion. It is designed to prevent people’s prejudices from interfering with their observation of cause and effect. Most of the advances in knowledge and understanding over the last few centuries have come from the application of this method. It is not a perfect model but it has a far better track record than any religious method of obtaining knowledge.
The application of this method is not without problems.
It possible to bias research outcomes if the study is based on unfounded assumptions or the researcher fails to consider and control certain variables. This is bad science but it is generally caught out by other scientists who apply the scientific method by considering the methodology of the study. If the way in which a study was conducted or statistically analyzed can be faulted then the findings of that study are open to question. Those with a limited scientific background cannot be expected to tell the difference between good science and bad science, reliable findings and doubtful ones. That is why the Creation Hypothesis is almost exclusively entertained by those who do not rigorously practice the scientific method.
Likewise, the interpretation of scientific findings can be manipulated according to someone’s prejudices or ignorance. That is why scientific journals exist and why scientists provide a review of the findings and conclusions of other scientists before reporting on their own contribution in the area.
It is also possible to treat the products of the scientific method as a religion. This is very unscientific because the essence of the scientific method is to question everything – and go questioning it, even when it appears to be extremely well founded. That is where science differs from religion.
A good science education includes a unit on the essential differences between a “science” and a “religion” or other “ideology”. Popper’s definition is that science sets things up so that they can be falsified whereas religion sets things up so that falsification is impossible. For example, there is no way of disproving the existence of a god: your version or anyone else’s. All gods are equally probable and equally incapable of disproof. Which is where we began this discussion, I believe.
I agree that True_believer is clearly out of his/her depth, but it appears you’ve let True_believer get to you. Your generalization about non-theists not feeling a void is . . . well, a generalization about a large group of people and therefore patently false. I am sure there are some non-theists who never really needed or wanted a spiritual side, and those people lose nothing they value when they give up faith. I am equally sure there are non-theists who seek substitutes for the spiritual fulfillment they have abandoned.
Most people do have a spiritual side, whether they neglect it or not (one big reason for the pervasiveness of religion). There ARE people (I’ve encountered many online) who may not worship Empiricism in any traditional, religious sense, but who nevertheless show absolute faith in Empiricism as the source of ALL power, knowledge and happiness. If that is true, it cannot be proven — it is just a Theory . A case can be made that these people “worship” science. I am certainly not contending that anyone here fits that description.
Truth is, empiricism and religion are not comparable — they are apples and orangutangs. Many of these disputes seem to arise from people ignorantly (or deliberately) overlooking that point. Faith should not be taught as science, and it should not shape public policy. Faith should be taught in the family and the church, and it should shape our personal decisions.
God is not subject to empirical proof, and (as you pointed out) empiricism works best when there is no faith involved. Which brings me back to MY first comment.
Your generalization about non-theists not feeling a void is . . . well, a generalization about a large group of people and therefore patently false.
No, not patently false at all, if you are using the word in a general sense, rather than in its specific meaning in logic. Without generalizations (by which I mean statements that include such words as ‘most’, ‘many’, ’some’, or Rosemary’s ‘no more likely’ and make general inferences), we would be unable to discuss anything that wasn’t all or none. As long as we don’t forget that ‘most’ doesn’t mean ‘every’, they are useful.
I am sure there are some non-theists who never really needed or wanted a spiritual side, and those people lose nothing they value when they give up faith.
I think it’s more than some who never needed one, although I have no statistics.
When a person gives something up because they have outgrown it, can they really be said to have lost anything? Growth and change can be painful, but if someone puts faith behind them because they have outgrown it, why should that create what you called a void?
Rosemary compared the abandonment of faith to giving up belief in Santa Claus, Fairies, or the Easter Bunny, and that comparison made her generalization overly broad. I called her on it, because giving up those beliefs is so nearly universal as to be 100% for all practical purposes (particularly when we exclude the mentally challenged and mentally ill), which makes the comparison to them a gross over-generalization. She very graciously acknowledged that.
As I noted, I have met a number of self-procaimed “atheists” (particularly the so-called “strong atheists” ) who have merely substituted one form of faith for another. The most common substitutes I have encountered? Faith in Empiricism, or faith that God does NOT exist (those “strong atheists” again).
Many other “atheists” have essentially abandoned faith altogether (if we disregard the faith/assumptions that existential philosophy says we ALL get by on). Those are the kind I have encountered here. Setting aside the arrogant, patronizing and otherwise insulting implications from saying these people “outgrew” their spirituality, I would (and already did) agree that some people never miss the spiritual life they abandoned.
In short, I have met far more “atheists” who have substituted some other form of faith (30+), than I have met legally competent adults who still believe in Santa Claus, fairies, or the Easter Bunny (none).
I called her on it, because giving up those beliefs is so nearly universal as to be 100% for all practical purposes
Why should the numbers matter, in this case? As long as the central matter in question is the same (something a person believed in and valued is shown to be false), that seems to be more important than the fact that more people have done the one than the other.
Setting aside the arrogant, patronizing and otherwise insulting implications from saying these people “outgrew” their spirituality
This is not an experience I have had, as I never was religious. But I have read many first-hand accounts, mostly on this blog, from people who used to believe and now don’t. The only common thread I have found that runs between them, the only word I can find that describes all of them, is ‘growth’. Hence the use of the word ‘outgrew’ in reference to what happened. It wasn’t intended to insult, it’s just the most accurate word I could find to describe what those accounts all had in common.
It is insulting, whether intended or not. There are many content-neutral words which convey the idea without insult: people can change their beliefs, give up their beliefs, adopt new beliefs, abandon their beliefs, etc.
Numbers matter only in the sense that you were defending Rosemary’s comparison, by saying Rosemary offered a generalization with an implied “but of course there are exceptions.” The comparison she used, though, does not have any competent, adult exceptions.
If you can’t see the distinction — if you honestly think that belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Claus, fairies, or the Easter Bunny (an argument I have heard numerous times) — then it is hard to believe that your insult was inadvertent.
My faith is genuine, and not a show I put on to entertain the kids. If you cannot respect that difference in belief, then I have nothing further to say to you.
Thanks for the support. Stomper, however, is right to admonish me for falling into the trap of doing exactly what I was upbraiding True_Believer for: generalizing for an entire group of people for whom I do not have good sample statistics.
While I have yet to meet an ex-theist who believes that their belief loss has caused a void in their life, I have not meet all of them so it is conceivable that some do feel this way.
Personally (that’s safe, I think), I don’t experience a void. I have fond memories of some of the emotional aspects of my former beliefs but I have experienced similar feelings in other contexts since then.
“Spirituality” and altered states of consciousness are not the exclusive domain of religion or god belief. Buddhism can attest to that. So can Yoga and Eastern meditation practices.
So can the well known atheist, Richard Dawkins. He has a positively delicious account at the beginning of “The God Delusion” about his communion with nature.
There are times when I miss the certainty and closure which some aspects of my previous belief set provided. I find it disturbing to consider my mortality and eventual death, especially now that I have reached the age where there are too many funerals for close friends and relatives. It is distressing to acknowledge that man’s life on this planet is not eternal and we may even be witnessing the beginnings of a climate change which will ensure that it ends within a couple of centuries. I find it frightening when faced with evidence that the planet Earth is doomed, and the milky way will eventually be swallowed by a neighbouring galaxy. None of this is in the least bit comforting.
But my intellectual integrity will not let me revert to something which I believe has no basis in reality simply to escape from the cold hard facts of life – or lack of it. It would be so nice to re-believe in Santa, too. Not to mention the fairies. It was such a disappointment to have to discard them.
Stomper, I think I see your objection now- you divide beliefs into those suitable for children but not for adults, and those suitable for adults. Is that it?
And is that what you meant by “difference in belief”?
Rosemary:
I’m not going to claim that I encountered any atheists who expressly acknowledged feeling a void. That is an inference I drew, from my observation that many of them HAVE merely substituted a different form of faith.
Claire:
No. Children can (and are) harmlessly fooled by adults who know better. My faith is an illogical choice based on my own conscious decision to believe, and based on the teachings of others (like my parents) who also genuinely believe. My faith is not a game.
Actually, it wasn’t so much that, as it was that I was disgreeing that all generalizations are ‘patently false’.
I find it disturbing to consider my mortality and eventual death, especially now that I have reached the age where there are too many funerals for close friends and relatives.
I’m there, too, and you’re right – there’s not a lot of comfort to be had. Climate change is my worst nightmare.
Not to mention the fairies. It was such a disappointment to have to discard them.
Dammit, now I’m jealous! I don’t remember ever believing in fairies, that would have been so cool…
Stomper, I’m finding you increasingly hard to follow. I still don’t understand your objection, and statements like “my faith is not a game” seem to come from nowhere and I have no idea how they are supposed to relate…
I can only write it for you. I can’t understand it for you.
Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are part of a game adults play with children. When children come to understand this, it provides a minor rite of passage into adulthood. None of these characters are intended to fill a role in the child’s spiritual life.
My faith is something I chose as an adult. If you really cannot see how patronizing it is to compare my faith to childish fantasies, then I suppose I should feel sorry for you, rather than insulted.
Ok, this site is broken, I’ll repost that one since it’s confusing the way it is now:
I frequently ask God that question, and I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer. It is entirely possible that I am incapable of being satisfied by the answer, due to my own limitations. That possibility does not stop me from asking.
Fact is, a just, loving, wise and powerful God (the God I believe in) is not going to cause (or allow) the innocent to suffer and die without a really, really good reason. I have not yet seen any scholars, theologians, or religious leaders offer a reason that qualifies as more than “possibly good enough.”
Yes, it’s definitely your “limitations”. You already answered it and I was aware of that, I just wanted you to contradict your self, so you may see it as well, all because I like you.
As for Science, I capitalised it there for a reason. Many (atheistic) people abuse science as their surrogate religion. Some science methods are very similar to religion. Sometimes you must believe in a theory beforehand to be able to prove it. You can prove prety much anything if you start with stuid enough presumtions. I don’t think that’s their main reason, it’s just because they feel empty and need something, anything to fill them. I’m just repeating what someone else said here in previous post, can’t be stuffed quoting. (please don’t kill me Clair, I really like you too
If you really cannot see how patronizing it is to compare my faith to childish fantasies,
Thank you for not only using using the word ‘patronizing’ in a sentence, but also giving me an example of it in your ill-natured comment “I can’t understand it for you”. All it took was explaining that you considered Santa, etc, as “games” that adults play with children, which is not a word I had ever heard used in reference to those things. That made the rest of what you said clear – finally.
Look, I’m getting tired of retyping this because someone (OP? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Stephan?) may or may not deleted my post. Could’ve been me, not clicking “Submit” before closing my browser, could’ve been you broken friggin page. Whatever the cause, this post doesn’t look same, and it pisses me off. I got an idea: you could scratch that “friendly” from “Friendly Atheist” and leave just plain “Atheist”, or maybe change it to: Friendly if you agree, in any case ignorant atheist=nihilist who is sometimes “ignostic” and may or may not delete your post. And better add Chopper Reid on that list OP or you’re going to have fuming religious fanatic on your atheistic or agnostic arse and I’m sure you don’t want that. (nor me, although, it would be rather hilarious)
You also may want to change “friendly” to “happy” because I’m gone. Maybe someone else could do some more service to this discussion other than spamming clichés like me or unrelated psychology and other dogmas like some otherwise very nice people.
Not as broken as you are, True_believer. Why are you reposting stuff that has already been responded to/ completely rebutted? If you didn’t read the responses before, you won’t read them now. You are one seriously broken troll…..
Clair, you need medical attention. This is missing part of that damn post thet gets cut off f-king each time:
Otherwise, I think that science is very positive, since it’s giving us better view of the world around us. It’s great insight into God’s majesty. I don’t think science clashes with true religion. Science can’t prove of disprove God’s existence, since being like Him, that might not even have any substance in common with this world cant be described with its laws.
It would be somewhat equivalent of trying to fit Pacific Ocean into my pool. For many analogy blind people here: Yes, it’s too f-ing small. (o c e a n s _ m u c h _ l a r g e r _ t h e n _ b a t h t u b s, no links available, and I won’t give three examples, sorry)
Someone said before that “science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind” and I would in every respect agree with that. Only things that clash ever are Science and fanatics, or pseudo-science and “believers”, never science and religion.
NYC, please don’t take this wrong way: answers are there and obvious, I can’t make them more obvious to you. Eg. you ask me to post you links on something I said is irrelevant, and that I don’t want to go that direction. Do your own resarch if you think it’s important and prove me wrong. That poo analogy was obvious joke, if you take that seriously, something’s wrong with you. Reason that you don’t understand me seems to be that you are not trying to understand, only trying to contradict me and that is why I didn’t bother to answer. I did tried to answer when I thought it neededs clarifying, like now.
One part of that post you replied to was missing for whatever reason. I tried to repost it in whole again and then I reposted only missing part when it didn’t work. Read it as one and whole please and then ask me then if you still don’t understand what I’m saying there.
answers are there and obvious, I can’t make them more obvious to you. Eg. you ask me to post you links on something I said is irrelevant, and that I don’t want to go that direction. Do your own resarch if you think it’s important and prove me wrong.
I don’t know what you’re referring to. Can you give an example of one of the obvious answers?
That poo analogy was obvious joke, if you take that seriously, something’s wrong with you.
Yes, but the original discussion was serious. You said my logic was broken, and I was trying to understand why you thought so.
Reason that you don’t understand me seems to be that you are not trying to understand, only trying to contradict me and that is why I didn’t bother to answer.
I am trying to understand, which is why I keep asking you questions and requesting examples or clarifications.
I don’t think I am only trying to contradict you (oops, another contradiction!). Since we are having a debate/discussion contradicting one another is inevitable. I only hope to understand your reasons, and that you understand mine.
Did you read the Steven Pinker article from the NY Times Magazine I linked to? What did you think of it?
I’m sorry you are having so much trouble with posting here. Are you using IE? I’ve had trouble with IE here, but I’ve never had a problem with Firefox. Or if you want to continue this discussion in the forum, the software there might be more manageable.
You said my logic was broken, and I was trying to understand why you thought so.
Ok, let’s back track it. You said that “gut feeling’ is your only moral standard. I said that your logic is broken after you did not understand my analogy regarding that. I’ll explain my analogy and my conclusion in detail as much as I can.
If “gut feeling” is your only guidance, then you must accept it to be same valid for other people, since you are not better than anyone else. Do you really think that all people got same “gut feelings” regarding different issues? I mentioned killing in that analogy. Reason was that killing is thrill and joy for many, much bigger then their suffering from consequences. Their “gut feeling” you approve would then tell them: to kill is “right”. Since you accepted their “gut feeling” to be valid evaluation, you accept their action to be “right”. Therefore they would kill you with your approval. Moreover, you approve all killings decided out of “gut feeling”. Someone said I (using your “gut feeling”) got logic of a serial killer, and that is exactly where such moral standards would lead.
That clear enough? There must be something outside of us both that tells us what’s right or wrong, otherwise we will astray sooner or later. That is why I said “universal”. Don’t cling to murder I use in analogy and say that your “gut feeling” tells you it’s wrong, and therefore your standards are right. There are millions of other issues you might have to deal with and your “gut feeling” may be wrong in some, same as you accuse other moral standards to be.
My other point regarding your “gut feeling” was that you are not even aware how that feeling works. I said that you are influenced by your upbringing, and your “gut feeling” is a combination of your nature and nurture. Your reply about atheistic roots means nothing unless you grew up isolated from this whole human society that is mainly guided by religious moral standards. Someone else was saying that this goes into discussion about nature/nurture because of what I said. They are probably right so I didn’t go into it deeper.
Needless to say, I really don’t mind anyone contradicting anything as long as they bring up valid point with some understanding of what we are talking about.
I use Firefox and I discovered reason for my previous posting problem: this site can’t handle use of two simbols located on the right from M key on your keyboard when you press Shift key. Site thinks that symbol is part of its code and everything that comes after it is invisible.
There must be something outside of us both that tells us what’s right or wrong, otherwise we will astray sooner or later. That is why I said “universal”. Don’t cling to murder I use in analogy and say that your “gut feeling” tells you it’s wrong, and therefore your standards are right.
The “something outside of us” that forms our “gut” feeling is society. People accept the mores of the society around them, unless they have been damaged by poor nurture and upbringing or they have a genetic or acquired brain defect.
Actually the consideration of murder as a comparative moral issue is interesting. It is interesting that secular European countries, including the UK, have a much lower crime rates than the religious USA. In the US the crime rate increases in line with the degree of theism. The Bible Belt States have the highest crime rates, including murder.
Do we interpret this as “Christianity causes crime” or “crime causes Christianity”? As a social scientist I would suggest that a series of “third” factors causes both of these phenomena. The main culprits are probably poverty and poor education which lead to a way of thinking which encourages crime as well as heavy handed “law and order” which many would also view as “criminal”.
Whichever way you look at it, there is no support whatever for the notion that a personal god belief or living in a culture which supports one is in any way necessary or useful for developing a moral code which is universally applauded.
But my intellectual integrity will not let me revert to something which I believe has no basis in reality simply to escape from the cold hard facts of life – or lack of it. It would be so nice to re-believe in Santa, too. Not to mention the fairies. It was such a disappointment to have to discard them.
Just to inform you Rosemary that you were never even near to be religious. You are longing to go back to Santa? You just followed customs and your environment like a little monkey without actually understanding the meaning of all that. When you got tempted, you gave up for convenience reasons. That is not even near to believing. Religiousness is not just visits to some temple of choice; it’s actual understanding and accepting base of that religion. I am sure that once you truthfully do that, you never capable of “reverting” to nothingness and staying sane. It’s not possible. Whoever claims different is mistaken. You can only replace it with something else, never nothingness (atheism).
Sorry for the tone, but your arrogance and previous comments called for it. I try to avoid judging other people and their religion but I deem it necessary this time. You were what I would name “believer” (not to be mistaken with true believer), someone that’s claiming association with religion of random choice without knowledge or readiness to follow its guidance. It might be of comfort to you that you are not alone, there are many like you. If they have even slight trace of religiousness, they usually turn to eastern philosophies, butcher them into their trendy liking and call that “Buddhism”. Reason for their choice is typically that little Buddha figure is so cute. I promise I won’t make further uncomfortable comments on your personality if you restrain your comments about mine and concentrate on subjects we are discussing.
Do we interpret this as “Christianity causes crime” or “crime causes Christianity”? As a social scientist I would suggest that a series of “third” factors causes both of these phenomena. The main culprits are probably poverty and poor education which lead to a way of thinking which encourages crime as well as heavy handed “law and order” which many would also view as “criminal”.
I partly agree with you. Poverty and education are playing great role there. However, main problem is lack of moral values. That is one of the reasons I have problem with atheism. It makes even easier for media to further degrade our society, because those people look up to media only for their guidance.
There is no comfort in exploring the limits of our beliefs. Whether atheist, agnostic, or faithful, we accomplish nothing — either spiritually or intellectually — if we stay in our comfort zones. We can only learn and grow if we are willing to objectively confront our own comfortably-held beliefs.
I admire some things you said here mate, one of them being this.
Poverty and education are playing great role there. However, main problem is lack of moral values. That is one of the reasons I have problem with atheism.
True_believer: You failed to get the point. The lower the moral values, the more religious the area. The country with the lowest crime rates (Sweden, I think) is also reported to be the one with the most atheists per capita.
In order for your argument to work you need to explain why religion fails to raise universally accepted moral values (as opposed to religious “moral” codes which are condemned as immoral by those of different or no religion.)
Just to inform you Rosemary that you were never even near to be religious. …You just followed customs and your environment like a little monkey without actually understanding the meaning of all that. When you got tempted, you gave up for convenience reasons. That is not even near to believing. Religiousness is not just visits to some temple of choice; it’s actual understanding and accepting base of that religion. I am sure that once you truthfully do that, you never capable of “reverting” to nothingness and staying sane. It’s not possible. Whoever claims different is mistaken. You can only replace it with something else, never nothingness (atheism).
{sigh}. Here you are again telling me what I have and haven’t believed and/or done. And you are way, way off.
I am an ex-soul-saving Evangelical who had a profound and meaningful experience of what I thought at the time was “God”. It was so intense that I commenced training for the ministry. My first problem was that I had an enquiring mind that asked awkward questions and persued them to where-ever they led. I was introduced to the fascinating world of modern Biblical scholarship, which still intrigues me. Then I read the Bible all the way through instead of in my previous piece-meal fashion. That was my final undoing. I could not square what I found there with the God I had been taught was described there. I was reading about a mean and racist god of wrath, not a god of love who cared about the well-being of non-Jews.
I found my research talents and desire to do good for humanity were better suited to the profession of psychology. The more I studied this subject the more god beliefs I shed until finally I woke up one morning and realized that there were none left and life had not imploded.
None of this matches your description of my life and belief history but I am almost certain that you will ignore this and continue to insist that your fanciful version is the real reality. You will not delude anyone else on this forum but yourself.
None of this matches your description of my life and belief history but I am almost certain that you will ignore this and continue to insist that your fanciful version is the real reality.
Oh, but I strongly disagree. You just confirmed what I said. And I did notice slight trace of psychology there, didn’t I? It’s not me trying to act smart, it’s just that people fall to same old trap thinking that they are so much different/better then everyone else, and doom them selves to repeat other’s mistakes.
“Quod sum eris.”
Then I read the Bible all the way through instead of in my previous piece-meal fashion.
So, True_Believer, how do you account for the fact that countries with the most atheists have the lowest crime rate, as Rosemary pointed out? And the group with the smallest percentage of prison inmates is atheists, far smaller than their percentage in the general population? As measured by behaviour, atheists are more moral than religious people.
The country with the lowest crime rates (Sweden, I think) is also reported to be the one with the most atheists per capita.
Reason might be that because Scandinavian people are far more educated on average, they declare their religion or lack of it more accurate. Or they might have surrounding’s pressure regarding religion going in opposite way then in US, i.e. atheism might be trendy declaration there. I personally think that one’s religious belief is God’s gift and not affected by anything else. Obviously, since I believe that Got is almighty, it means that He could have made us all members of one religion, yet He did not. Unlikely that one’s geographical location plays any role in that.
Are you two in full seriousness trying to say that believing in nothing makes one less criminal then someone that truly believes in eternal and severe punishment for their crimes? Please explain withot using statistics, it can be “adjusted” to show anything.
Are you two in full seriousness trying to say that believing in nothing makes one less criminal then someone that truly believes in eternal and severe punishment for their crimes?
I can’t speak for Rosemary, but yes – I am saying that a thoughtful, reasoned moral code, not based on religion, leads to better behaviour than thoughtless, blind faith. That is not the same thing as ‘believing in nothing’ (as you characterized it with the usual insult of the willfully ignorant – so trite). And if I remember correctly, those states without the death penalty (similar to your punishment view) have a lower crime rate than states with the death penalty. Such a lovely moral code you describe, behaving well not because it’s right but because of fear of punishment.
Please explain withot using statistics, it can be “adjusted” to show anything.
Ah, yes – the attack on statistics: the last refuge of the desperate, when the facts show them to be wrong.
Oh, and those statistics on Sweden are not an anomaly. A high rate of atheism and a low rate of crime go together in many countries.
A high rate of atheism and a low rate of crime go together in many countries.
What else they go together with? What countries? What crimes? Which institution(s)? Links? And is ignorance a bliss or damnation?
Well, in this case, I don’t really want to know your answers since they won’t change a thing. I assumed that your statistics are really reflecting what you are seeing in them, and I answered mainly because Rosemary asked. You conveniently ignored it like you did with every answer I gave you, Claire.
In case someone else is interested, Sweden is one of European countries that avoided destruction during WWI and WWII, hence they high living standard and wealth. Understandingly, when you are wealthy, you are not too interested in petty crime activities. Your statistics could be reflecting many other things, and that is why I have problem with it. World is way too complex to be described with statistics. If that is satisfactory to you, go ahead, but don’t be upset when I call that Science again, as in surrogate religion, something irrational you chose to believe.
My, you are the lone ranger here, aren’t you? You’re doing a great job sticking it out! Please know that these are all good people asking honest questions. Don’t think of them as the enemy as you may have in your mind. But they are irritatingly smart, aren’t they? I don’t like how they often put me me in my place, but I still highly respect them. I think of them as my teachers.
I do want to point out one pet peeve of mine. Maybe it’s a pet peeve because I found myself doing it sometimes too… when people write or say f–ing… Either say/write the word or don’t do it at all. What the heck is f–ing? It’s like saying “I want people to know that I’m cool, but I’m too chicken to prove it.” That’s just something that I self-analyzed about myself when I found myself doing the same thing. Just my opinion, which you can choose to ignore.
Anyway, everyone, if I may interject with a thought…
A high rate of atheism and a low rate of crime go together in many countries.
Even if the statistics show the numbers in that way, how do we know that other factors are not involved? Such as gun laws? I highly doubt there is a direct link between religion and crime rates in the big picture. It may possibly be one of the factors, but it’s not conclusive enough.
I’m somewhat surprised that it was even brought up by people who love to focus on real evidence and solid facts.
I wouldn’t say irritating and smart in same context, but why else would we still hang around? F-ing is the way around profanity filter. I was more using it as a joke in reference to that Chopper Reid video and my disappearing post. I guess sense of humour is like spirituality these days, rare.
For those who don’t want to work their way all the way through, I offer the following snippet: ” In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion …”
Well, in this case, I don’t really want to know your answers since they won’t change a thing.
Well, True Believer, at least you are honest on this point. You are so attached to your fantasies that facts are of no interest at all. Further comment from me would be superfluous.
Have we broken the record yet for number of comments on a blog post here yet?
True_Believer wrote:
If “gut feeling” is your only guidance, then you must accept it to be same valid for other people, since you are not better than anyone else. Do you really think that all people got same “gut feelings” regarding different issues? I mentioned killing in that analogy. Reason was that killing is thrill and joy for many, much bigger then their suffering from consequences.
I’m not saying my gut feelings are the standard for everyone to live up to, nor would I respect someone’s gut feelings which told them murder was pleasurable. I am saying that there is a general moral base that is common to all cultures about certain fundamental issues like murder, rape, and so on. The people you mention who do experience a thrill and joy from killing are a minority, and have, in my opinion, “broken brains”.
I think we are arguing nature vs. nurture here. From what I have read about research on primates and human cultures is that humans are born with an innate moral “tool kit”. Of course these innate moral tendencies must be nurtured or they will become warped or broken.
That clear enough? There must be something outside of us both that tells us what’s right or wrong, otherwise we will astray sooner or later.
Yes, I understand your point. I would say that the “something” is inside us. Ie. our biological nature. It isn’t perfect or absolute, but I think it is evident in the common basic morality shared by all humans, including partially by other primates.
I’m no expert, and you may be right that a large part could be due to nurture, which may be rooted in a society influenced by religion. There are so many variables here and feedback loops, such as our biology affecting society, which affects are biology etc. We have only scratched the surface and a lot more research needs to be done.
So you think scientific research in psychology, anthropology and cognitive science is worthwhile? Or is the morality in the Bible the final word and no more investigation needs to be done?
Did you ever read that Steven Pinker article? It is quite good and an excellent review of the kind of research going on.
And to the rest of you reading this thread, you might like this post I saw recently which coincidently touches on everything we are discussing here:
PS: Yeah, it’s a good idea to stay away from the “greater than” and “less than” brackets. I’ve had trouble with them before too. Maybe there is an escape sequence out there so we can use them? How will I show that 3 is bigger than 2???
None of this matches your description of my life and belief history but I am almost certain that you will ignore this and continue to insist that your fanciful version is the real reality.
True_believer replied,
Oh, but I strongly disagree. You just confirmed what I said.
Which is what I predicted. I rest my case.
True_believer demanded:
Please explain withot using statistics, it can be “adjusted” to show anything……….
Your statistics could be reflecting many other things, and that is why I have problem with it. World is way too complex to be described with statistics. If that is satisfactory to you, go ahead, but don’t be upset when I call that Science again, as in surrogate religion, something irrational you chose to believe.
Statistics can be used to prove anything only to those who do not know how they work. Trash news is full of journalistic conclusions based on the writer’s faulty understanding of statistical method. Behavioral scientists, as well as researchers in other scientific areas, are given a very thorough grounding in this aspect of mathematics. For a research paper to make it into a peer reviewed journals it has to meet a rigorous standard of statistical competence. In the non-absolute human sciences the degree of certainly must be expertly calculated and stated along with the conclusions which it supports. Popular journalism does not talk about degrees of certainty but if they are quoting the results of a reputable scientific report then that degree of certainty is at the 95 percent level.
In laymen’s terms that means that the observed effect could happen by chance in less than five percent of random observations making it much more than likely that the effect is real and not accidental.
If the journalist is not quoting a rigorous scientific study then skepticism is warranted until the statistical data and reasoning is known. Any statistically ignorant journalist can “prove” that motor vehicles accidents are increasing every year by quoting the raw figures. This kind of “statistic” is meaningless until it is mathematically compared with the annual population increase.
What else they go together with? What countries? What crimes? Which institution(s)? Links? And is ignorance a bliss or damnation?
Well, in this case, I don’t really want to know your answers since they won’t change a thing. I assumed that your statistics are really reflecting what you are seeing in them,
I think that sums up your attitude perfectly. You don’t want to be confused with the facts because your mind is very firmly made up. So why are you here on this forum?
For the benefit of others on this forum, the factors which similtaneously cause a decline of religion, a decline in crime and an advance in moral development appear to be an increase in the standard of living brought about by scientific advances and an increase in the quality, level and pervasiveness of education, particulary in the sciences.
The reason that the US is an out-lier is that education is a commodity and not a right in this country. This leads to the ability of parental and community groups to control and influence what is taught and how it is graded. The anti-science pro-Creationist Kansas school board is an obvious example of what this means.
It also leads to a model of education which stress nominal prestige in lieu of competence. This inevitably leads to the use of marketing strategies to increase the level of participation and economic investment in the college industry. These are coupled with the active suppression of international comparisons which reveal uncomfortable truths. Statistical manipulation is rife.
For example, the average American believes that they live in the best educated country in the world although this is very far from the truth. The educational industry continues to inform the average American that the US has the highest proportion of people with Bachelor degrees or better and the best doctoral programs in the world.
What Americans are not told is that in other developed countries American college level material is routinely completed in the last few years of secondary school (Years 11, 12 and 13), the Bachelor degree is often the primary professional degree (medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, psychology ….), post-graduate and professional Masters studies provide post professional specialist education (surgeons in the UK, Australia and New Zealand are awarded a Masters degree) and the PhD is frequently defined as a complex senior research-only degree which is insufficient and inappropriate for professional licensing. Nominal comparisons are therefore spurious.
Last year the university of Melbourne in the Australian State of Victoria persuaded the Australian government to allow it to convert to an American-style senior secondary and tertiary prestige naming system. Government permission was required because funding was legally tied to the definition of the bachelor degree as the basic professional degree, the masters degree as a specialist degree and the doctoral degrees as an independent research degree which required few academic resources.
This year international studies reveal that the educational level in the Australian State of Victoria has fallen dramatically in comparison to the other Australian States and in comparison other nations. The US press has not seen fit to report this phenomena which is no doubt of great relief to those who make a living from selling prestige-style American education.
So beware of statistics which hide the truth because they compare unlike things.
Linda said:
Please know that these are all good people asking honest questions. ….But they are irritatingly smart, aren’t they? I don’t like how they often put me me in my place, but I still highly respect them. I think of them as my teachers.
I am at your annoying service, Ingratiating One. Perhaps I should change my tag to Irritating Guru. What do you think?
I guess sense of humour is like spirituality these days, rare.
I don’t think the sense is what is rare, it’s the humor.
And I said irritating, because I end up having to re-think everything when someone here makes sense. And it was my attempt at sense of humor. Oh well… I tried.
Rosemary said,
I am at your annoying service, Ingratiating One. Perhaps I should change my tag to Irritating Guru. What do you think?
Now, that’s funny. See? Smarter AND funnier. It’s not fair! *sigh*
The reason that the US is an out-lier is that education is a commodity and not a right in this country. This leads to the ability of parental and community groups to control and influence what is taught and how it is graded. The anti-science pro-Creationist Kansas school board is an obvious example of what this means.
It also leads to a model of education which stress nominal prestige in lieu of competence. This inevitably leads to the use of marketing strategies to increase the level of participation and economic investment in the college industry.
I agree with you completely, Rosemary. That is my frustration with our education system. Something needs to be done.
However, I still don’t know how atheism is defined in those studies. Skepticism, maybe. Getting away from blindly following religious teachings, maybe. But atheism? Unless you want to group everyone outside of the religious brain-lazy people as atheists, I don’t buy those statistics.
I really don’t believe it’s as black and white as that.
When I was involved in governing industrial enterprise in the last half of my career, I learned very emphatically that there are diminishing returns for spending time, energy, or resource on small issues. I learned that if one could get the larger issues right, then many of the smaller ones just took care of themselves.
Now, it is my impression that some bloggers on this site are straining over a lot of minor issues, and not addressing the major ones. Top of the list of issues in descending order of importance is the question, “Is there a God or is there no God?”
In my long life, I have never met anyone who could prove the answer to those top tier questions using the scientific methods taught to me in engineering school nor could they prove it by using the dogma of competing religions or the testimonies of individuals in those various faith systems. The best answers I feel that I have discovered are very personal and come from use of my own intellect, my own observations, and my own internal promptings. So, I see the existence or non-existence of God as being a very personal thing with each individual. And, I think my own moral compass derives from the same sources: personal intellect, observation, and internal promptings. Observation, of course, would include the mores and conditions in whatever society I find myself a part of, here upon the earth.
I cannot deny that internal promptings are an important part of this process, at least for me. So, what are their source? Strictly psycological? Or cerebral? Or do they emanate from some other energy or spiritual source which can not yet be duplicated in man’s physical laboratories? It is my sense that these promptings do not come from anything in the physical world of which I am a part. My sense is that they emanate from a spiritual world that man cannot measure with instruments or with intellect alone. It is this sense that keeps me on the side of theism, as opposed to atheism.
I am an old guy and quite new to blogging, so please give me a little slack. Thank you.
How old is old? I think old is only a state of mind anyway. I’m very happy that you are here sharing your thoughts with us. You will find that slack is not something that you find often here. People usually say it like it is. That is what’s so great about this place. When I am brutally challenged, it hurts for a moment, but it makes me grow. ^_^
I’ve never known much about the Mormon religion other than the fact that it is known to be a cult in the Christian circles that I’ve been in. But a few of the kindest people that I have known have been Mormons. One of my daughter’s best friends is a Mormon, and I love him to death.
Outside of all of the religious differences, I believe we all are searchers of truth.
One thing I have to disagree with you is the following statement:
Top of the list of issues in descending order of importance is the question, “Is there a God or is there no God?”
Is that really the most important question? I agree that belief in God is a very personal thing. The question regarding the existence of God is talked about here a lot, believe it or not, and it never goes anywhere but in circles. It escalates into a battle of the brains and then we’re right back to where we began. I find it a futile effort, except for the fact that each time, we learn a little more about the others and our own strengths and weaknesses. So in that sense, I love the discussions. But I don’t think we will ever be closer to proving or disproving God as a group.
I’m so glad you’re here, Old Mormon Guy, to share your wisdom and insights. I hope you will stay. I’ve only been blogging for less than 6 months as well. So don’t feel bad about being new.
I do have one question for you, which was asked of me a while back. What exactly are you thinking of when you are speaking of God? What is your definition of God?
Linda:
OK, no slack. I should have known better than to ask for any kind of special treatment.
How old? Well, I remember very well the depression days of the 1930’s. You do the math
Age a function of attitude? I agree with you so long as the body is reasonably healthy. I try to think young and stay young. I recently spent a week in Hawaii with 8 of my great granchildren who live in New York and Nevada, so I do try. However, my brain gets periodic messages from my body that say,”Hey there, guy, you aren’t as young as you think you would like to be.”
About the cult thing. I do not think this blog site would be an appropriate place to discuss that. It would be a very, very circular discussion. I would like to stick with what we really do and do not know about the existence of God.
My definition of God? I am not sure I have that all sorted out yet. I don’t know enough yet. The promptings I receive from time to time when studying or considering some particular challenge in my life, perhaps describe God to me. Let me think about it some more. One thing for sure I do not accept is the Nicene creed description of the Trinity.
Do you have a description of God you would like to list? I could not tell from your post if you were on the theist or atheist side. No matter, I appreciate your response.
I do have one question for you, which was asked of me a while back. What exactly are you thinking of when you are speaking of God? What is your definition of God?
This is the right question, Claire. When people talk about proof of the existence or non-existence of a god, what they mean is proof of the existence or non-existence of their particular version of the dominant deity of their culture or religious group.
Biases show up immediately in the way the question is framed. People from Christian or Muslim dominated cultures rarely, if ever, think of framing the question to entertain the possibility of the similtaneous existence or non-existence of multiple gods. Or the possibility that a god existed who is now dead.
The details of the deity they want to discuss generally pins the person down to a community, a culture, a decade and a personality. The god whose existence is important to them conforms to the characteristics which are personally familiar to them. If their god is conceived of as “good” then it conforms to the values they hold most dear. If they are aggressive and authoritarian then their version of god will be the same. A person’s idea of what “god” is like tells you a great deal about them.
A discussion of the existence of a god soon runs into big trouble.
Are we discussing the existence of one god or a group of them? Bear in mind that the Jewish book of Genesis combines at least two gods (El and Yaweh) and also refers to the Elohim, or the group of gods under the El god. Modern biblical scholars argue that Yaweh was one of the Elohim (that is, a minor god under El).
Are we confining our discussion to the existence of “nice” gods, or do we include “nasty” ones? Main stream biblical scholars point out that Yaweh was not a very good minion of El and made a mess of his part of the creation of the world. Some scholars even suggest that the Yaweh god is one of the selection of devil gods listed in the Jewish Scriptures which most Christians collectively re-name as Satan or The Devil. The described behavior certainly fits. It has been pointed out that the Jewish and Christian scriptures indicate that Yaweh was responsible for far more crimes, murders and attrocities than the rest of the devil gods combined. The list is somewhere on the Web. Can anyone supply a link to the URL?
How much power does a particular god have and under what circumstances is it powerless? Is there a god-in-charge? How much knowledge does a god have and where are its limitations? Does the god relate to humans? Does it have any other interests or spare time to engage in them? What does it do for relaxation? Is it capable of reproducing? And we could get increasingly anthropomorphic ….(anthropomorphism — giving something human characteristics).
Should the characteristics of a/the god follow those provided in the Jewish Scriptures (the racist god of wrath), the Pauline letters of the Christian New Testament (the anti-sexual misogynist), the god of the Canonic New Testament (the anti-family values god) or the god defined by the 3rd century Council of Trent (all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-damning, three-in-one and capable of inseminating virgins without their consent)?
Should we consider the existence of a god who conforms to the texts of Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith? What about a god who conforms to the writings of Mohammed?
Why confine the discussion to entities derived only from the Abrahamic traditions? Should we consider the existence of all the Hindu gods? Should we consider proof for the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel’s orbiting tea-pot?
So Old Mormon Guy, first define the characteristics of the god you want to believe exists together with the characteristics of gods you don’t want to believe exist. Only then do we have the basis for a meaningful discussion. Does it sound so simple, now?
There is another aspect to the does-god-exist question which has been ignored to date.
Most theists insist on thowing subjective data into the barrel of “proof”. This argument is some variant of “I know god exists because I experience this special feeling that I can only explain as the presence of god.”
This argument does not survive psycho-biological examination.
Altered states of consciousness which are indecipherable from religious experiences can be induced by means of altered chemistry, physical exertion or meditation and trance activity. Whether people interpret these states as god-derived or not is entirely dependent on the surrounding environmental triggers.
One psychological study gave people a drug which induces mild euphoria. Half of the subjects were then sent to a religious meeting and the other half to a waiting room. The ones in the religious meeting (mis-)interpreted their symptoms as a religious experience; the subjects in the waiting room did not.
Another study involved comparing the brain scans of yogis in self-induced trances and Christains engaged in prayerful meditation. The brain scan activity showed identical trance wave form but the Christians reported a god experience and the yogis reported “enlightenment” without a god experience.
Not everyone is equal in their ability to experience ecstatic and meditative states. People with neural conditions which affect the brain’s ability to focus find it difficult or impossible to achieve such states. People with certain forms of epilepsy or its sub-clinical form have intense and frequent experiences of this nature. These are the people who have been labeled as possessing a “religious personality”. There is a strong concentration of these neurologically abnormal individuals among the adherents of charismatic type religions.
In other words, subjective experience of “god” is not a valid proof that one exists. At best, it proves that a person is capable of trance phenomena.
See under 11. and 12. please. You also ignored my comment on how did they determine that regions they selected for research really contain truly religious people and not just atheists that will claim tomorrow when their basic instincts prevail that they just “lost it”?
To Old Mormon Guy:
Top of the list of issues in descending order of importance is the question, “Is there a God or is there no God?”
This question is priority, but in my opinion, on personal level for each one of us, and is impossible to be answered through debate. Like you so beautifully expressed, it is product of personal experience and knowledge about things that can’t be just spoon-fed to lazy, ignorant people as easy as science research results. They would ridicule and disbelieve you until they face it them selves. They need to actively and alone go this way, hence why I said somewhere here that it’s a God’s gift.
To NYC:
By sending me to that link you confirmed to be a (dogs and babies eating) terrible person as I expected an atheist to be.
I seriously got headache from reading such amount of stupidity, ignorance and adolescent interpretation in one spot. I did read it.
“You should be moral because you will be happier as a moral person overall than if you become any other sort of person.”
If you became “other sort of person”? What a bunch of bullshit. He believes it, not much more proof then for Hell or God, yet that’s totally acceptable as fact to him. I think he forgot to say that he got giant robot goat genetically mutating him into knowing what is right and what is wrong. He alone said before that “evolution made people greedy, evil, with no regard for moral authority”, … just plain stupid person with no basic logical reasoning.
By sending me to that link you confirmed to be a (dogs and babies eating) terrible person as I expected an atheist to be. I seriously got headache from reading such amount of stupidity, ignorance and adolescent interpretation in one spot. I did read it.
Fair enough, but I didn’t intend to send you there. That’s why I wrote “to everyone else”. I have been trying to send you to the Steven Pinker article. I don’t think you mentioned if you looked at it yet, but maybe I missed it. Pinker’s article is worth a read since he’s a respected scholar at Harvard and a best selling science writer, not some guy with a blog like the link you’re talking about.
If anyone else missed it the first time I posted it, here it is again:
For whoever keeps clinging to those falsified statistical findings:
Pseudoscience.
See under 11. and 12. please.
That’s a very interesting link. It is an excellent set of questions to ask to determine whether something is a pseudoscience (specious rubbish) or a protoscience (a new science). Thank you. But is has little to do with the poor use of statistics.
Item number 12, which you insist we take particular note of, says that those promoting junk beliefs attack the person who objects to their reasoning rather than the reasoning itself. That seems to be what you do on this forum in most of your posts. You describe people who express ideas which do not support your own as stupid, ignorant or {censored by focus on the family}. Then you describe their arguments in the same terms instead of providing a cogent response to the reasoning. Sadly, I think the significance of this escapes you.
True_Believer said:
You also ignored my comment on how did they determine that regions they selected for research really contain truly religious people and not just atheists that will claim tomorrow they just “lost it”?
The researchers made use of various gallup polls which have been done by reputable research companies in the past few years.
There is no way that such polls can determine which of those who say they believe in a god will lose that belief in the future. Nor can they determine if any of those who say they do not believe in a god will begin believing in one at a later date.
But that’s actually irrelevant. If areas infested by god believers are actually full of “unreal-Christians” then such people are shown to behave less morally than the people who live in areas infested by real or unreal atheists. The only logical conclusion which can be based on your hypothesis is that bad or weak Christians are less moral than common or garden-variety atheists. Somehow I don’t think that is the conclusion you wanted us to reach.
By the way, it is logically in-admissable to reclassify a Christian’s original faith as “weak” or “unreal” the minute they lose their beliefs. That is post hoc analysis and it is a great big scientific no-no.
The scientific approach is to determine ahead of time which believer will recant and which will not. According to my research, you could make a better-than-chance prediction of a person’s eventual belief change of loss on the basis of knowledge about the believer’s intellectual potential, cognitive style and personality. The rest of the formulae involves environmental factors which are much more difficult to predict. Belief change of all kinds is facilitated by education which encourages critical thinking and analysis plus exposure to a variety of different environments, cultures and belief systems. People who are locked into a similar environment with like-thinking friends will have a hard time revising their beliefs or value system. Country towns and other isolated communities are a good example of endemic rigid thinking.
We’ve done it so many times and then turned around and make another almost like the last.
Exactly right, Mriana. Which is why it isn’t enough to just stop believing in a particular god or even in any and all gods. It would be far better to rid ourselves entirely of the mental bad habit of belief. Stop believing period.
We’ve done it so many times and then turned around and make another almost like the last.
Exactly right, Mriana. Which is why it isn’t enough to just stop believing in a particular god or even in any and all gods. It would be far better to rid ourselves entirely of the mental bad habit of belief. Stop believing period.
Well, the thing is, we’d have to get the Muslims to stop believing in Allah, the Jews to stop believing in YHWH, and the Christians to stop believing in God/Jesus, not to mention the Hindus to stop believing in Vishnu/Krishna, Brahma, Shiva, etc. There are so many little deities running around to this day, that I can’t list them all. The more hardcore the believer, the harder it is to convince them that it’s nothing more than a human concept, created by humans, and nothing more. Then get them to believe in love, compassion, and the potential of humans.
Easier said than done, but we’ve killed other gods, who’s to say we can’t do it again?
That article is nothing new, nothing we didn’t discuss, but I guess it’s appealing to atheists since it apperas that it got some scientific value, which I see as flase. Example:
“And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles. Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl would still not be.”
Their parents thought them both actions to be wrong. After teacher told them opposite, they accepted first one to be changed, because their parent probably only told them something along “It’s absolutely wrong to go to around naked”, whereas they only laugh them out if they tried to go to school in pyjamas, and pyjamas are still cloths. However, second one is direct clash of what their parents and teacher accept from them. They understandingly chose their parents guidance since they are children’s main authority.
This is just one of many discrepancies I found there after critically reading it once. It is enough for me to establish picture on how thorough author goes into the subject. He made up his mind beforehand, so he will conclude accordingly.
Ok, now I had enough of personal attacks on me when people got nothing to answer. I don’t want to waste my time. I think I’ll conclude my “visit” here, but not before I give you few more “bones to gnaw on”.
You choose to BELIEVE that there is no God or gods without any proof for such, yet you demand proof for God’s existence. Claiming that God doesn’t exist since nobody saw him is absurd. Nobody also saw most of the Amazonian jungle, and probably never will, yet if I would claim it does not exist for that reason, it would be as ridiculous as your claim. Written books and documented experiences of God’s existence you choose to ignore, and instead jump onto every half-wit’s request-for-funding “research” as long as it’s contra-theism.
You are and will be unable to establish any moral code based only and solely on atheism. It’s impossible. Atheism does not include anything else except claim that god(s) do not exist. You have to involve something more which nullifies your atheism claim, and makes something else out of it. All this examples of moral codes you mentioned, all are nothing to do with atheism. They are all based on some religious moral code, and you are just ignorantly introducing that into your “atheism”. Since true atheism doesn’t define anything else except God’s non-existence, sticking to it leads sooner or later inevitably into nihilism. There is no point denying this. Once you say “but there is this and that moral code …” you stop being atheistic and turn towards agnosticism, or similar, it’s as simple as that. It becomes different ideology.
These false claims of affiliation to beliefs are slowly getting out of hand. We got “Christians” claiming that there is no God, “atheists” that agree to God’s existence when you pin them down with logic, etc. I personally don’t have anything against any religion or luck of it as long as it not denying me right to mine. Diversity is what makes this world (and couple of afternoons here) so fun. False claim that religion is creating criminals is very dangerous.
My point is that nobody is prepared to spend some time on their own, research, learn, meditate and decide what they really think. Instead, in their ignorance and foolishness, they go around ridiculing other views without knowing anything about other’s or even their own. I am fully aware that this may include myself, but please consider you in this light as well. I think spirituality is main part of human being, but some are not prepared to even acknowledge its existence. I truly pity them.
One more thing before I go: when you study any of holy books, you only find in them what you are looking for. They are your mirror, wether you like it or not. As analogy, do you think that 7 year old reading Freud will learn same things as you? Would that be Freud’s fault? One reading is not nearly enough, nor is one book. Imagine how good in psychology you would be if you stick to one book and one reading.
Thanks for reading the article! I would have liked to hear your other criticisms, but I can understand you’re tired of posting here. (There’s always the forum which is better suited for long discussions.)
You choose to BELIEVE that there is no God or gods without any proof for such, yet you demand proof for God’s existence. Claiming that God doesn’t exist since nobody saw him is absurd. Nobody also saw most of the Amazonian jungle, and probably never will, yet if I would claim it does not exist for that reason, it would be as ridiculous as your claim.
Well, personally I like to say I don’t have a positive belief in a particular god. I think the lack of belief position is default until further evidence appears. I don’t demand proof, just good evidence. I’m not sure the Amazon jungle is a good example since I have seen pictures and videos of it, and I would be curious what is filling up most of Brazil if the jungle wasn’t there.
It’s all about how extraordinary a claim is. If a friend told me he saw a dog in the park I would believe him. He may be lying, but why would he? If he said it was a talking dog, I would demand more evidence.
Written books and documented experiences of God’s existence you choose to ignore, and instead jump onto every half-wit’s request-for-funding “research” as long as it’s contra-theism.
I don’t think I ignore them. I have read many. But people can write anything. I’m not sure Robin Hood actually existed, and people have written a lot about him. But he is just a man. Supernatural claims require more than just books. People write about UFOs, ghosts, psychic powers, miracle gurus in India, visions of Buddha, etc. How do you know what is real and what isn’t?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the research funding comment.
You are and will be unable to establish any moral code based only and solely on atheism. It’s impossible. Atheism does not include anything else except claim that god(s) do not exist.
Well, we agree there! (Except for the definition of atheism. I prefer the general lack of belief definition.) Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes. I don’t think anyone here has ever said so.
You have to involve something more which nullifies your atheism claim, and makes something else out of it. All this examples of moral codes you mentioned, all are nothing to do with atheism.
I disagree here. I think most atheists are secular humanists. The humanistic morals don’t negate atheism. I think we have to involve nothing more than our innate goodness, reason, and social progress.
Since true atheism doesn’t define anything else except God’s non-existence, sticking to it leads sooner or later inevitably into nihilism.
I haven’t seen any evidence for this in the lives of the many atheists I know.
There is no point denying this. Once you say “but there is this and that moral code …” you stop being atheistic and turn towards agnosticism, or similar, it’s as simple as that. It becomes different ideology.
But I am an agnostic at the same time. I hate to open the can-of-worms of semantics but I think agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief. Atheists can certainly have ideologies. Atheists can be objectivists, or communists, and I guess even secular humanism can be an ideology. But those ideologies have nothing to do with gods.
My point is that nobody is prepared to spend some time on their own, research, learn, meditate and decide what they really think. Instead, in their ignorance and foolishness, they go around ridiculing other views without knowing anything about other’s or even their own.
Yes there are people like that, but I don’t think most of the people here are like that. Many people used to be religious, some still are but have departed from the mainstream, others (like me) just find the idea of gods and religion to be a fascinating topic and want to learn more.
If you do read this before I go, I guess the main point I’d like you to take away is that not all atheists are like you imagine them to be. There is a lot of variety in beliefs and no one is exactly the same. Of course, the same could be said about any group with a label. (”Americans”, “white or black people”, “Christians”, “hippies”, “lawyers” etc.) So I’d like you to think twice before saying “You atheists are like ….” or “You atheists believe … so…” etc.
Anyway, so long, it was fun.
PS :Are you sure you’re leaving? There is this cartoon to consider:
Mriana,
Oh I understand the enormity of the task you’re describing, which is why I am only speaking of myself and perhaps you. People who are determined to believe in things will invent them faster than an army of rationalists could discredit them. The only act we can clean up is our own. Our influence on others is very limited, but by being truly clean of belief we can at least enjoy a clarity of mind free of clutter and a lightness of heart free of resentment, fear, shame and pride. Maybe then our influence on a few individuals will be just a tiny bit more potent.
Claire asked of the Old Mormon Guy:
I do have one question for you, which was asked of me a while back. What exactly are you thinking of when you are speaking of God? What is your definition of God?
Actually, that was Linda who asked that, but with so many posts things can get confused… It’s not a question I would ever have asked, considering it as just another exercise in re-inventing the gods we already invented. It’s more of a believer’s question.
The only act we can clean up is our own. Our influence on others is very limited, but by being truly clean of belief we can at least enjoy a clarity of mind free of clutter and a lightness of heart free of resentment, fear, shame and pride. Maybe then our influence on a few individuals will be just a tiny bit more potent.
Richard,
I totally agree with that statement, and I was not (and occasionally even now) able to be free until I emptied my mind of all previous beliefs. But I still choose to believe in a something rather than nothing. As True-believer said, I don’t see how we can deny the fact that we are spiritual beings.
Mariana, words: “Love, compassion and the potential of humans.” It’s something that’s in all of us. It’s also something that’s outside of all of us. We give and we receive. We learn, we grow… and we live. The essence of life, the essence of who we are… whole but separate, together but alone, same but unique… Humans are very complex. We are more than just our flesh.
I believe in life, love, and nature. I believe in the “way things are.” I believe in the invisible thread that connects all of us. And I believe in freedom of expression, to express love and creativity in each of our fullness. That is my God and that is what I learned through Jesus.
Mriana,
Oh I understand the enormity of the task you’re describing, which is why I am only speaking of myself and perhaps you. People who are determined to believe in things will invent them faster than an army of rationalists could discredit them. The only act we can clean up is our own. Our influence on others is very limited, but by being truly clean of belief we can at least enjoy a clarity of mind free of clutter and a lightness of heart free of resentment, fear, shame and pride. Maybe then our influence on a few individuals will be just a tiny bit more potent.
I agree 100%, Richard. It’s a shame we can’t get other to do the same.
Richard,
I totally agree with that statement, and I was not (and occasionally even now) able to be free until I emptied my mind of all previous beliefs. But I still choose to believe in a something rather than nothing.
Linda, atheism is not believing in nothing. Why not believe in love and compassion? I think it is far better than believing in some sort of sky daddy or some other superstitious deity. Madilyn O’Hair said something like, “An atheist believes in building hospitals, instead of churches.” Underlying message in that statement to me, is love and compassion for one’s fellow human. She didn’t believe in nothing. Gene Roddenberry, a Humanist, not only had a belief, but also a dream and both are well seen in TOS and TNG. Again, the bottomline was love and compassion for his fellow human beings.
That is hardly a belief in nothing.
Mriana, words: “Love, compassion and the potential of humans.” It’s something that’s in all of us. It’s also something that’s outside of all of us.
No, it is not outside all of us. Is WITHIN all of us. As long as we see it as outside of us, we will continue to make deities.
We give and we receive. We learn, we grow… and we live. The essence of life, the essence of who we are… whole but separate, together but alone, same but unique… Humans are very complex. We are more than just our flesh.
Yes, I agree that we are more than just flesh, but what we receive, by way of love and compassion comes from within another person, not without that person. What we give comes from within us. It’s not some external force, not even hatred comes from without. If humans could turn some that hate they have for others that is based on external stuff: like skin, colour, religion, ethnic origins, into love and compassion, we’d be a lot better off, but the problem is religious beliefs is a source of some of that hate.
Take for example the religious reich and their attitudes toward women and gays or even the Muslim extremists with their ideas about women, gays, and Infidels (and sorry to say, Christians, in their opinion, are infidels and losers who will go to hell). The list goes on and on as to the hatred religion can still cause.
That is my God and that is what I learned through Jesus.
Did you? I don’t know but reading the text, you would have to pick and chose to find that. I think it is very possible to learn these things through real tangible human beings, like MLK Jr, Gene Roddenberry, (granted they are dead, but there are living people too who we can learn from also.) The only picking and chosing we have to do when we pick rolemodels is to pick the ones who hold the values we would like to strive for- like Obama. Hopefully, Obama really means what he says, and I think he does, and lives up to what he says. Regardless, these beliefs and values of love and compassion came/comes from within them, not from some external source.
I have yet to find any external deity that brings out the best in people. It is when they seek to bring out the best in themselves and in others that they shine most. When they bring out the best in others, that too comes from within also. Not some external source.
Sure, you can say love and compassion, freedom of expression, etc are god, but you are placing them outside yourself and they are not outside you. Once we can put these things where they really are, then I think we can all throw away religious texts, because they are not needed, except maybe as a source of literature for entertainment purposes only, just as the stories of Hercules, Zeus, and the Illiad are. I truly believe this. We don’t need them as a source to live our lives.
Let’s keep the two popular definitions of “belief” from being confused. When people say that they believe in God or that Elvis is still alive, that is the kind of belief I’m talking about cleansing ourselves of, the persistent assumption of the truth of something in the absence of credible evidence. The other definition is when people say that they believe in democracy or in love of their fellow human. That means to support it, or to value and want to promote and to practice it.
Even with that distinction in mind, to say “I believe in love” can begin to turn you back toward conjuring up another love-entity to believe in as in the first definition. Try to think of love only as a verb and never as a noun. Then you will see it as an action that people practice, rather than a thing that somehow floats around us without need of us to make it happen. Love does not exist, love happens when people do it. To see love as a noun, an invisible thing like “the force” is to step toward eventually personifying it and soon you have invented another god.
Don’t bother with concepts of existence. Observe actions happening in the world around you. Observe your own actions and improve them. You are what you do. You are what you do. Eventually the word “are” becomes superfluous. You do, you do, you do…
I have yet to find any external deity that brings out the best in people. It is when they seek to bring out the best in themselves and in others that they shine most. When they bring out the best in others, that too comes from within also. Not some external source.
Sure, you can say love and compassion, freedom of expression, etc are god, but you are placing them outside yourself and they are not outside you. Once we can put these things where they really are, then I think we can all throw away religious texts, because they are not needed, except maybe as a source of literature for entertainment purposes only,
Mriana, I think that is a very good summary of the origins, importance and meaningful flavor of morality. Bravo!
Richard, thanks for making a clear distinction between the two meanings of the composite verb to believe in. Namely: 1. the persistent assumption of the truth of something in the absence of credible evidence.
2.to support, value or want to promote and practice something.
I am not ready to throw out the use of “love” as a noun but I appreciate your point that this abstraction can only occur as the result of an action.
Rosemary, I have been enjoying and admiring your comments since you first started on this thread. Reading them is like watching a combination samurai master and concert pianist. Any compliment from you is an honor.
Mriana, I did not say anything about atheism. I only said I want to believe in something rather than nothing, in reply to Richard’s statement that we should be “clean of belief,” which he clarified since then. I’ve been talking to you long enough to know that the atheists like you are about much more than nothing.
No, it is not outside all of us. Is WITHIN all of us. As long as we see it as outside of us, we will continue to make deities.
I said it’s within all of us first. When I said outside of us, I meant we can and should see it in others as well. If it’s in you, then it’s outside of me, no?
And I no longer believe that it’s religion that causes hatred. It’s the human tendency to judge and reject anything that is different than us that causes hatred, I think. I agree with you that hatred, as well as love, comes from within us.
The God I believe in is not anything that I can describe or define. The moment I open my mouth, the words get in the way.
What I tried to explain in my previous post is that perhaps a small portion of that is what is inside all of us. What is outside of us is in every other human being. What I was pointing to was the very essence of life itself. What makes us thrive? Just as you said, I believe it’s love and compassion for each other. I also believe it’s about exploring, creating, and expressing our uniqueness. As Richard pointed out, when we are free of fear, shame and guilt, then we can truly be free to love… ourselves as well as others. (he didn’t exactly say those words, but that is my version.)
I was wondering if the God that I believe in that I can’t describe is, in part, this… energy, idea, thought… something… the thread that connects all of us.
See? I messed it up again. I tried to describe it, and it came out not making any sense…
When I said I learned through Jesus, I meant that he showed me how to be free. When I read the NT and about Jesus’ teachings, all I get is freedom and grace. Maybe I’m slow and cannot follow what everyone else sees…
Richard, I seriously thought about what you wrote:
Love does not exist, love happens when people do it. To see love as a noun, an invisible thing like “the force” is to step toward eventually personifying it and soon you have invented another god.
Don’t bother with concepts of existence. Observe actions happening in the world around you. Observe your own actions and improve them. You are what you do. You are what you do. Eventually the word “are” becomes superfluous. You do, you do, you do…
Maybe you’re right in that love is an action word. If you think of love as…hmm… sort of energy, then it makes sense. It does not exist unless there is action, friction… reaction. I’m thinking of fire, lightening, thunder, wind… even light, which is the source of life.
C’mon… think with me! I think you’re onto something.
Love is a relational property between things that is dependent on the agents doing the loving. The same can be said of belief. God has no “existence” outside the people believing in him. Thats what I believe anyway
Love is a relational property between things that is dependent on the agents doing the loving. The same can be said of belief. God has no “existence” outside the people believing in him.
Hmmm… Jeff, now you got me thinking even more…
God “exists” when you believe, and He doesn’t when you don’t. Love “exists” when two or more relate, but it disappears when we separate. Jesus did say that the only true sin is unbelief…. It seems to have a ring of truth… I’ll have to stew over this a bit…
No or at least I don’t see it that way. We are individuals, but what is within us is the same.
Richard Wade said,
February 24, 2008 at 11:49 am
Even with that distinction in mind, to say “I believe in love” can begin to turn you back toward conjuring up another love-entity to believe in as in the first definition. Try to think of love only as a verb and never as a noun.
I never said it was a noun or a verb. It is a neuro-chemical reaction within us though and it is generally the same chemical within all of us. In that respect though, it is a noun, but not a deity. It’s our action in response to that chemical reaction that makes it a verb though. One cannot make a neuro-chemical reaction in the brain a deity. So, in effect, it is both, even in the context of stimuli triggering neuro-chemicals. It IS that chemical that gives us feelings of love that IS a noun. Therefore, I cannot help but talk about it as such and personally, I don’t want to. I rather like the idea of talking about the neuro-chemicals that induce love and compassion for others- be it friendship love, parent-child love, or romantic love.
To worry about a noun becoming a deity is shear silliness. IF that were the case, all nouns would turn into deities, see post below. A deity doesn’t happen because of a noun.
Love does not exist, love happens when people do it. To see love as a noun, an invisible thing like “the force” is to step toward eventually personifying it and soon you have invented another god.
Don’t bother with concepts of existence. Observe actions happening in the world around you. Observe your own actions and improve them. You are what you do. You are what you do. Eventually the word “are” becomes superfluous. You do, you do, you do…
Maybe you’re right in that love is an action word. If you think of love as…hmm… sort of energy, then it makes sense. It does not exist unless there is action, friction… reaction. I’m thinking of fire, lightening, thunder, wind… even light, which is the source of life.
Not in the context of neuro-psych. IMHO It then turns into a noun or what have you, but it also turns into a chemical name/names. It is not inventing another god in this context, regardless of what Richard says, but then you have to be looking at it from this angle too.
If that were true of nouns, my sons, my cats, my house, car, etc would be gods. They are nouns too. That’s just shear silliness.
Love is a relational property between things that is dependent on the agents doing the loving. The same can be said of belief. God has no “existence” outside the people believing in him.
Hmmm… Jeff, now you got me thinking even more…
God “exists” when you believe, and He doesn’t when you don’t. Love “exists” when two or more relate, but it disappears when we separate. Jesus did say that the only true sin is unbelief…. It seems to have a ring of truth… I’ll have to stew over this a bit…
Oh brother. Now that’s taking silliness to the other extreme. One extreme to that other. Where is the poetic justice. It doesn’t matter what form it, in this case love, is in, it’s not Zeus.
Whatever doesn’t make sense to us is deemed silly. Whatever we don’t understand is deemed ignorant. Whatever is different than us, we judge. I was just trying to get you to try to look at the God concept from a new angle.
When the thought of love being an action word, it just made me think of energy, that’s all. …. how energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred. So I thought maybe love could be thought of that way. Silly? maybe. But why not?
And when Jeff mentioned that God only exists in the minds of people who believe, it sparked something in my thought process. I’m not done thinking through it yet.
You know… Maybe it’s time for me to go. I’m really surprised I lasted this long.
Mriana, love has been made into deities many times. The Greeks alone had three personifying it in some of its forms, Aphrodite, Eros and Cupid. There are deities for every neurochemical response that humans can have.
Yes, you are right that love is a set of neurochemical responses, so yes it’s a noun too. But my point was missed; my fault. I’ll restate, and by the way I’m not implying that you are doing any of the following:
I was speaking to atheists in general as a respectful warning about how easy it can be to slip into believing in magical things even after ridding oneself of believing in deities. I’m drawing on my own experience as well as that of two or three friends, so maybe it isn’t that common, I don’t know.
Love is one of the things that both theists and atheists deem very important; they only sometimes disagree on its source. The verb instead of noun thing was just to emphasize that love is strictly a human creation that only exists/happens when humans practice it. If we as I once did, start entertaining fantasies of love being some kind of invisible force that flows through us, between, around, within and without us regardless of our actions, then we have invented a magical power or force or thing to believe in, to assume it has a reality in some kind of non physical/physiological way. If we as individuals do all that while living amidst a culture that is infused with notions of “God is love,” then there is in my opinion a good chance that some of us will arrive at the belief that “love is God,” and we’ll be back to theism again.
It’s just an observation and a caution about how subtle and pernicious magical thinking can be, especially around a subject that we value so much, that is so complex and even bewildering at times, that even the most rational of us are fond of making mysterious, love.
Posted by Hemant Mehta in 
I still think that Buddha would be offended at being called a god….
Other than that, this is a beautifully misleading comparison!
I think it would have been funnier if they had alphabetized Yahweh correctly, just to have the list misalign twenty or so names from the bottom.
Why is Buddha on this list? Wasn’t Buddha just a creative, deep-thinking, compassionate and insightful guy who developed some good ideas and practices? And isn’t he viewed by Buddhists as such?
One of my favorite posts.
[...] From Matterr via The Friendly Atheist [...]
“Why is Buddha on this list?”
Yeah, that is a mistake.
Budda is technically just the first person to become enlightened, and not a god. Buddists strive to become like him, but do not worship him like a deity.
Atheists can technically be buddists. The religion is actually the opposite of mindlessly beliving something. Budda taught his followers to question all of his lessons, and not just mindlessly accept them.
Deity would have been more appropriate…
In Buddhism, there are no external saviors; rather deity is often used as a translation for “yidam” representing an enlightened quality used as a meditation support.
http://www.bodhipath-west.org/glossary.htm
Buddha is on the list because the Christians consider him to be a god and view Buddhism as a false-religion. So, there had to be a counterpoint for the atheists.
This goes along with the commonly recited line about how many gods atheists and christians don’t believe exist, and how, for atheists, it’s just one less. I’ve tried this approach on christians and been surprised to find that it isn’t always accurate. Some of them believe that a number (or all of) these gods also exist, but that they are lesser or false gods. For such christians, the argument of god-by-god atheism is ineffective. This amazed me at first, but then I realized that some people believe a realm exists which is populated entirely by supernatural good and evil entities. With this level of disconnection from reality, they have the capacity to believe that many gods exist. To me, this reveals one of the major problems with faith- to be honest about the unobserved, it is necessary to take an all-or-none approach. If faith is enough to declare that one incorporeal being is real, then it must be enough for them all.
Aren’t there some forms of Buddhism that do regard Buddha as a god?
J.S. Brown is right, though it’s not so much that they believe these other gods exist as gods.
They are demons sent by Satan to tempt men away from the true faith or evil spirits hoping to gain earthly power through false worship.
Growing up (Baptist) I was never taught that these entities don’t exist, but that they’re evil and in opposition to Jehovah.
1. For Christians, God is not “incorporeal”. Jesus Christ is God. Believe me, I know from experience that you don’t want in on the debate about how exactly this is. Just understand that Christians believe there is one God, fully Jesus Christ, who is a body, just like you or I. All Christians believe this – see the 3 basic creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, Athanasian).
2. From a basically logical standpoint, this argument does not demonstrate anything. It would be like claiming that being from Canada and Russia are the same on the grounds that there are x number of countries two people aren’t from. “You aren’t from all these other countries, therefore you must not be from Canada.”
3. This ‘argument’ misses the heart of the issue. Christians do not not believe in all those Gods for the same reasons as atheists (or, more accurately, based on the same more basic beliefs). Christians have a variety of reasons for believing in our God, and so do atheists have a variety of reasons for not believing in ANY God whatsoever.
4. A related point might better defend atheism: Making a convincing argument for the existence of ‘god’ (a theistic argument) does nothing for proving the existence of a Christian God. Seriously atheists, get some real arguments. How about: How can God die? or How can Jesus be both fully human and fully divine? What does that even mean? Why no eschaton yet? etc…
5. Why not rip on other theists, why always Christians?
To me, any religon that outright bans any other “gods” is an obvious sign that it is a man-made religon. A truly almighty god would never so petty as to be jealous of other gods – real or imagined.
Yes. Totally. Please remove Buddha.
I’m an Athiest and have a great deal of respect for Buddhism. Hopefully, one of these days I’ll have time to start practicing.
The Buddha was just a really smart dude which Buddhists have respect for…
Kevin
How many gods you believe in is patently different from whether you believe in a god or not. There is a finite difference between theistic Faiths but an infinite difference between Theism and Atheism. This is the untraversable relationship between something and nothing whereas the gulf between Theists can be wide, but is always traversable.
So if this list was used as suggesting that Christians are as bad as Atheists then you need to think a little more about your ridiculous assumptions.
This is simply an illustration of the quote by Stephen F. Roberts: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Christians hate this stuff, because they, like almost everyone else, INSISTS that there’s is the only true god. And they can use whatever justifications and anecdotes they want, because they can’t do just one tiny little thing: Prove it.
you forgot Paris Hilton…
and several rock gods.
BryanJ is right, some forms of Buddhism do regard Buddha as a divine being, although maybe not a full omnimax god in the Western sense. Most Westerners have only read about Zen Buddhism which is pretty atheistic and might be closest to the original teachings of the Buddha. Check out this Wiki page. It can get pretty complicated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism
Check out this guy from Tibetan Buddhism. He seems pretty god-like to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajradhara
I’ve been to many Buddhist temples in Japan and they are filled with statues of different gods or spirits (depending on how you want to translate it). There is a lot of variety in the world of Buddhism!
YOU FORGOT ALLAH
As a former believer, I’ve always thought this was another very weak argument. This and “who created god?” since you can’t have an infinite regression. As a believer, you think your god is a special case by definition.
The better approach is to present the positive evidence against theism. There is a lot of it. I think many people are open to considering the evidence if they see it.
Random Christian,
re: your points:
1. I’ll take your word for it, because I certainly don’t get it.
2. I don’t really follow your analogy, but before we get to that I have to disagree that this list is an “argument” at all. It’s more like an illustration or rhetorical device. So I don’t think it has much value beyond that.
3. Good point! I agree.
4. Sure, but I don’t think Hemant was posting this list as the final and best argument for atheism. You wrote, “Seriously atheists, get some real arguments.” Who are you addressing here? There are hundreds of books and web sites overflowing with real arguments. It sounds like you are judging the whole community of atheists and their world view on this single blog post.
5. But we do! If you spend any time on atheist web sites you will see plenty of criticism of Islam for example. But 75% of of Americans claim to be Christian. Every other religion in the US is a small minority. Atheist bloggers are going to write about what they know best. If atheist bloggers could exist in the Middle East without being assassinated I’m sure they would harp on Islam most of the time. I visit some Japanese atheist forums and all they talk about are crazy Buddhist cults that are common there. So there you go.
Hindus believe that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, so that might be why he’s up there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_as_an_Avatar_of_Vishnu
Allah just means God (referring to Yahweh, probably) in Arabic, doesn’t it?
[...] Los dioses en los que no creemosfriendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/ por rayito hace pocos segundos [...]
trust me, christians and muslims say there’s a big difference. also, Jesus should be included on there
where is the flying spaghetti monster?
There are no ‘gods’ per se in buddhism. Only people who have attained a high level of enlightenment. Buddhism acknowledges that the road to Nirvana has many paths – actually, everyone has a unique path (which encompasses all other religions and non-religions. As long as you feel at peace with yourself, you’re on the right path.)
There are icons however but the purpose of these is to appeal the ‘lesser man’, who needs inspiration and guidace through iconic statues. Others will find hidden knowledge in these statues and icons.
The closest God like concept in buddism is the ‘Cosmic Intelligence’ which is not an diety, but rather an entity composed of illuminated beings’s compiled knowledge…. a bit like the internet.
So yes one reveres the different incarnations of said ‘cosmic intelligence’ to their liking. Christians labeled this a ‘god’ and gave him a human name. Arabs labeled this intelligence as the same ‘god’ as the xtians, but with a different label.
Buddha was the 4th ‘prophet’ in buddhism cosmology, and the last prophet and 5th one will come… during the apocalypse
You also left off Xenu and L. Ron Hubbard!
Amen/Ammon/Amen-Ra isn’t there or at least I don’t see it. Seems they left out one.
People need to look into this “Buddhism” thing they love talking about. Eastern buddhism has been so distorted by the west it’s hard to understand where people get their ideas about it from. I’m not going to get into talking about buddhism because I don’t have time, but suffice it to say that it’s no “atheists solution to spirituality” and it’s just as supersitious as any other religion (in general, obviously different people believe different things, I’m an atheist quaker but I do not an atheist religion make, nor do all these atheist buddhist westerners remove “Buddha,” a term they’re using improperly in the first place, from the standing of a god).
Besides that, I think the use of shintou gods is funny, but obviously, you’ve missed a few thousand (notably elvis, depending again on who you talk to).
Um – ok I am REALLY offended. I do not see my name on the list.
All gods are the same God, call Him what you will.
[...] Friendly Atheist » Gods We Don’t Believe In (tags: atheism awesome) [...]
You can also be a Hindu atheist. Hinduism is a way of life, more than it is a religion.
Allah means God in Arabic. Arab Christians also refer to God as Allah.
I agree with others here. I am an athiest. I am also a Buddhist. Buddhism is non-theistic philosophy and practice, meaning there are no gods involved. Wikipedia it up and you’ll open the pandora’s box to a bunch of crap that people have added on to something that should be really simple.
Buddhism to me is a philosophy, not a formalized, organize religion or practice, although other forms of buddhism involve ritual and addendums to the dogma that I don’t concern myself about.. I’m technically a ‘dhammist’- someone who adheres to dhamma principles as taught by the S. Gautama the Buddha in the Pali canon.
Buddha is not a god, nor a diety in my opinion. Just a guy who made a deep realization and achieved something mentally/spiritually and then taught this powerful technique to the world. Someone to be revered, like MLK or Ghandi or Mother Teresa
you also forgot Jehovah you stupid piece of shit
I guess you have to be an Atheist to understand and appreciate this.
Buddha a god? You’re truly a moron. He was just a man, and a teacher. He himself specifically instructed people not to worship him as a god but to use his teachings as a tool to look inward and to achieve better understanding and unity.
in other words…. EVERYONE is an atheist
RE: Random Christian
I don’t see the argument so much as being anti-Christian but rather as anti-monotheism.
It is natural to think the sun goes around the earth, and it is natural to think that YOUR god is the correct one, but from a Copernican standpoint the atheist’s position is more logical (although that doesn’t make it more right).
This is certainly NOT a strong argument for atheism, but it IS a very strong argument against believing that YOUR god is the correct one and that the others are all incorrect. To see it another way, it is not an argument against any of the 100 gods on the list, but merely an attempt to get their followers to look at their beliefs a little more closely and wonder why THEIR religion is special and the one Absolute Truth.
[...] to you by the friendly atheist. //OBSTART:do_NOT_remove_this_comment var [...]
there is some deep misunderstanding between western bhuddists and eastern bhuddists…
why isn’t the scatman up there? or his commercial counterpart, the good humor man? why am i talking?
You forgot Lord Xenu!
Great work. Gosh I wish the theists would understand the error of their ways.
[...] document.write(”"); } )() //A great list of all the gods atheists appropriately dismiss and a similar list of the gods that Christians dismiss. It’s amazing how close Christians [...]
Buddha is not god.
A Brahmin once asked the blessed one, ‘are you god?’ ‘No Brahmin’, replied the blessed one. ‘Are you a saint?’ ‘No Brahmin’, the blessed one said. ‘Are you a magician?’ ‘No Brahmin’ said the blessed one again. Brahmin asked, ‘what are you then?’ ‘I am awake’.
Buddha = “Awakened One,” from the root bodhi
The post mainly illustrates how man-kind over the years have thought up (invented) lots of god concepts. It then suggests that the Christian concept of God is just one of many…. and maybe not so special as some seem to think…
Hi,
I’m Christian, I believe in God. Does this means that I know that God is exactly the way Jesus said? I don’t know. But I believe that there is a supernatural being, and I call him “God”. Therefore I accept other Gods too(that the real God could be different of what I believe in).
You know you are here thinking, look at your hands, there is no robot that could do what they do, look at your eyes, we don’t know how to make a machine think, you are here. For you natural selection created everything, and what created sexuality before?, and what created ADN before sexuality, and what created live before ADN, and what created the world before, and what created the Via Lactea before, and what created big bang?,and what was before Big Bang.
We don’t know, you don’t know, I don’t know. Your choice is believing, there is no supernatural being, my choice is the contrary.
Oh, and personally I know people that are agnostic and Buddhist, so please remove Buddha from the list. My experience with people remembering past lives(look at any good hypnosis book) had made me believe in reincarnations too.
Have a good day, when I see an article made by an atheist that is respectful with what he don’t believe I rejoice. I see a lot of unhappy people that don’t respect saying they are not respected.That’s a vicious cycle of war.
It does make a kind of twisted sense. If there were no other gods, what would be the point of the first (?) commandment about having “no other gods before me”. Kinda silly if there’s only one god….
Is there someplace in the bible where it does say there’s only one, as opposed to only one right one?
Dagon is in twice in each list
i liked the concept. however you forgot allah, but conveniently remembered yahweh.
apparently no axe to grind here.
Claire ,
the bible starts as a story of a god between many gods (i am a jalous god etc.), and only during the stay in babylon they switch from one-god-between-many to there-is-only-one-god. That’s the reason why the christian god has a name. The bible has been rewritten to accomodate his project, but many traces can be found.
[...] Interesante lista que refleja que los ateos y los creyentes no somos tan diferentes despues de todo. Sin embargo, soltar escapar de esa ultima diferencia para los creyentes es un suplicio demasiado grande … Porque ? [...]
You’ve missed Azathoth, Cthulhu and a couple more…
Perhaps Christians don’t believe in Buddha as a god, but I’m pretty sure that atheists believe he existed.
“Allah” is the Arabian word for “God”. Some Muslim people do translate it when talking in other language other than Arabian but other don’t (I think there are issues with the Koran being translated). On the other hand Christians talking in Arabian would use the word Allah to refer to their deity.
I have reached the point where I am actuallty amused by Dawkins and all the others who seem to think that religious faith can be subjected to rigorous logical analysis. Faith is the irrational belief in an unprovable proposition; if we could prove it, we wouldn’t need faith. Numerous medieval philosophers attempted to logically prove God’s existence, and they all failed.
I’m a Christian. My faith is irrational and illogical, but it works for me. I am agnostic as to the other deities named here (even Buddha), mostly because I don’t see any need to care about their existence. Christianity is an arbitrary choice, primarily resulting from the fact that I was raised in the church. My faith brings me comfort, strength, inspiration, and (sometimes) joy. That makes it worthwhile for me.
This list, like the other “arguments” against the existence of a deity, is only threatening to the believers who have shaky faith and want to bolster their faith with a little logic. Can’t be done. In the end, those who look to logic for support will only be disappointed.
Empiricism answers a lot of questions, but I am not convinced that it can or will eventually answer ALL questions. There are many who believe differently, but they cannot prove empiricism holds all the answers. Perhaps for those people, we should put “Empiricism” in the second column..
What about Gods that atheist do believe in? Hitchens, Darwin, Dawkins, James Randi, Michael Shermer. They quote from their “authoritative” books just like any Sunday preacher.
uramoron said,
Wow, you convinced me. Good job.
You Buddhism apologists are just like the “Those odd folks aren’t TRUE Christians” people who crop up all the time. Go do some research. Check out the wiki links in my previous comment. Yes, some forms of Buddhism are atheistic, like Zen, but many forms of Buddhism are not. Maybe you’re right and your personal belief is the TRUE Buddhism, but that doesn’t change how millions of self-labeled Buddhists actually practice their religion in the real world.
Besides “god” is a vague term. Are all the so-called “gods” on that original list truly “gods”? What’s a “god”? Is Zeus a god? He didn’t create the universe, so maybe not if you’re going by that definition. Is Yahweh equivalent to Vishnu, or is Yahweh equivalent to Brahman? These questions are meaningless since every mythology is unique.
HEY! Speak for yourself! I happen to LOVE inari! I have some in the fridge right now! I love me some kibi dango and tonkatsu too, but they’re not on the list.
I think Stomper gets the award for honesty. If it feels good for you then do it regardless of the truth. Empiricism cannot answer ALL the questions and anyone who thinks so doesn’t understand the philosophy of science. But it is pretty much the only thing we have. It is a bottom-up approach where you build on what you know (with a certain degree of uncertainty) as opposed to starting at the very top with absolute knowledge of your concept of God and working down. Just because “empiricism” can’t determine everything doesn’t mean that things you make up to bring you comfort, strength, inspiration, and (sometimes) joy are equally valid.
As for the list of gods it is only a tool to illustrate the fact that people throughout history have invented and worshiped different gods with contradictory values and abilities. And they all had just as much evidence as you do–nothing except for a deeply rooted tradition (and some oral or written stories passed down through the generations). So what makes you think you’re right? It’s more of a challenge just to try to get someone out of their ethnocentric world view than it is an argument.
Yes, we’re very much alike, aren’t we?
I’m a Christian, but I love this post, thanks! I think people have way more in common than they think. If we’d all just sit down and talk, and agree that we will never be clones of each other and were never meant to be clones of each other.
Yeah, we have more in common, and more to bring us together, than reasons to fight. I’m tired of it!
“Hindus believe that Buddha is an incarnation of Vishnu, so that might be why he’s up there.”
That was actually a propaganda tool used by the Brahmins to destroy and coopt the Buddhist threat. It worked to perfection since Buddhism is completely dead in India (not counting the insignificant “untouchable” conversion to Buddhism).
“Thank you, I will cherish this honesty award, and I want to thank the producers, the directors, and most of all my agent.”
I like empiricism. I’ve spent a lot of money teaching my kids to be empiricists. I also take them to church and teach Sunday School, because I want them to develop their spiritual sides as well.
Based on my empirical observations, most people have a rational aspect as well as a spiritual aspect. Some work hard to develop and cultivate one or the other while letting the other aspect wither. I prefer to work on both.
The mystery of spirituality is a beautiful aspect of human nature. If you have that aspect and ignore it, then you are missing out. It is analogous to poetry or music. Most of us have the ability to appreciate it, but you have to put some effort in, if you want to get the most out.
This list shows that we are more alike than different. Why see this as an issue of contention?
Where’s Cthulhu? Where’s Eris?
Hail Eris!
I’ve heard Dawkins make this point, but besides being a clever little joke to stick into a talk, I don’t think it makes much sense.
Theist – believes in one or more gods
Atheist – believes in no gods
You can’t be an atheist about a particular god, theism is a larger worldview or paradigm that includes any variation on believing in a deity or deities. To go from Christian Theism to Atheism does not require “just one more step,” but a major shift in your beliefs about the nature of the universe.
One of my favorite quotes… “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71)
If interested check out our final post in the series “Does God have a Future?”
Does God Have a Future? (Part 10)…Conclusions
” That was actually a propaganda tool used by the Brahmins to destroy and coopt the Buddhist threat. It worked to perfection since Buddhism is completely dead in India (not counting the insignificant “untouchable” conversion to Buddhism).”
Buddhism completely dead? Ever been to Ladakh, or Sikkim?
This is great!
All you buddha-is-or-is-not-a-god people; take one step back and think about this. This list points out that neither Christians nor atheists believe that Buddha is a real god. Get it? No one’s arguing with you.
Fantastic list. You’ve really stuck it the Christians this time. Now they are sure to renounce Yahweh and become obsessed, like you, with disproving that which cannot be disproven.
On the other hand, maybe not. Maybe they will go on keeping the faith and remaining perfectly content, despite the incessant ridicule, which is not intended to help them in any way, but only to make you feel better about the conclusion you have reached.
If only your conclusion provided you peace. But apparently it does not.
#
david said,
February 12, 2008 at 12:14 am
where is the flying spaghetti monster?
there really should be flying spaghetti monster. because he plays an important role in my life
Regarding Buddha:
My wife is buddhist. She is Vietnamese. I have been all over Vietnam with her and to many pagodas. They have statues of Buddhas everywhere and pray to them like gods and ask them for things etc. To a Christian I can sure see how that would seem to put Buddha up there with the gods. Buddhists pray to many different gods/buddhas also. So you could probably add all of them to you list. They are a bit like the Romans in that they have a god of the house, god of money, god of being safe, many things. You can pray to each one depending on what you need.
My understanding is that Buddha was and is worshiped by many as a god. He did not intend for that to happen — it is counter to his teachings — but that generally doesn’t stop folks. Especially when it’s easier to just worship Buddha than to figure out what he was saying. Same goes for Confucius; he also ended up being worshiped as a god.
Having said that, I continue to find it odd that Atheists are so often surprised and delighted that monotheists believe in only one god.
[...] On the flip side, a cool list at The Friendly Atheist showing the relative lack of differences between Christians and [...]
Overall, I’m with you, but Buddha is not a god and did not advertise himself as one.
Brian B: well said. I’d love to see a thoughtful response to your post, but I suspect you will only be ignored or flamed.
Reposted from the FAF:
I know everyone in the atheosphere likes to put forth Buddhism as an example of an atheistic religion, but it’s not really so straightforward. Most Buddhists see the Buddha as some sort of cosmic being. Why, just the other day I was visiting a Buddhist temple. They were talking about how Damu Amida Butsu (a Buddha) was willing to save everyone, even people in hell (much nicer than Jesus, huh?). Then they’d talk about a place that sounded remarkably like heaven. They don’t think this is in contradiction with the Buddha’s original teachings, so why should I?
Yes…I must chime in here…The Buddha…Sidarta…specifically told his followers he was NOT a god, but a man who had found enlightenment. I realize that from the monotheistic religious perspective they will lump Buddha in with all of these others…but I think that as rational people we have to exclude a man who said he is not a god and who is not considered a god by his followers.
Matt,
Okay…that is just ridiculous. Those entities you mention are called PEOPLE or AUTHORS, not gods. To claim that we atheists worship Dawkins like a Christian might worship Jesus is just a bad comparison all around. A better comparison would be Christians and C.S. Lewis. You don’t worship him (after all, HE did not rise from the dead), yet you highly regard him. Same with Atheists and Sam Harris. In fact, you may find some disagreement over his viewpoints. Hmmm…Christians do the same with Jesus. Maybe you’re right…..
On a side note, Dagon is probably listed twice in each list because of the god of Copy and Paste!
I think this Buddha into god question is important from atheistic point of view. I think most Buddhist scholars and biggest Buddhist traditions agree that Buddha was not god (might have perfected supernatural skills tough). But how did he become godlike person for so many people even when he specially said he is not god, and said that Buddhist should not practice any “supernatural” stuff of his time.
Buddhist texts explain this by saying that most people are “hearers”. Those are people who don’t have deep spiritual need to know things intimately, but still have deep need to hear how things are and how people should behave. Thus when authoritative figure lays out how they should act and behave, they happily try to follow the rules.
While Sidartha did teach that he was not a god, he did so in a different context. Westerners are used to thinking of the supernatural as a special, not everyday kind of thing. You can tell by the way they stick ’super’ on the beginning.
They have their Jesus, but they have Him in Heaven, where He belongs. Kind of like the canned peas are in the cabinet by the fridge. You only see those Peas on a special occasion like death.
Sidartha taught in a context of the everyday supernatural. Genus loci were not supernatural in his day- they were natural phenomena. A fox might have certain powers. So might your neighbor the sage. That the dead were not always quiet was a simple fact of life.
To understand the buddhists who pray to spirits, one must first accept that the word supernatural as used today derives from a rationalist standpoint, and so does the concept. For many (if not most) human beings today, this remains the case- there is no supernatural, merely natural phenomena westerners describe as such.
to all the buddha-is-not-a-god-people: do you realize that “standard buddhist mythology”, if such a thing exists, deals with more than one buddha? the best known one, and the one with the qoute about not being godly, is shakyamuni, but maybe you should read up on Amida or Amitabha, another buddha who has been and is still worshipped as savior of the weak and creator of the pure land in Pure Land Buddhism, the dominant form of buddhism today together with Chan(Zen).
gosh, know what you’re talking about before you start talking about it.
and yeah, right, this list is not an argument (or not a good one) to use in a debate. well, duh. glad you figured this out, sherlock. it’s just something like a “fun fact”, since it doens’t prove anything. it’s as valuable as an argument as “it’s true because it says so in the bible” is.
and matt, we do not “believe” in these people. we agree with them to a certain point and respect and hold up their scientific work. well, most do. atheism is constantly mistaken for just a different approach on religion, without naming a god. but here’s the important part: faith. speaking as an atheist, i have faith in other beings in a sociallly interactive way only, e.g. that my girlfriend will not cheat on me, that my mom will be there when i need her etc., but no religious faith here. no sir.
furthermore, there is no canon to atheism. you can live under a rock in a cave somewhere in papua-new guinea and never have heard about dawkins. NOT BELIEVING IN ANY GOD suffices. atheism is not a religion, it is the lack thereof.
The other gods are parties, events and elements of nature, but: to worship nature if I can worship their creator? And God spoke at least, not nature, but nature is alive.
While atheists benefit from the adjustments heathen of the Catholic Church to say that Christ is a myth, I will continue testifying of God’s love.
Well, I am a Christian, and for me, the other gods exist: they are events and parts of the wilderness, sometimes statues, sometimes feelings. For worship nature if I can worship their creator? But nature does not speak, if it does its creator.
“I simply believe in a God more than you. Where understand why I do not dismiss God, understand why if discard the other gods.”
In God we do not believe, as is done with other gods, because God is owed KNOW, and Christ taught us how to do it very well.
If atheists do not want to enjoy, nor does it want to try a fraction of God’s love, because sorry for them because seek refuge in a diminishing success, and its purpose of life will be passenger, but Christ remains the rock, which always stays.
I could believe that the universe has always existed, but would be discarded life, because life itself tells me: God loves you and wants what is best for you.
Religion does not necessarily leads to God, in fact, Christ taught us to know God through faith, not through any religion.
Furthermore, the Greeks believed in God unknown, which is not related to nature, and that they felt the presence of God, even when nature was still their gods.
God loves atheists, Christians, Muslims and others. bye.
In Buddhism there are no gods, but there are spirits (which is almost the same thing), ancestors, reincarnations, karma, other worlds, and so on.
Noru, thank you. Anyone who has visited a Buddhist temple in Japan with people praying and incense burning knows that it is far from the yuppy weekend philosophy in the West.
Listen, if in 100 years people are truly worshiping Elvis as a god, and building churches to Elvis, then he should be on the list! Yes the real Elvis was just a guy, and he never said he was a god, but it won’t change how this future Church of Elvis views him.
My guess is that the the “sterilized” Buddhism popular in the states is mostly due to the majority of importation coming from Zen Buddhism which lacks much of the spiritual decoration adorning other Buddhisms.
Ahora, which Buddhism are you talking about? It’s like saying “In Christianity there aren’t any Saints.” (Which version?) Did you see the Wiki links above? Look at this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adibuddha
“In Buddhism, the Adi-Buddha is the “Primordial Buddha.” The term refers to a self-emanating, self-originating Buddha, present before anything else existed.”
That sounds like more than a spirit. (Assuming Wiki is trustworthy, who knows?) But you’re right, where do you draw the line between a “spirit” and a “god”. How the heck should I know? The words don’t have any meaning for me in reality. (Maybe if I was playing D&D: A spirit becomes a god when it goes above X hit points! etc.)
You forgot Jehova. And the christian god has no name for it is too great for our plebian ears.
and the christian god has no name
In at least one version, Buddha expressly denied being a deity. There are many who follow Buddhist teachings without worshipping Buddha as a deity. However, there are many others who DO worship Buddha as a deity. Because of those people, no matter how misguided they may be, Buddha belongs on the lists. Why is this discussion still going?
[...] finalizar, lembre-se de que ateus só acreditam em um Deus a menos que você, pressupondo que você não seja, obviamente, um ateu — ou politeísta. E sinceramente, se Deus [...]
For many, there is an emotional and psychological need for a framework in which to live their lives. Religion offers one such framework which has been manifested in different ways throughout history and in different cultures.
Atheism is a skeptical challenge to religious frameworks. Atheism by itself, though, isn’t a replacement or alternative to religious frameworks. If one has a psychological need for a framework, then atheism by itself will not be enough. One must add something like Humanism or Buddhism (that is Buddhism without the supernatural elements). Another option is Christianity without the supernatural elements. See Thomas Jefferson’s bible
Speaking of supernatural, I wonder if any of you have a sound theory explaining “paranormal” activity.
Did Jesus ever say that he was God and not just man? I’ve searched and searched, but I can’t find any place in the Bible for this.
PS. Stomper, thanks for what you wrote.
Several comments on this thread cry out for a response. To address a few:
- Altogether mankind has almost certainly believed in thousands of gods. I don’t suppose for a moment that the compiler of this list (of around 600) thought it was complete, so criticising the list by pointing out a few others is pointless.
- Jehovah is certainly not missing; the people who say this have missed the entire point of the list. Jehovah is the last entry, in the alternative spelling of Yahweh, and the only difference between the two lists.
- While the name Jehovah/Yahweh is not (AFAIK) used in the New Testament, the god there is unambiguously identified in numerous places with the god of the Old Testament. The Christian God is thus Jehovah/Yahweh.
- Allah and the Christian God undoubtedly share a common origin, but they are equally undoubtedly not the same. To take the most obvious point: the central tenet of Christianity is that Yawheh/God had a son who came to earth in human form. The central tenet of Islam is that Allah is one alone, and thus has no relatives or competitors. The Koran explicitly denies the existence of a son.
And finally, yes these sorts of lists are a relevant part of the atheistic argument. They demonstrate that inventing gods is a common human occupation. They demonstrate that the reasonable position is to assume that all gods are invented unless and until someone provides evidence to the contrary. And they also demolish the commonly heard (though frequently incorrect) Christian claim that atheists reject Christianity without knowing anything about it, and that atheism is therefore invalid. After all, Christians happily reject huge numbers of gods without knowing anything about them.
My sympathies to all of you.
And neither of us believe in the spagetti monster.
Now go figure.
[...] somos ateos He encontrado en menéame un enlace muy curioso. Se trata de dos listas de dioses, cada una de las cuales contiene los dioses que no [...]
[...] Gods We Don’t Believe In I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (tags: religion) [...]
Budha was himsef a hindu and thats true that he is now worshipped as a god. Allah an Christian God “share” the same origins just because of man called Mohammad, who copyed stuff from scriptures to his “bible”.
“Paranormal activity” is pretty broad, but I’ll say it all falls into the category of “bullshit”.
I think most westerners mistake Buddhist ceremonies as worship when they actually are more like reverence and directing your mind towards your goal. Physical actions like bowing talk directly to unconscious mind. Bodhisattvas and “non-historical Buddhas” are mental ideals, usually representing perfection of some desirable mental aspect X, when you pray to them, pray for ideal within yourself.
What makes things even more confusing is the concept of Upaya (skillful means, similar to Platos golden lie). Buddhists don’t think that it is so important that people have precisely right concepts in their minds (mental constructs are always imperfect), but that they make right actions and have right intentions. Thus it may be OK to even pray and worship Buddha as god. That is just bakhti-yoga, practice of devotion.
This relaxed attitude towards philosophical truth is what emphasizes the practical and personal training aspect of Buddhism. Buddha himself describes his teaching as toys or leaves made of fake gold. They are used to lure children out of burning house. In other sutra he likens his teachings to raft, when you get to the other side you are fool if you carry the raft in your back.
Fischer goes on to explain to his students that bowing is a mental training method that helps us cultivate an attitude of love and appreciation for the Buddha-nature within our own nature. Piety and devotion are okay as long as one doesn’t get hysterical about it; they are tender and splendid states of mind.[xlii]
He says that by appreciating how the figures are actually symbolic manifestations of oneself, then we become more comfortable with them as “other,” and external. The more familiar we get with ourselves as we actually are, the more comfortable we get with the images that are “other.”
Worshipping Buddha as a God doesnt make him one.
“Ordinary people often wish to see the immortals and to meet the Buddha and they firmly believe that only by their prayers ad their entreaties will these come to their assistance.
The “well-understood” acts otherwise: when he believes that he may be in the presence of these superior beings he immediately goes in search of them. The “all-understood” seeks nowhere, knowing full well that the Buddha is omnipresent and dwells within oneself.”
Brian B said:
If only YOUR conclusion provided you peace, you wouldn’t have such a pathetic little persecution complex, and you wouldn’t have flipped out over such a harmless and fun little comparison. It was to simply show that we’re all atheists in one way or another. Get a grip.
Due to such a defensive post, I’m guessing you’re not one of those who are “perfectly content” with your faith.
Thats part of the beauty of Pastafarianism. Everyone believes in His Noodliness!
It is missing “Satan” in the atheists list, as christians believe in the existence of an anti-christ, an angel once named “Lucifer” that changed his name, as if it is the “bad” power that mislead people from their god’s “good” power. So, if you believe in two powers, you believe in two gods. And as some christians religions refer to Jesus Christ as a god, you should put also “Yashua” on the atheist’s list.
Speakin of that, where’s the greek god named after the planet that stays near Neptune? (I don’t know his name in english, Uranum maybe)
i was gonna say they forgot yahweh (which is like, a biggy) but then i got to the bottom. so…yeah. anyway, i agree with the “buddha would be insulted” thing.
Iggy,
Satan is not a god, he’s a fallen angel. So no, he shouldnt be on that list. Jesus is not different from ‘God’, so no need to point out 2 entities.
Mara – the buddhist equivalent of satan – isnt there either.
Can’t the same be said about Jesus? But doesn’t Jesus deserve to be on the list as well? I assume he isn’t because supposedly Jesus = Yahweh, right?
buddha was a real person
Was he? How do you know? Can you find any reference of Buddha actually writing anything himself? I couldn’t. It’s the same for Jesus.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a historical Jesus existed, as did a Buddha so they seem equivalent to me with regard to the issue at hand. (Ie. candidacy for this list.)
I’m reminded of this cartoon:
http://www.cartoonbank.com/product_details.asp?sid=45041
god owes me money!
Buddha, the enlightened one, came to believe, not that he was God, but that he was ONE with god and all that is. This, for Buddha was a realization the He was One with this Ultimate reality.
While I’ll not argue here why Buddha was deceived, he would be on the list because he (and others) therefore thought that he was god – and that ALL was god. That there was no distinction.
Pantheism isn’t far from atheism in the sense that for the material atheist all that is, just is and we are just part of what is – for no REASON whatsoever.
Buddha, however believed in an intellect (buddhi) that was driving the expression of the ALL.
EVERYONE has a god (ultimate meaning), while not a relational God as Christians believe is possible. While many atheist will try to deny a meaningful claim about reality while unkowingly making one. You cannot meaningfully affirm that reality has no ultimate meaning without making a meaningful claim about reality. And backing off from the attempt dilutes the argument.
Of course it would also take absolute knowledge to absolutely eliminate God.
Regardless of how many gods there are – in fact this list could be MUCH larger, there could be only ONE God that would be worthy of ultimate worship. A God, if he exists that is the Uncaused Cause of all contingent existence. A fully actual being that transcends space, time and matter (that we KNOW is finite). A fully ACTUAL being that has no potential whatsoever in regard to its existence. An existence that causes all other potential existences.
While I undeniably exists, I cannot cause my own existence. I am contingent upon the actualizing act of another. This “Other” is the cause of all contingent beings and cannot also be contingent. There cannot be an infinite regression of causality. If there were you’d never get to the current effects. You cannot have an infinite number of seconds prior to this one – it would never be reached. And contingency is an effect and the Uncaused cause cannot be both contingent (caused by another) and fully actual, therefore it must be necessary. There must necessarily be a cause of all contingent reality. And it must necessarily be absolute and fully actual.
And if you say that all reality necessarily exists – there’s your god and Buddha was right.
And if this is true – then why are the atheists working so hard to “dis-prove” god? For even the theist is a manifestation of, or a part of, this ultimate reality. EVERYTHING IS!!! which is why Buddha sat and did nothing.
For me ultimate reality is not created by the minds of mere men, but one that REVEALS and has PURPOSE and has WILL and is universally TRUE.
much to be discovered!!!
Peace
Oh, you forgot to put Science, Own Ego, Hollywood and such in first column. Do so and I shall join your superior and friendly Church of Atheism.
dude, you are sooooooooo cool, you can’t imagine. like, the coolest person walking on the earth. coolest person existing in the Universe. i might even build a temple for your coolness and awesomeness and start a new religion.
please, I’m begging you, give me some guidelines, anything, a direction for becoming as cool as you are, having your intellect, your sense of humor, your talent of writing amazing posts like this one. please, give me just a particle, an atom of your awesomeness.
* bows you eternally *
We are? That’s news to me. As has been said over and over, the burden of proof does not rest on the atheists’ side. It might be possible to disprove certain logically contradictory god models, but I don’t think atheists are “working so hard” in that department. We are more concerned with political issues like separation of church and state, and trying to live freely without oppressing or being oppressed by others.
Heck, your pantheistic god model could be right. How should I know? I admit it seems more reasonable than the more popular mythologies, but the hierarchy of reasonableness is still not evidence.
On a side note, quantum theory says there are uncaused causes happening all the time. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but there it is.
Are you sure? You’re right, it sounds crazy, but it could be true. What about causal loops? In the end it all boils down to: Why is there something (universe, god, whatever) rather than nothing (or something else)?
I don’t mean to nitpick. I do enjoy discussions along these lines, but for me, entertaining these interesting ideas doesn’t mean I will invest actual belief in them without good evidence.
We have a church now? Does that mean I have to wake up early on Sundays?
Are you saying Hollywood is like God, or God is like Hollywood? Either option intrigues me.
True_believer,
As mentioned earlier, these items you mentioned are not even close to comparable to the way that Chrsitians worship God (Yahweh? Jehovah? Yeshua? I’m so confused!) or Muslims worship Allah.
We Atheists admit science has been wrong at times and could be wrong now on certain items. That’s why we keep challenging it and looking to improve it! Besides, it’s a method.
You would also be hard pressed to find any of us that agree we “worship” Hollywood. I, for one, think that Hollywood has put out some crappy stuff sometimes. As for ego, well, we all do that! Even you “believers”!
So, let’s dispense with the Atheist worhip nature, Richard Dawkins, science, etc. It’s just not comparable and it’s foolish to pretend it is. I like Dawkins, but if he coerced me to kill my own son, slaughter innocent people, stone homosexuals,tell people how they could avoid being tortured in hell eternally, I’d drop him like Preisdnet Bush drops the word “nuculur”. I can’t see Christians doing the same with Jehovah-Yaweh-Jesus-Holy Ghost, etc.
NYCatheist:
“We are? That’s news to me. As has been said over and over, the burden of proof does not rest on the atheists’ side. It might be possible to disprove certain logically contradictory god models, but I don’t think atheists are “working so hard” in that department.”
Hasn’t there been a recent string of atheist writings that argue their point?
THE ATHEIST MANIFESTO, THE GOD DELUSION, ATHEISM, GOD IS NOT GREAT, just to name a few of the many books that have come out in recent years.
“Heck, your pantheistic god model could be right. How should I know? I admit it seems more reasonable than the more popular mythologies, but the hierarchy of reasonableness is still not evidence.”
There are so many holes in the pantheist model, I don’t know where to begin. But let’s suffice it to say that there would be no distinctions between ANYTHING. For ALL would be a manifestation of the IS. There also would be no reason to spend so much time on political issues, as ALL just IS and there is no ground for what is good or evil. No such thing as “bad politics” or “good politics”. ALL JUST IS.
And of course what has caused this amnesia that Buddha “enlightened” himself free of. Why do we experience OURSELVES as selves and not ONE with this ALL. If Buddha was right there would be no YOU & I.
“On a side note, quantum theory says there are uncaused causes happening all the time. Yeah, I don’t get it either, but there it is.”
Making the claim doesn’t make it so, as atheist like to say. Perhaps they just haven’t discovered the cause of those effects yet. Just like the Big Bang itself. They really don’t have a clue as to its cause (oh, they like to pretend – that’s how they get grant $$$). Yet they do not deny it was CAUSED.
“Why is there something (universe, god, whatever) rather than nothing (or something else)?
EXACTLY!!! WHY is there anything at all??? WHY, WHY, WHY???
Peace
P.S. I have to figure out that quote feature.
ynot said
Why does there need to be an explanation? Or, in a less rhetorical fashion; there doesn’t need to be an explanation, and the explanation doesn’t have to be god. There are only people who need an explanation, and people who need the explanation to be god.
ynot said:
Their point is not, as you put it, “to dis-prove god”, but to make the case that religion is not a good thing. Either you didn’t read them, or you have sorely misinterpreted them.
The abuse of religion is not a good thing, but the same can be said for children or most anything else of value (power, money, prescription medications, etc). There is nothing wrong with religion itself, and I am beginning to resent the attacks.
Ynot,
Re: the atheist books, Claire made the important point already. I will also add: have you looked in a book store? What’s the ratio of pro-religion books to anti-religion books? Something like 1213423 to 1 (exact of course.) Not all atheists agree with all those books anyway. We don’t recite Dawkins writings like it’s the Nicene Creed or something.
Please banish the word “prove” from your mind. There is no proof in science. There is only proof in mathematics, whose models might have nothing to do with reality.
I’m not going to argue about pantheism with you. When I said it was “more reasonable” than other models (Eg. Christianity) that was like comparing 1 and 2 on a scale of 100. I agree with you, it really doesn’t make any sense, but the same can be said for the more popular monotheisms.
Re: quantum mechanics:
Of course! I’m glad you’re learning atheist catch phrases. Einstein didn’t like it either. He could be right, or he could be wrong. How do we find out? We need to do a lot of experiments. Get data. Keep researching.
I think saying “no clue” is going too far, but what’s wrong with saying “we don’t know yet”? Maybe we’ll find out, maybe we won’t. Don’t you want to try? It sounds like you don’t think fundamental research should be done at all. You want to fire all the theoretical physicists in the world and rehire them to design new plastic toys for Chinese factories? Aren’t you curious about the universe? We’ll find out more truth about the foundations of reality through “Big Science” research projects than ancient stories about Adam and Eve, or Buddha’s “all is one”, etc.
On the other hand, the Dalai Lama has said, “”If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism.” How about that? So props to his version of Buddhism there.
Depends which physicist you talk to.
I don’t know.
Do you? Why do you think you know?
The way I do it (is there another way?)
1. Copy and paste the other person’s text into my comment box.
2. Highlight it.
3. Click the “bquote” button above. (Same as “b” for bold, “i” for italics, etc.
Stomper wrote:
Which attacks are you referring to? I hope not on you here because I’ve enjoyed the comments you have made. Do you mean books like Dawkins, Hitchens, etc?
Whether there is anything wrong with religion is one of the key questions. The second question is whether a god actually exists. Those two questions can be discussed separately. I think Dawkins is more interested in the latter. Sam Harris makes a clearer point that the problem is not rooted in religion itself but in blind faith in dogma, which doesn’t have to be religious. Whether it’s a religion, or a political system, etc we should be able to question and criticize in a free manner. Intellectual honesty and free inquiry are the ideals we (ie. most atheists) are striving for. (I say most, because every demographic has its nutters.)
*sigh*
Point on my previous comment was that OP is trying to compare atheism and religion where such comparison is impossible. Most religions got something in common, because every religion sets some rules of conduct for its followers. However they may seem irrational, they are practical. Atheism is very different in that context, and only common ground between atheists is their nihilism and its implications.
I meant there Hollywood as in (false) idols, examples, moral code, “only truth”, etc. Could’ve been Money, or anything else atheist people chose to be their temporary values.
There is ego, and then there is Ego. Difference might seem small until you face it.
Ok, how about this? Science is the main excuse for not believing that there is “something else” whatever you call it, which we are unable to calculate or even comprehend, yet science itself is just as irrational as any religion. You disagree? Please talk to quantum physicists first.
It’s just that people chose to believe it’s not, which I reckon it’s all about: what we are prepared to accept as true on hand of our experience. I am convinced that more you know, more you are able to distinguish. And I don’t mean “knowing” as in science “methods” only, I mean experiencing as well. Heck, whole science starts with at least one big dogma, which is that this world is real. That should teach you atheists something, unless your always present fear of consequences is still too great to learn anything. You see, I think one is atheist only for one of those two reasons: don’t know much or petrified that there is something (not you) controlling everything and calling you to judgement. I would love to be proven wrong.
And atheism can be misused same as any religion. For example, Nazi ideology was mainly atheistic.
Troll detected.
Correction: Descartes detected.
Descartes had been drinking all night in a bar. As the sun rose, the bartender asked, “Would you like another?”
Descartes replied, “I think not.” Then he disappeared.
Call me pedantic, but I do have a problem with the frequent abuse of the term “atheist.” Many who profess to be atheist are actually agnostic (i.e., willing to believe, but for the absence of proof), and simply choose to ignore agnosticism (perhaps it seems too “wishy-washy”?). Then Dawkins attempts to re-define “atheist” by appending modifiers: “strong atheists” who affirmatively deny the existence of a deity, and “weak atheists” who (to me, at least) are indistinguishable from agnostics. So many of the people who describe themselves as “atheist” really mean “weak atheist,” but provoke a reaction from others who conclude that “atheist” really means “strong atheist.”
Of course, atheists don’t have a monopoly on that sort of imprecision. As detailed above, “Buddhist” can mean many different things. And “Christian” beliefs are like snowflakes: no two are exactly alike.
By the way, a “strong atheist” who affirmatively denies the existence of a deity is affirmatively advancing a proposition. By the rules of logical discourse, that strong atheist thus has the burden of proof. It’s a burden that can’t be met, and can justly be characterized as simply another brand of faith (ie, belief in an unproveable proposition).
Seems to me these discussions would be more civilized if people used the terminology more clearly and consistently.
True_believer wrote:
Are you saying every atheist is a nihilist? Wikipedia definition: “Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that Being, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.”
I’m sure some atheists are nihilists, but most I know are not. The only common ground between atheists is their lack of belief in deities. Some think there is no ultimate meaning, others do, others just have no idea (me).
Can you give some more specific examples. I’m imagining some atheist worshiping Steven Spielberg. (Although I do know some who worship George Lucas, but they might be jedi not atheists. hehe) Some people do seem to worship money (atheists and theists alike), but is it really the same kind of “worship” as religious worship? Or is it just plain old greed?
I don’t really understand you here. Do you mean considering yourself a god?
Sure I disagree!
Are there really atheists who say “I don’t believe a god exists because of science”? I haven’t met any. Science is just a method for answering questions. Certain scientific theories might lead people to atheism. (See Dawkins who once believed a god created life (it was the only explanation he knew of as a child), but then learned about evolution so the god hypothesis was no longer needed.) As for me the more I learn about science the more I realize I don’t know and how mysterious the world really is. The mysteries of the world are much deeper in modern cosmology than in ancient flat earth Biblical models.
Which part of science is irrational? Are you talking about the implications of quantum theory? They are unintuitive, and maybe they aren’t rational, but that is the data. Don’t confuse the experimental results with the method. Question: Why is the sky blue? What methods would you use to answer that question? Do you really think such methods are irrational?
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying I chose to believe science is rational? I have studied and done science. I only choose it as an appropriate method to answer questions because it works.
Wiki:”Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.”
I’m not sure your example is a dogma. And some physicists have even discussed the possibility that our universe is just a virtual simulation (ie. not “real”). They can discuss these ideas freely, there is no authority. The only “dogma” in science is intellectual honesty. That’s the ideal of course, but some people will lie and science tries to minimize it with various checks etc. but no human endeavor is perfect.
I don’t know what you mean here.
Hmm, maybe you’re right! I am an atheist because I don’t know much. I don’t know anything about gods or ultimate truth. How can I believe something exists that I don’t know anything about?
I think your second reason is wrong though. But I can’t prove it. I can just say I’ve never met any atheist who is afraid of something controlling or judging them. If such a person existed who had such a fear, why would they be an atheist? It doesn’t make any sense.
That’s news to me. Do you have references? Wiki says:
“Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations (such as the German Freethinkers League) and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith”
It doesn’t matter though. Other tyrants, like Stalin, were atheists. But he was dogmatic pushing his ideology of Stalinism. Atheism is not a value system or a way to live life. Many atheists are humanists, but Stalin wasn’t. Atheism is just lack of belief in gods. It doesn’t tell you how to live life. I assume Stalin also didn’t believe in fairies. Why people don’t talk about Stalin’s “afairieism”. It’s irrelevant. Stalin was more concerned with any competition threatening his power, whether it was a church or a god people believed in.
I’m game to continue the discussion here, but if you want we can move it to the new friendly atheist forum.
Stomper,
I agree the terms cause a lot of confusion. Depending on who’s asking I’m either an atheist or agnostic. Dawkins didn’t start the strong/weak qualification. He did confuse matters by asserting agnosticism was on the same “scale”.
I think a lot of atheists prefer the weak/strong qualification because as you said there are hardly any people in the “strong” department, but “agnostic” was not quite accurate either. If you look up “atheism” on Wikipedia you can see all the various nuances and semantic controversies laid out. Technically I should be an agnostic, but the problem with that term is that the “man on the street” would think that it means “undecided” (somehow 50-50) and wasn’t a firm philosophical position.
But I also have a problem with some agnostics who claim it is impossible to know about god(s). That’s going too far. So maybe I’m a double weak agnostic atheist. (Can I order that at Starbucks?)
I still like “ignostic” best though.
Stomper
You made me think. Yes, you are right. And I keep hearing over and over again that most atheists are actually agnostic. And the term “weak atheist” always intriqued me.
You said that an agnostic is someone who is “willing to believe, but for the absence of proof.” But what of the kind that is “willing to believe, but for the absense of dis-proof.” Is that person also an agnostic?
What you said got me thinking, and I think perhaps most theists are also actually agnostic.
And the die-hards on either side of the spectrum are just people who are extremely fearful or extremely angry.
Do you think it’s possible that most of us who classify ourselves as theists are just part of that grey area who are confused as to where they stand? Are they the same kind of people who identify with the majority just for the sake of being agreeable?
Just thinking…
And NYCatheist,
What was the definition of ignostic again? (i’m slow) Can we think of something else that does not start with “igno?” It sounds too much like another word that does not describe you at all…
So you think that it is possible to know all about God?
BTW, i always order a triple.
Linda:
Your question comes at NYCatheist’s point, but from the other direction. I am a Christian, but I am also an agnostic (I choose to believe, but I cannot KNOW). Many theists claim to KNOW, but that is just another example of linguistic imprecision.
So agnosticism is not really just the middle area on a spectrum that runs from theism to atheism (one of NYCatheist’s points). This is where I have to go to meeting, though. I’ll check back later.
Where’s the Great Purple Anteater of Bad Axe, Michigan?
But I am!
Wikipedia has a page on ignosticism, here’s the intro:
“Ignosticism is a word coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine to indicate either of two related views about the existence of God.
The first view is that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition cannot be falsified, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.
The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking “What is meant by God?” before proclaiming the concept meaningless.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Regarding the strong/weak qualification on atheism, Wikipedia says this:
“The strong and weak names did not come into common usage until the early 1990s, their popularization assisted by their common usage in the alt.atheism Usenet group at the time. While the terms themselves are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common; these terms were used by Antony Flew in 1972, although Jacques Maritain used the phrases in a similar, but strictly Catholic apologist, context as early as 1949.[3]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
I discussed the confusion caused by different definitions in my blog post here:
http://thatatheistguysblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/semantic-taxonomy-of-non-theism.html
Oops, forgot this one:
I didn’t say all, but then again why not? It depends what kind of god you are talking about. If a god wants to stay hidden, we will never know. Or if it’s like the god of the Mormons maybe they do end up knowing all because they can become gods.
In short there is no way for me to predict what is and isn’t knowable about any subject.
Re: Stomper’s comments I don’t have much to say since I agree. So I’ll just say “hear hear”!
So if everyone else was as smart and perceptive as we are, there’d be love and flowers everywhere, and peace in the Middle East? It MUST be true!
I keep looking at that, and it just doesn’t make sense to me, for two reasons: A) Doesn’t this describe everyone? If something is truly and unarguably proved, then who could dispute it?, and B) if something is proved, then it becomes fact and is no longer a matter of belief, which may be more of a quibble, but still…
If I’ve parsed this correctly, it means someone willing to believe, since no one has managed to disprove it. Did I get that right? If so, that describes people who will believe in anything (unicorns, pixie dust, aliens) just because no one can prove it’s not true. I’m thinking that must not be what was meant. Is it?
I like the cut of your jib sailor!
I hear Linda is busy working on plans for a new utopia so we’ll see! (No pressure Linda!)
[...] God is the Difference Posted on February 16, 2008 by archiearchive FCD Found over on the Friendly Atheist, this list may not be [...]
Claire:
Taken literally and carried to extremes, but yes, that’s what “agnostic” means. For a more formal definition, try dictionary.com:
ag·nos·tic
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
Of course, the word kind of loses any significance when it is applied too literally and universally. That’s why you usually only see it in discussions like this one. Well, that, and because a lot of people just don’t have that word in their active vocabularies.
**QUOTE- Robert said,
February 11, 2008 at 9:56 pm
To me, any religon that outright bans any other “gods” is an obvious sign that it is a man-made religon. A truly almighty god would never so petty as to be jealous of other gods – real or imagined.
—————————————————————
Robert, here’s where you’re wrong.
Look at it from the perspective of a “Parent-Child relationship”.
Let’s say you have children. YOU were responsible for the creation of these children. They are YOUR’S & YOU are their father.
However, your children insist on calling someone else their father, rather than you. They reject YOU as their father, & give the credit & love to someone else.
They also think that you’re being “petty or unfair” because you’re jealous, or upset, or angry about it. After all, a “Real Father” wouldn’t be bothered in the least bit that his own children refuse him, and prefer to honor someone else.
THAT is essentially the same relationship with US & GOD.
I think this is something many people fail to think about, & assume it’s some sort of impersonal relationship between God & man.
Hopefully this will help some people understand the context of the situation.
NYCatheist,
Be patient… These things take time, you know!
OK, but this is how I see that analogy: my children have been sent away to live in another country from when they were babies. They don’t even know I exist because I have not given them any clear communication. Why should I care if they believe in me? I would only hope they were living good lives, helping others and doing as little harm as possible. I certainly wouldn’t punish them for doubting I exist. In fact, given the situation I would expect them to have such doubts!
Marko said:
So what you are saying is that god has the same issues and level of immaturity as the average deadbeat dad? Nice.
I don’t know why religious types complain so bitterly about what atheists say – we can never show religion in as harsh and unflattering light as they do themselves.
Stomper – I wasn’t actually questioning the definition of agnostic in general (just that one definition), but the definition you posted is most interesting, especially #2. So, I can be agnostic about anything, not just god? I can be agnostic about art, I can be agnostic about conciousness, I can even be agnostic about kittens. I like it!
Claire,
Isn’t ALL of this discussion about WHY? If there is no answer to the ultimate why, then why bother with anything? Why not just eat, drink and be merry and not worry about any consequences? Why worry about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet when ultimately it has zero meaning whatsoever.
Is it for the future generations? wouldn’t they be better off not existing at all?
Why do you spend time on these sites? Why are you in this dialog? Is it just to score mental points of some kind? Is it strictly entertainment? Really, why?
I am not going to answer the question why, because you already presuppose it’s not real. I will argue, however that there IS a why.
My existence is undeniable, yet I am not a necessary being. My existence could cease. I am not the CAUSE of my existence and the cause of my existence MUST necessarily exist. Why necessarily? Because I do exist. There must necessarily be a cause of my existence, because my existence is undeniable.
The WHY I exist would come from this Ultimate cause of reality. While I may not know it, it is there because I do exist.
While the explanation doesn’t have to be “god” an explanation of the ultimate WHY exists necessarily and would necessarily point to the Ultimate Reality. The nature of this Ultimate Reality I’ll leave up to you to figure out, but I’ll say the REASON for our existence would be objective and universal.
.
Good point. I have never read them entirely, just bits and pieces. I do think though, that their writings (and you are missing the point) do point to the ultimate question of WHY while not always explicit.
Perhaps we should, instead of trying to convince theists of their errors, just eradicate them from existence. Think of how much better our world would be? There really would be world peace!!!
I think you should start a movement.
Oh wait, Stalin tried that.
NYCatheist,
Theist out number atheist by a ratio of 1213423 to 1 (not exact, of course). so this is not surprising.
No proofs in science? has this been proven? scientifically? (sorry I just can’t banish it)
And are you saying that science is the only method of knowing reality? Has this been proven scientifically or mathematically?
Let’s see if I understand this: there are no proofs in science, but it’s the only way to know reality and the “proofs” of math don’t correspond to reality.
Has this been proven? (sorry, I just can’t help it)
While a mathematical model might not correspond to reality, there are real numbers. As are the rules of logic real: such as the Law of non-contradiction and the Law of the excluded middle. Even though “science” cannot prove (sorry again) their existence, they are nevertheless REAL.
There’s nothing wrong with saying “we don’t know yet”. and I never said anything about not looking.The point is they are looking and for OBJECTIVE REALITY and a CAUSE. It’s because there IS something there and it has LAWS or as John Warwick Montgomery put it “The Law Above The Law” that we look. the Buddhist doesn’t look because he believes it’s an illusion. The Christian looks because he believes he is “fearfully and wonderfully made” with purpose and order and design and intelligence.
So there is TRUTH?
I do think I know, but you already PRESUPPOSE it’s not true or real.
And I like this quote from Blaise Pascal:
Thanks for the tip on the quoting feature.
Peace
ynot said:
Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Just because there is no ultimate ‘why’ does NOT mean there is no meaning in life. Life has the meaning you give it. It’s possible to worry a lot about justice and the right candidate and saving the planet, and work on those as well, without ever worrying at all about the ultimate ‘why’.
Just because some people can’t see a meaning without god, that doesn’t mean that other people can’t.
I submit that time spent worrying about the ultimate why (and if there is one and what it is), instead of “about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet” as you put it, is time more or less wasted.
No, it’s you who are missing the point – just because you project your questions onto works you admit not having read, doesn’t mean that that’s what they were really about. They weren’t.
I’m getting really tired of the Stalin thing, so let me give you a different example. Under the suppression of religion by the USSR, the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians in Yugoslavia lived side by side, intermarrying and integrating just fine – not perfect, but good enough. Then that oh-so-nasty atheistic government went away, and then there was genocide, so many dead they still can’t agree on the count, orthodox christian against catholic against muslim. Hmm…. on one side, no religion and no genocide, on the other side, religion and genocide. Tell me again, how is the second one better?
ynot said:
Wow, you really don’t get science, do you? Science is a way of acquiring knowledge, and it doesn’t have ‘proof’ because it’s never done. Oh, and to add to what NYCatheist said – logic as well as math does have proofs.
Ok, I guess you don’t get math either. Real numbers don’t have much to do with ‘reality’, as the word is generally used.
Well, I suppose it’s reasonable that if you don’t get science, you won’t get scientists, either. That’s not what scientists are doing. They are trying to figure out how the universe works, and deciding that there is some big primal cause of it all, in advance of the evidence (of which there isn’t any), gets in the way of that.
It’s just as much a religion to believe there are no gods as it is to believe their are gods. Either way, a person is believing totally on the basis of faith with no scientific facts to back him. As far as I know, nobody really know for sure it’s there’s a god or not.
Nope. But science is a defined method, and there is no proof involved. Your question sounds like this:
Me: Cooking spaghetti doesn’t require any proofs.
You: Can you prove that?
Me: There’s boiling and straining, but no proofs. It’s jut not how the method is defined. I probably can’t prove that because it’s apples and oranges.
I’m curious what method you would use to try to prove another method doesn’t use proofs.
Re. 1st question. I don’t think I said that. I said I think it’s our best method, not only. I’m interested in answering questions: Why is the sky blue? How did I get sick? Is there life on Mars? My question to you is, what method would use to answer these questions?
It sounds like you want answers to very hard questions like the meaning of life and origin of reality. These questions are currently beyond our scientific knowledge. So why complain science can’t answer them? It’s like complaining your spaghetti recipe doesn’t make toast.
Re. 2nd question: Whether the answer to the 1st is yes or no, the answer is no.
Right there are no proofs in science. Wrong, I didn’t say it was the only way. Regarding mathematical proofs: they only prove things within their own formal systems, which don’t necessarily correspond to reality. You still have to assume certain axioms to be true.
How real numbers and mathematical constructs are is a deep topic with no consensus among people much smarter than I am. Here’s stuff better than I can write:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Mathematical_realism
What else would they do? I don’t think there are any other options for scientists than to work with our objective reality.
Using the word “law” sounds like the fallacy of equivocation (ie. Scientific “law” = God’s “law” = the “law” of the land.) Science has found reality follows certain patterns, but we can never prove those patterns have always been the same or always will be the same.
Example: Boyle’s Law. Robert Boyle discovered various gases behaved in the same predictable way with regards to pressure and volume. Is it exact? No, it’s for an “ideal gas”, but it is a pattern. How do we jump from that to a cosmic law giver? Especially a certain specific law giver.
Regarding Christians and science, you could very well be right. I don’t know enough about history and psychology to know if Christian cultures have directly caused science to flourish more than in other cultures. But if it is true, so what? A certain religion may encourage scientific advancement, but that doesn’t demonstrate their particular doctrines are true. And it certainly hasn’t been ideal. Maybe if we had a different religion it wouldn’t have taken 2000 years to get to the Moon. And look what happened to poor Giordano Bruno.
I think so. As Mulder always said, “the truth is out there”.
No I don’t. I try to keep an open mind. I also don’t think I know the truth.
I like it too. I do my best to try and believe as many true things as possible, and disbelieve as many false things as possible. Of course I’m not perfect and the amount I don’t know is overwhelming.
Are you suggesting by this quote that you have proof for what you believe in?
Actually, Christians DO believe in El and the Eloim. Yahweh, El and the Eloim are all mentioned in the Torah (first five books of the Christian Old Testament) and are translated as “God” or “Lord”. The idea that the Jews have always only worshiped one super powerful god is a convenient illusion of translation.
According to mainstream Biblical scholars, Yaweh was one of the Elohim and thus a minion under the god El. Not a very nice one, apparently. In fact, there is some confusion over whether Yaweh and one of the entities which Christians amalgamate into a devil god are identical.
In fact Christians believe in a serious of devil gods called Satan, Prince of Darkness, Beelzebub, Lucifer and so on. Once again, these are conveniently mistranslated as if they were all one entity.
NYC,
Me: Cooking spaghetti doesn’t require any proofs.
Science means KNOWLEDGE and USES a method to determine what is TRUE
While I’ll agree is doesn’t PROVE as in logic or mahematics, it may make statements about reality that are TRUE.this reality is KNOWABLE. Otherwise why ask the questions?
My point exactly.
I don’t think I ever complained about science. I trust it as much as you do as a method of learning about reality. But I don’t believe it’s the only method.
My use the the word law, as in first principles that are universally true. The Law of non-contradiction is a principle that is universally applicable for all time. It’s inescapable. And these laws imply intelligence. Why? because they are about knowledge and communication. It is a universal law governing thought and communication and is not selected at will, but ABOVE. They trandscend.
And because it’s intelligent and communicable, it’s source MUST be also. for a giver (cause) cannot give what it doesn’t have
And I completely agree with everything else.
But what is YOUR test for “true” and “false”?
As to your last question – no I do not have “proof”, but I have very good REASONS for my belief. and if you really do have an open mind – maybe you’re not looking in the right places.
Peace
Geez, the comments – pro and con atheist – seem to be totally missing the point.
The arguments I’ve seen here are:
1. Some gods are missing from the list…an inevitable truth for almost all lists.
2. Some gods listed aren’t considered as gods by some – though others obviously do…a fight over the mortality of a religious figurehead…what a waste of time. This has all the practicality of a Star Wars vs. Star Trek argument.
3. Some Christians believe in other gods, but think they’re lesser dieties – or demons. Interesting, I suppose, but the list seems mostly to deal with broad generalizations, not specific sects. The idea that some Christians believe in everything in every other religion does not surprise me, as one that door of belief without proof is open it’s hard to rationally disbelieve in all sorts of things.
4. The insoluble disagreement between people who will believe anything told them by authority, and those who have a more skeptical view…classic God vs. No God talk. The ultimate boil-down point between religious and non-religious persons. I make a prediction: no one will change their mind as this argument progresses. Anyone think anything different here?
…it seems the list here was a funny commentary on exactly how many religions and deities a Christian has to reject to be “true believers”.
Anyway, it got a laugh from me, and all the other arguments were interesting but beside the point. Thanks for taking the time to make the list Friendly Atheist.
Claire,
But what if the meaning you give it – is meaningless. A meaning you give it is just a justification for why you do what you do. My WHY goes much deeper in that it’s from the cause and effect relationship. All causes are the why. Cause = why. This effect occurred BECAUSE of this cause (why). We have a cause for EVERY effect and an effect cannot cause itself. You cannot have a self-caused cause either.
Because we have this long chain of cause and effects. The WHYS producing effects, we have to have a beginning. You cannot have an infinite cause and effect series going backward just as cannot reach the end in an infinte series going forward. You will never reach the end. And if there were an infinte series backward, you would have never reached the current cause and effect.
Point is, all these causes are WHYS and it stands to reason that the first Un-caused cause is a WHY as well. And this WHY gives us our TRUE meaning of life.
Just because some people can’t see a meaning without god, that doesn’t mean that other people can’t.
I submit that time spent worrying about the ultimate why (and if there is one and what it is), instead of “about social order and justice, and select the right candidate and saving the planet” as you put it, is time more or less wasted.
We do have a body count of the atheist regimes – they are in the TENS OF MILLIONS. You could add all the deaths of the religious caused wars in history and it wouldn’t come close to those numbered by the atheist regimes – not even close.
but all the is justifying bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior and is realy going nowhere.
Peace
Claire,
Agreed and logic implies first principles that govern all thought and communication. They trandscend and are universally TRUE.
A lot of mathematicians that would disagree.
Duh, They’re not looking at objective reality in trying to figure out how the universe works??? If they’re not looking at and for reality, what are they looking for that determines how it works?
“trying to figure out how the universe works”? DO YOU MEAN THE CAUSE(s)!!!
Claire,
In my first reply there I meant to edit portions. Anyway, you can see the mistake where I had some of your reply mixed in with mine.
Ynot wrote:
That’s OK, but I’d like to stress that the “truths” science uncovers are always provisional, and aren’t the capital “T”, “Truths” that are discussed in philosophy. Depending on the amount and quality of evidence scientific truths cover the complete range of confidence, from completely hypothetical to confirmed facts. However everything is open to new data, tests, and theories.
At least that is the ideal. Remember scientists are just people with the usual faults and foibles. Some are protective of their pet theories and others lie, but the majority due their best to be intellectually honest.
I’m not sure I can follow you down that same path. Could the god you are imagining have created the laws of logic without the law of noncontradiction? I’m also not sure they imply intelligence, but I don’t deny it either. I really have no idea.
Some laws of logic might not work at all levels though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic
But if you could convince me that an intelligence is behind the laws of logic and mathematics then I would just be a deist (or pantheist, or panentheist…) The jump from atheism to deism is very short compared to the jump from deism to Christianity, Hinduism, etc.
How do you know the true creator god isn’t waiting for us to find his true revelation deep in mathematics or physics?
I try to think scientifically about things. I don’t believe claims without good evidence, and I try not to cling to attractive conclusions or “facts”. I’m not perfect at it, but I’m always trying to learn more. I value skepticism over faith. (And before you ask, yes even skepticism of skepticism whatever that entails.)
Oh, I don’t know. Maybe. But I’ve been around. Read this and that, talked to all kinds of people in my life. The quest for truth is never ending. Anyway, the same can be said about anyone. There is always more to learn and nobody is an expert on everything.
From your dialog with Claire, you wrote:
Is it really that much? The big ones are Stalin and Mao, right? They are atheists, but they were pushing their own oppressive personality cults. Atheism is not a world view or a way to live life. It’s just lack of belief in deities. Most atheists are humanists, which is their positive philosophy on living the good life. Stalin was not a humanist. Stalin also didn’t believe in fairies, should we blame his regime on that lack of belief? Stalin was more concerned with eliminating any competition for his power.
I should also point out that religious wars and the inquisitions of the past didn’t have the “advantage” of modern death technology and the dense human populations of the 20th century so the comparison isn’t really fair.
The real problem is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Chuck Rowles said:
You’re just annoyed because my Federation star ship blew your star destroyer out of the sky! Photon Torpedos for the win!
Serious reply: I don’t think it’s a waste of time. I enjoy having these discussions sometimes. It’s good brain exercise. Also it’s not true that no one ever changes their mind. You can read countless de-conversion stories on various forums and often online discussions were a big part of the process. It usually doesn’t happen overnight from one blog thread though.
Troyster said,
That idea is repeated often. Do you really think the typical atheist is just as religious as the typical Christian? The average Christian is going to church, studying the Bible, praying, etc. What are the equivalent behaviors that an atheist is doing that makes you think they are religious?
Some atheists (the “strong” ones) do have a kind of faith that no possible gods exist, but I think the majority just lack belief. How can the lack of a belief become a religion? An atheist is not pushing any religious dogma. (Note this does not make atheists immune from other dogmas, like marxism, conspiracy theories, racism, radical environmentalism etc. On a side note I heard Penn of Penn & Teller tell a story about their show Bullshit. Out of all their shows attacking religion, psychics, environmentalists etc. the scariest people were the 9-11 conspiracy theorists. Only from that group did Penn get numerous death threats, and had people calling his home and stalking him. So there you go. I’m not saying those nuts were atheists, but atheists can be as nutty as anyone else.)
Anyway here’s the standard snappy reply: “If atheism is a religion, then baldness is a hair color”.
Ralph said,
Not always. Example:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/absence-of-evid.html
What does Siddhartha not wanting to be seen as a God have to do with anything as far as THIS argument concerning whether or not Buddha is considered a God NOW? Yeah, he may have been against having his followers consider him to be a God, but that does not change the fact that MANY sects of Buddhism DO consider him a God nowadays, does it now?
Also, I find it highly irritating that many in the “Buddha is not a God” camp see certain Buddhists’ prayers and idol-worshiping as “anti-deity behavior,” where as similar practices by people of the Hindu faith are unequivocally deity-worshiping. I highly suggest some of you folks do some research on Hinduism and see the similarities between it and Buddhism. The fact that the latter essentially pulled many of it’s doctrines from the Hindu and Brahmin faith should raise an eyebrow or two regarding the true intentions of Hinduism. Yes, it has many “Gods,” but ultimately, the Hindu faith is about the procurement of knowledge and the truth–areas that Buddhism is widely associated with.
It can be argued, and quite easily at that, that Hinduism is a “way of life” just as much as Buddhism is. One need only take more than a cursory glance at what is behind the rituals and idol-worshiping to see this.
I’ll stray from the religious discussion…why is this list an image (jpeg)? Is it some feeble attempt at copy protection? It doesn’t look good (visually), and seems a little silly.
Darwin are christian.
Thanks for posting the info on absence of evidence.
Re the followers of founders of religions, followers will always distort the original teachings. Hence Buddhists turn the Buddha into something to worship. They worship the finger that is pointing to a way of life.
I think Bertrand Russell said that there was one christian, and he died on the cross
One more thing we both have in common…we will both spend eternity somewhere! (Don’t worry, it won’t be in the same place.)
You getting your ashes shot into space, Kimmy?
Otherwise I plan to be spending eternity six feet under.
Hey Kimmy,
Being smug is a deadly sin.
The question is never Why, it’s always How. How to hell are you going to know what’s “right”? HOW? Its just rethorical question I know you can’t answer if you are atheist. If you really need to spend time asking Why, then ask your self why is your “right” right? How are you going to decide what is “saving a planet”, “justice”, etc?
Signed.
However, I changed my mind about one thing at least, and that’s this discussion’s cause. The intension of OP was probably to show similarities, and in that way was positive. Although the amount of ignorance contained there is almost unbearable, that intention makes up for some of it I guess.
You were replying to Claire, but I’ll jump in here if you don’t mind. I’m an atheist, and I think I can answer your question. How do I know an action is right? Off the top of my head there are two ways. One is my gut feeling. I feel murder is wrong. It’s just like my other senses, like my sense of taste. I feel (sense) sugar is sweet? Why? How? That’s the way my brain is wired. I can’t choose to taste sugar as bitter anymore than I can choose to feel murder is right. (Note my analogy does not rule out a theistic explanation of why the brain wiring is the way it is, but it does not necessitate it.)
The second way for less black and white issues is to use my judgment and reason. I look at the consequences and try to minimize harm. But why is my ultimate goal to minimize harm? Because that is what I feel as I wrote above.
How does a theist know what is right? From written scriptures? How do you know the author is a trustworthy moral authority? How do you know the Bible is true, and not the Koran or Book of Mormon? (At least the Book of Mormon has actual signed witnesses!) Personally I trust a person as a moral agent more if they are basing their ethics on their own common sense and good nature, than on a book or religious authority.
Signed?
Welcome to the Internet. Are you referring to the original list of gods? What part is ignorant? Do you mean the choice of gods? Just curious.
NYCatheist,
If I may interject, where do we get this common sense and good nature? Could it be that we learned through co-existing together (for many many years) what works and what does not work in order to continue and grow as a species that loves life?
That’s one way, and what you are saying is wrong. It’s not that you feel something is sweet, you feel something that someone or someting compared with tells you that it’s sweet. Eg. if everything is sweet, what’s bitter?
Your broken logic would then mean that if my “gut feeling” tells me you it’s “good” to kill you, I’m right because you agree with it. Values must be universal, and “gut feeling” is hardly such.
Truth is, whatever you consider “good” or “better” is based on values that you learned through your experience, and all your values are defined by some religion. They defined your virtues long ago, and you are now accepting them thinking that it’s your “gut feeling” when it really isn’t.
Prove it.
Boy children are more valuable than girl children? Gay people are evil? Those are widely held beliefs in many parts of the world, many people would call them “gut feelings,” but they are not values I share. Values are NOT “universal,” as proven by those two examples.
As a Christian who happens to be a United Methodist, I base my values on prayerful consideration of (1) the Bible, (2) tradition, (3) reason, and (4) personal experience. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral
Scripture is paramount, but it informs only my spiritual and moral decisions — the decisions in which empiricism offers little help.
The Bible is not a scientific document, and was never intended to be treated as one, while empiricism is ill-suited as a moral or spiritual resource. The Old Testament provides a historical and mythological foundation fior the New Testament, and the New Testament contains the new covenant found in the teachings of Christ. Christ taught through stories and stated principles, but He avoided the Old Testament trap of laying out detailed rules.
This means there is room for differences of opinion between people who can follow different rules and still consider themselves followers of Christ. (See Romans, Ch 14). Values vary, and that is okay — so long as the innocent are protected from the selfish values of others..
I disagree. The sensory impression of sweetness is not dependent on other tastes. Color is the same. If I was raised in a room with only white objects and one day someone showed me a rose I would experience the color red. It won’t matter that I have never seen blue. (Likewise if I was blind and my sight was restored, it wouldn’t matter that I was seeing nothing before.) Or closer to your point, if I was raised in a red room my whole life I would still be experiencing the color red and I could compare it to the “nothing” of closing my eyes (comparable to not having food in my mouth for sweetness, or the choice of not murdering someone.)
You would think it was right, but then you would be a sociopath. Your brain is broken. I think the majority of humans tend to operate along certain universal values. Cultures vary a great deal, but those differences are just details.
Personally I wasn’t raised with a religion. I never went to church.
Maybe we are leaning towards a nature vs. nurture debate. Certain cultures might encourage their members to do actions that another culture would deem immoral, but again I think those are just details. Many anthropologists have shows that there are certain universals that transcend all cultures, such as “murder is a bad thing” or “you should respect elders” etc. Other things that people still call “values” are not universal, such as “sex before marriage is bad”, so it depends what you are talking about.
I think evolution has worked on the brains of social primates causing human brains to tend towards a certain general system of ethics. It’s not exact, and can be influenced and pushed this way and that. Who knows, maybe our brains will continue to evolve to develop an even finer moral sense. This subject is very complicated and I’m no expert.
Check out this article by Steven Pinker who knows a lot more than me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
Linda wrote:
Yes, but I think it’s two things. The “software” given to us by the things you mention; our family and culture. Plus the “hardware” of our brain structure that is the legacy of our evolution as social primates.
True_believer asks
How to hell are you going to know what’s “right”? HOW? Its just rethorical question I know you can’t answer if you are atheist. If you really need to spend time asking Why, then ask your self why is your “right” right? How are you going to decide what is “saving a planet”, “justice”, etc?
Research by behavioral scientists has shown that a person’s moral beliefs and behaviors are the result of the combination of innate trends, education, social development, intelligence. and the influence of mass communication. Kohlberg’s moral development scale, which has been around for half a century, provides a schemata which parallels the stages of intellectual and cognitive development outlined by Piaget.
Here is a summary of Kohlberg’s six moral stages.
1. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.
2. Children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
3. (Early teens). Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.
4. People at this level make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole. The emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained.
5. People at this level believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all
6. The principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity of all people as individuals. Democratic processes are insufficient because a majority may vote for a law that hinders a minority.
The Yaweh god depicted in the Jewish and Christian scriptures is stuck on the lower rungs of this scale and often does not even make the first rung. Directing his followers to engage in the wholesale and complete slaughter of innocent women and children in neighboring tribes can only be termed “moral” by impressive linguistic gymnastics or by redefining the meaning of that word.
American-style fundamentalist Christians have generally developed morally beyond the god they think they worship but are frequently still stuck in the childhood stages of moral development. They use a text book written from the perspective of Stage One morality, cherry-pick the contents to match their own level of moral developement vis a vis current society and then arrogantly assume that they and/or their current leaders can infallibly interpret the passages. They ignore the ominous sign that there are almost as many moral interpretations of these writings as there are followers who believe themselves to be divinely inspired while interpreting them. The result is a group of dangerous individuals who believe that their stage of moral development is benignly divine and who are not open to the higher forms of moral reasoning.
The intension of OP was probably to show similarities, and in that way was positive. Although the amount of ignorance contained there is almost unbearable, that intention makes up for some of it I guess.
As is usual in these kinds of discussions, most of the ignorance is unfortunately displayed by those who believe that they are supernaturally guided. The ignorance which most Christians have about their text book and the development and history of their current belief set is absolutely extraordinary. While all devout Muslims read their religious text book from start to finish on a regular basis very few Christians have managed to read their text in this fashion even once.
The American Gideon Society promotes this by distributing Bibles which are poorly translated from the original languages into a language which no-one speaks and few can fully understand these days. Try asking a Gideon member how long it last took them to read their distribution material from cover to cover. Then ask them why a book which they claim is at least divinely inspired is so unclear and/or unreadable that it is necessary to include instructions on “How to become a Christian” at the front of the manuscript. Can it be because people who do manage to read the book sequentially in its uncensored entirety are unlikely to come up with the same “executive summary” of its contents? Is it put there as an easy-reading alternative to the turgid text to follow in order to lure people away from discovering the moral bankruptcy of the main god described within? It is sad but true that the higher one rates on the Kohlberg moral scale the more likely it is that reading the Christian text book will result in a-theism rather than continuing theism.
Rosemary,
What a wonderful post. Fantastic answer. I’m going to post it, if you don’t mind, to a discussion thread on the Friendly Atheist Boards.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm
“Higher forms of morality”!
It sounds somewhat arrogant, don’t you think? I might be mistaken.
Other problem I got with your scripture is that you name people, like Christians, Muslims and Jews. That is pretty much one and a same culture. How much you know about truly different societies and cultures, their customs, values and moral codes? (Kohlbert and Piaget excepted, good and extensive knowledge on them I guess
)
Oh, and ignorance is exclusively displayed by ignorant people. OP qualifies 100%, whereas I’m not too sure about your “fundamentalist Christians”. There are many that call themselves Christians, but are light-years away from being what they claim. Obviously there might be some ignorance involved, I agree. It’s not limited to Christianity of course. People claim to be Muslims same way, without accepting basics of Islam. You can’t take them as example for the rest of people who really are practicing their religion. It’s also a little bit ignorant from your side.
And you NYC didn’t understand my comparison. Let’s try again with your room and colors:
You live in a room where everything is blue, and there are 5 other people in there. One of them makes red pile of poo in the middle of the room. Now, it happens that you are color blind. Two people will tell you that poo is red; two other people will tell you that they would rather call that color green, and to you it looks bluish like everything else. My point is that you are probably not going to start investigating its color, because it’s still piece of shit. You might try to get bastard who did it to clean it up as well.
True_believer said,
“Higher forms of morality”!
It sounds somewhat arrogant, don’t you think? I might be mistaken.
Yep. You’re mistaken.
There is a mathematical formulae for deciding what is “higher” or “lower” on psychological scales of development. Mathematics does not possess human emotion or characteristics. Progression from one stage to another on a developmental hierarchy requires demonstration that the movement is linear and uni-directional. You cannot progress to a higher stage until you have mastered the earlier ones. Regression to earlier stages is only seen during the transition period and thereafter only in times of stress, illness and cognitive impairment.
True_believer said, Other problem I got with your scripture is that you name people, like Christians, Muslims and Jews. That is pretty much one and a same culture.
“My” scripture??? What is that? While Christianity, Islam and Judaism originated from the same source I cannot agree that they are the same “culture”. Not even the various Christian belief sets could be defined as “one and the same culture”. When you add the Christian derivatives the cultural clash is even greater.
True_believer asked: How much you know about truly different societies and cultures, their customs, values and moral codes?
It’s irrelevant to the argument, but since you asked: I am a multi-cultured person who spent my formative years in a highly integrated and very multicultural country before spending months to years in several others. My profession requires that I am very aware of the differences between the culture I once took for granted and the cultures and belief sets of the people I work with. How about you? How many countries have you lived in? Do you work closely with foreign nationals?
True_believer states: Oh, and ignorance is exclusively displayed by ignorant people.
No. Ignorance is displayed by absolutely everyone. “Ignorant people” are usually those people who think that they are the exception.
NYCatheist said:
Thanks for that example and the link! I never liked that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” chestnut, it’s just not always true. If you can’t find evidence of a rhino in your bathtub (such as, for example, the actual rhino), I’m thinking it’s just not there.
By all means! I’ve been in and out with something nasty I can’t shake, so I keep dropping threads. It’s nice to know someone out there will set straight those who need to be set.
Please refer to part of my reply to NYCatheist, you know, room, poo, color of it …
I will probably never be as multi-cultural as you, and for that I envy you. I only lived in 5 countries so far for longer period of time. I’m planning to visit some more in the future hopefully. But I didn’t mean how well you communicate or interact with your environment, what I mean is full grasp of what they deem as virtues, ethics and morality. It doesn’t include customs, local fashion or trends that come and go, I mean real deal.
True_believer said,
Complete and utter crapspackle! Sweet is sweet, and the brain is hard-wired to recognize that. It’s not comparative – if someone never tasted anything bitter in their life they would still recognize sweet. It’s a damn bad analogy. Now, the fact that you consider bitter instead of sour to be the opposite of sweet, that’s cultural.
Nope, NYCatheist and Siamang were right – anyone who feels that way has a broken moral sense, not fixable by religion or probably by anything, and values are NOT universal. You just think they should be. Oh, and by some interesting coincidence, those ‘universal values’ should no doubt be the ones you like, not the ones currently preferred by other cultures…..
If you really think all cultures share a universal set of values (which, again, is no doubt one you approve of) then you are very much seeing only what you want to see in those other cultures.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm said,
Thanks so much for solving a decades-old question for me! I read about Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in high school, and wished I could remember the name and the levels often in the intervening years. It explains so much, so very well.
That was exactly my point. You seem to side with them regardless. What does that makes you I wonder?
Besides, any cognitive scientist will tell you that you are wrong about perception, but that was only example anyway, so it’s irrelevant.
What is relevant was in that copy/paste Rosemary’s essay:
So yeah, thanks for confirming it.
True_believer said,
That’s an old dodge, trying to claim that people are now agreeing with you, thus making you right all along. Ha! Not even close, unless your point was that we don’t need religion to tell us what’s right and what’s wrong. In that case, yes, glad you agree.
Name one. Cite me a reference.
Exactly how dishonest are you, anyway? That is ABSOLUTELY NOT a quote of what Rosemary said – all that stuff about religion was added by YOU. That’s about the level of intellectual dishonesty I’m coming to expect from you.
Well, that was ABSOLUTLY OBVIOUS, captain. I just couldn’t be stuffed putting quotes 10 times in there, and I put brackets instead. Since you are such hypocrite, she actually copy/pasted someone else’s work without link or quotes. Come down, I don’t see a reason for such hostility, especially from someone atheistic (as in “religion causing wars” and similar accusations here somewhere). You may want to discuss it if you don’t agree with me, but please don’t lie or call me dishonest. There is not much point in it, proves nothing and puts us both in bad situation. Try to prove me wrong with real arguments instead.
Rosemary, will you marry me?!
I think I see now why true believer is such an expert on that red poo he’s always talking about.
True_believer wrote:
I’m not sure what your analogy is illustrating. I was showing that my “feeling” of murder being bad is similar to my “feeling” that sugar is sweet. In your example the person is color blind which corresponds to someone being “morally blind”. In other words, the person is a sociopath and their brain is broken.
I know my original analogy isn’t perfect, but I think people are born with a general ethical tool kit that needs to be nourished and educated just like our potential for language. A baby raised by wolves might not develop a healthy moral sense just like they won’t develop language. But I think it’s easier to raise a child to be a good person, just as it is easier to raise a kid to speak a language. (Ie. they seem to just vacuum up new words and sentence patterns they hear in the environment. To raise a serial killer would take a concerted effort to “break” the inherent good nature of a child, and would require a warped moral sense in the parent as well.) So it is not as “hard wired” as our sense of color. (The wolf baby would still perceive the color red and the taste of sweet for example.) If I were to guess why I would say that the modules in the brain which process basic senses like color and taste evolved billions of years before the moral sense which evolved relatively recently in social primates.
Also it may seem I am diverging from other atheists here in supposing there actually are universal values, but I am talking about a certain specific subset of “values” which do tend to cross all cultural lines.
True_believer, did you read the Steven Pinker article I linked to? It’s very interesting.
To Rosemary Lyndall Wemm,
I also must say, excellent!
Kohlberg’s scale is interesting, but I am highly doubtful of claims that it is mathematically proven and not subject to dispute. As I understand it, Kohlberg also concluded that very few people reach the highest level of development: Christ, Buddha, and Kohlberg himself being among the elite.
It is a useful tool, and it agrees with my own perceptions (sent my kids to a pre-school based on Piaget’s constructivist development model), but I just don’t see any possible way for Kohlberg’s hierarchy to be evaluated as an objective truth, rather than a subjective belief. Somewhere, somehow, you have to make assumptions — and those assumptions WILL be subject to challenge. In fact, I understand that his hierarchy HAS been challenged by scholars who are far more qualified than I.
Not saying Kohlberg is wrong. Just saying you don’t want to be . . . dogmatic about it.
True_believer said,
I have, more than once, but you keep not replying to those parts. Still waiting for that citation from a cogitive scientist, by the way….
I guess I mistook sloppy scholarhip and incorrect use of conventions for dishonesty, that can happen. But if that’s what you intended, all you had to do was end with ‘parts in brackets are mine’ and that would have been clear, but clarity doesn’t seem to be your strong suite.
Stomper said
Kohlberg’s model is as open to question as any other. It does, indeed, have its critics and several holes in its logic have been established, including Kohlberg’s self-established status at the top of the moral rung.
As you point out, it cannot be mathematically proven in the same sense of rigorous physics or chemistry can be proven. The mathematical aspects of the model refer to its claim to provide a description of a valid heirarchy. Kohlberg himself has questioned this in relation to his 6th rung. Like every other scientific theory, its acceptance depends on its ability to withstand constant review. Like them, it needs to be revised or abandoned in the light of new evidence. So far it has survived with modifications and waivers.
Like intelligence and cognitive style, there are few absolute universals in the moral sphere. Like them, however, there is evidence that mankind is continuing to develop. Much of what was “intelligent” behavior in the iron age would be described as evidence of mentally deficiency in this century. Much of what was deemed to be “moral” in the iron age would be described in criminal terms today. In fact, we only have to look back fifty years to see how our concepts of intelligence and morality have developed. There is a curious phenomena in the US, however, where absolute measures of knowledge and intelligence strongly suggest that the average citizen’s intellectual competence has fallen dramatically over the last century. But let us not be side-tracked on that issue on-list.
Whether Kohlberg’s model is the ultimate descriptor of moral development is actually irrelevant to the original point of this on-line discussion. The point is that there is a well-established and well-supported consensus among behavioral scientists that there is ample evidence to support the notion that moral development is a natural phenomena which occurs regardless of exposure to belief systems which claim a supernatural backing. There is an equally strong and well-supported censensus that moral development may be hindered by over-exposure to environments which stress compliance with authoratively-based moral systems. This, however, needs to be put in context.
The main causes of what is collectively labeled as “immoral” behavior are neurological developmental defects and poor nurturing, especially in the early years. This is somewhat problematic for those who believe that a supernatural being creates people with such defects and/or places them in harmful environments without also providing the means of escape. It raises insurmountable conflicts relating to the benevolence and powerfulness of the supernatural entity.
Rosemary:
Ah, I see. I certainly agree that the concept of moral/immoral behavior has changed substantially over time. In the Bible, this is reflected by profound differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament (in the values reflected by the stories, as well as in the covenants between God and the faithful).
I also agree that children learn (or fail to learn) moral values from their environment. Religion certainly does not have a monopoly on moral behavior, but it can be a useful tool for teaching moral values. Religion is not an exclusive tool — there are others.
The evidence seems to suggest that moral behavior is a social construct, and thus changes as society changes. The few “universal” moral rules (if any) would arguably reflect universal traits of all successful human societies, rather than any hardwired instinct to behave morally.
If true, then this presents a problem for traditionalist, fundamentalist, and literalist approaches to faith — as society’s needs change, adherence to old rules can become silly or even counterproductive for society as a whole.
Example of non-universal rule: Cannibalism is “universally” prohibited and condemned in all human societies — except in small, isolated (and sometimes temporary) societies in which cannibalism is necessary for survival (i.e., plane crashes in the Andes, stranded wagon trains, life boats, and islands with insufficient protein sources). If there are exceptions, then it is not “universal.”
Another example: Killing other people is also “universally” condemned — except as to warriors in battle, government execution of criminals, self-defense, defense of loved ones or property, or (in some minds, at least) euthanasia.
Anyone who claims there are universal moral rules should provide at least one specific example. I’ll bet posters here can identify at least 3 exceptions for each alleged example. There are no “universal” or “instinctive” moral rules — but society can instill the required rules without resort to religion, and it is a mistake to suggest that religion is an essential component of moral teaching.
You are certainly correct, that most believers struggle with the question, “Why do bad things happen to good (or innocent) people?” The Roman Catholics fabricated the concept of “limbo” or “purgatory” to address this very question. Other answers are likewise a bit strained or contrived.
I frequently ask God that question, and I’m still waiting for a satisfactory answer. It is entirely possible that I am incapable of being satisfied by the answer, due to my own limitations. That possibility does not stop me from asking.
Whenever you pray to “god” you are in fact praying to yourself. Because you are god! Give yourself some credit for creating reality as you see fit. Only god can do this!
Ramtha:
Interesting notion, but that does not square with my beliefs. If it works for you, though, then feel free.
Fascinating list, but you could add Allah, Jesus, Jehova, eloheim, creator, Master, etc. etc. The God or Gods of the Bible have numerous names. I can’t think of any post you could have made that would elicit more comment than this one. Thanks for stirring up the dialogue.
Some of us look out there to the ever an expanding, infinite universe and hear modern science suggesting that galaxies rise and fall over time in some system of forces that we do not yet understand well and so they call it dark energy and dark matter because they have no idea yet what it is, but are quick to agree that it controls everything out there. Some of us prefer to think that these are tools of a supreme being, or prefer to just call it God. Am I right in my understanding that Atheists agree the unexplained forces are out there, but prefer to not agree that they are God centered?
Whether we view those infinite creative forces out there as God-centered or not, one still cannot answer the questions about where and how it all started, and why? Nor the questions about why it continues to perpetuate itself , with some galaxies and solar systems burning out while others are being created, on a perpetual basis. If there is either an Atheist, agnostic, or God believer out there that can answer those kinds of questions, I would be interested. Both science and religion know so very little so far about how it all came about and where it is all going from here. This earth is such an infitesimal small part of the whole, that it is scarcely a sand on the seashore. So, info on the creation of this earth only does not answer my questions.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Flying Spaghetti Monster needs to be up there and the list is even because Atheists believe in him, hell they created him.
Buddda is worshipped by a lot of Eastern cultures so he is considered a man that became a Deity.
I don’t know why everyone has such respect for Budda, he is a fat ass that would have diabetes if he lived today in America. He supposedly floated to Heaven, now thats a damn miracle getting his lard ass off the ground.
Most educated believers do not struggle with that question. I’m not educated, but I could try to explain it to you the way I understand it and I’ll even try to generalise as much as possible to include most religions.
This life to me is a test, greatly simplified comparable to a game or even a race. In this “game”, I am given rules I am not bound to obey and rules I can’t avoid to obey. Ones I can disobey will influence my path, but my start and end point are always the same. Ones I can’t disobey will insure that I’ll get there. I am born, and I will die. No matter what I do, it’s inevitable. Where my path leads, how it’s laid out is more-less irrelevant to end result. Only relevant thing is how I do things, what I take as my guide on my path, all because of afterlife.
My path might have many obstacles, I might encounter terror, grief, sorrow, etc but that is only way to actually give me opportunity to make my choices, make my path, to do something with what I’m given. I can’t truly know if I can overcome such obstacle without facing it, no matter what I think, wish or declare. I could claim anything, but that is pointless without me acting accordingly and proving I really mean it.
The way I “played my game”, “ran my race”, “walked my path”, “fought my battle” or (to call it right name) lived will determine how I will be judged in afterlife. That judgement will decide how my afterlife will be. I of course know that there is afterlife. Compared to afterlife, length of this life is infinitesimal. That does not mean that life is not valuable. A chance to show how you are is precious gift. Cutting short someone else’s ability for same is hideous crime.
There is way more to this “game”, but I might spoil enjoyment of finding out on their own for some, so I’ll stop my theistic “game model” at this. I’ll only add: “Why do bad things happen to good (or innocent) people?” is in my eyes just plain whinge. See under here. You should be thankful for your chance and for everything else. I hope this is at least close to satisfactory.
You know, the simple fact that you know of theories regarding dark matter, collapsing galaxies — or even the shape of the Earth or the makeup of our solar system is entirely due to science.
You are correct that science does not know the answers to the origin of the Universe question – yet. And science may never figure it out, but they’re the only ones trying to in a way that has a proven track record of working.
What gains in science can we credit religion? There were some religious people in the past (and present, I assume) who use the scientific method and learned more about our world, but religion and religious belief itself has not progressed man beyond creating bigger tribes of us vs. them (necessary as our civilization grew, but not a factor in scientific development).
Feel free. And if science figures out what they call “dark matter” is and exactly how it works, you can do what all most religous folks do and stop seeing God in solved science and marginalize him further into the things science has not yet figured out. Or you can deny the science and instruct people to not learn it, I suppose.
There will always be mysteries in this universe we live in. If it makes one more comfortable to believe that the answer is God, that’s fine. Just don’t get upset if the people who want real answers keep looking.
Chuck Rowles: You are reacting to a vocal minority of ignorant believers. Most of us have no objection to science answering questions. Many of us no longer see religion as a tool for explaining the physical world. Religious faith is a tool for addressing our spiritual needs and desires. I don’t expect science to ever fill THAT role.
True_believer: If that explanation works for you, then I’m happy for you. But it is still true that most believers struggle to understand why “bad things happen to good people,” and most believers are at least uncomfortable (if not outright horrified) by the idea that birth defects, child abuse, rape, torture, starvation and genocide are all part of some “game.” Have you ever attended a funeral for a child? If most believers are not concerned about the issue, then why are there so many books, sermons and essays attempting to address this issue?
Fact is, a just, loving, wise and powerful God (the God I believe in) is not going to cause (or allow) the innocent to suffer and die without a really, really good reason. I have not yet seen any scholars, theologians, or religious leaders offer a reason that qualifies as more than “possibly good enough.” For me, the idea that this is a “game” or a “test” is a really BAD reason. So you’ll forgive me if I keep looking.
There will always be mysteries in this universe we live in. If it makes one more comfortable to believe that the answer is God, that’s fine. Just don’t get upset if the people who want real answers keep looking.
Stomper: I hope people everywhere and of every persuasion keep looking for better answers. I assure you I will not be upset with the search or with the results. What does upset me is religionists or scientists who start to think that they already have the final and total answers. Combined, I think they both know almost nothing compared to what there is to yet learn and to understand.
The world’s largest particle accelerator is under construction at an underground facility on the French/Swiss border. Its purpose is to try and discover more about the make up of matter. The scientists there jokingly say they are searching for the “God” particle. The current issue of National Geographic has a good spread on this. Maybe their serious work will contribute a little more to our fields of knowledge over the next decades. Tell me, Stomper, do you think that if they do discover some more basic elements of matter and/or forces that hold matter together at the microscopic level, that it will give us any hints as to how the infinite, macroscopic existence of universes and worlds without number that are out there, ever got started or what is in play to perpetuate their continual cycle of creation and re-creation?
I don’t think that anything is created from nothing. There is something out there that is causing matter and energy to be organized, then unorganized, then reorganized, and then re unorganized, etc, etc, in a perpetual process of creation. Now, I am not real good at philosophy, but I like to think that this perpetual process applies not only in the massive sense, such as with universes, but all the way down to blades of grass and microscopic life on any one specific planet out of the numberless ones, such as ours. Somewhere there is a controlling, driving, organizing force that is keeping it all in synch. I cannot see how any true scientist or searcher for truth can think that the process is haphazard.
Anyway, thank you for your response.
Old Mormon Guy:
I saw the NG article. I hope they find the Higgs Boson. Better yet, I hope it doesn’t behave the way they expect it to, so they can learn more than merely confirming current theories. I want science to explain as much as it possibly can, and that means we can never assume that we already know all we need to know.
Either way, I believe that basic research ALWAYS pays off in the long run, and the US is losing its lead because it mostly quit investing in basic research after the Apollo program. We coasted on that research for a long time, but now we have lost our momentum. Remember the Supercollider project that was started in Texas, and then abandoned?
This new accelerator will teach scientists something, but I will not pretend that I can predict what it will teach them.
Sounds like you are talking about Intelligent Design, at least as a gap-filler. I am open to the possibility of Intelligent Design, but I will not be surprised if science fills in those gaps during my lifetime. My faith does not depend on God being an Intelligent Designer. In any event, ID is not science, and should not be taught as science — it is a matter of faith, and I do not trust our schools to teach faith appropriately.
What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Old Mormon Guy said,
I have absolutely no problem with viewing the process of creation and maintenance of the physical world and the universe as a haphazard process. What I do have a problem with is your suggestion that this disqualifies me as a “true scientist or searcher for the truth”. I think this qualifies as “wish fulfilment” on your part.
Bart Ehrman, former evangelical Christian, current agnostic and author of the best-selling “Misquoting Jesus,” has got a new book out right now on this very question: The problem of suffering.
He was interviewed on Tuesday by Terry Gross on Fresh Air. He goes through all the various Biblical explanations for suffering (free will, god’s punishment, etc) and concludes that none of them work. Which is a major reason he’s no longer a theist.
Stomper said: “Sounds like you are talking about Intelligent Design, at least as a gap-filler.”
After all these years on the earth, and being in technical and scientific work, I do not think my idea about God and science really fits the ‘intelligent design’ mantra, at least not precisely. I think that I am closer to the idea of a supervised or watched over or guided evolution. I am not willing to give up the idea of God. You are right, my soul seems to require a gap filler between my faith and my science.
Yes, I do remember the super collider. I was involved in helping my company get some nice contracts to help build some of the paraphenalia that was going to go into the project, and they all evaporated when the project was cancelled. So, I remember it well.
Rosemary:
I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else is not a searcher for the truth. Please forgive me. Let me try to make my point another way.
As I can allow my searching mind to get further and further out there into the expanse of universes, and try to look at the big picture from out there instead of a myopic view from this one little planet on which I live, I think I see a synchronous rythm in what is happening and what has happened, so far as I am able to learn about it. As I am moving along now into the last quarter of my life, my internal compasses and decision makers tell me more and more that it is not all by chance. I can see how many, perhaps like yourself, prefer to view it all as random, and that is ok with me. I just am coming toward the end here with a different set of understandings. It is not clear to me how the organization that I see in it all is not visible to everyone. PEACE.
Old Mormon Guy:
I recall engaging in similar rationalizations when I was in the middle of exploring the beliefs which had meant so much to me in my younger years. It is an uncomfortable experience and I applaud you for hanging in there.
No great offense taken. The comments was meant to help you see that your world view may be a little bent
- Rosemary
Yes, it’s definitely your “limitations”. You already answered it and I was aware of that, I just wanted you to contradict your self, so you may see it as well, all because I like you.
As for Science, I capitalised it there for a reason. Many (atheistic) people abuse science as their surrogate religion. Some science methods are very similar to religion. Sometimes you must believe in a theory beforehand to be able to prove it. You can prove prety much anything if you start with stuid enough presumtions. I don’t think that’s their main reason, it’s just because they feel empty and need something, anything to fill them. I’m just repeating what someone else said here in previous post, can’t be stuffed quoting. (please don’t kill me Clair, I really like you too, you must be redhead like me “You are not f-ing bleeping me!”
Good day.
Your Unfriendly Theist
Perhaps I should have more clearly said that the reasons offered to explain suffering do not satisfy ME as more than “possibly good enough.” I did not intend to suggest that there is any objective, measurable standard for saying any particular answer is sufficient. In fact, I thought I was suggesting otherwise. Sorry if I confused you about my position.
There is no comfort in exploring the limits of our beliefs. Whether atheist, agnostic, or faithful, we accomplish nothing — either spiritually or intellectually — if we stay in our comfort zones. We can only learn and grow if we are willing to objectively confront our own comfortably-held beliefs.
If you are 100% comfortable with your beliefs, and you have nothing more to learn, then your spiritual and intellectual growth have atrophied. That’s common, but it is not good.
True_believer said,
Example?
Really? Where’s my Mr. Fusion then?
What wasn’t their main reason?. I’m not sure what “they” and “that” is referring to in your sentence. (atheists? scientists?)
I’m not exactly sure what you’re talking about, but if you mean scientists doing science, they’re doing it because it’s their job. I assume they chose that career because they were curious about the field they are working in. If you’re talking about atheists treating science like a religion I haven’t met any atheists who do so. There might be some out there, but I would say they are nuts. Can you give an example of an atheist who treats science like a religion? Also, what do you mean by empty? How do you know they (whoever) are feeling empty?
I’ve never seen scientists praying to Darwin or Einstein. I’ve never seen them chant the scientific method before doing an experiment. And I certainly have never seen a scientist appeal to faith to back up a hypothesis.
What part are you repeating?
You didn’t really reply to my following comments:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/#comment-128701
http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/#comment-131088
Not every question is rhetorical.
I know you said you can’t be stuffed quoting, but it really helps make the discussion easier to follow.
True_believer
======
True_believer:
Implying that someone is an idiot when you are confronted with your own lack of knowledge is not an endearing feature. Unfortunately it conforms to the stereotype which many thoughtful theists and non-theists have formed of the average American-style Fundie. If this is not the image you wish to portray, and you find yourself unable to refrain from this habit, then you may wish to examine your reasons for involving yourself in a forum which is likely to uncomfortably challenge your world view and painfully expose the gaps in your knowledge and understanding.
Forgive me for expressing my frustration but it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are out of your depth in this discussion. It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you when you persistently fail to understand the logic of what is said, insist that we answer questions which make no sense and repeatedly attribute thoughts and feelings to other people and to groups which you acknowledge you have never been part of.
For the record:
• Non-theists are no more likely to feel emptiness or lack of meaning in their life than someone who has given up a belief in Santa Claus, Fairies, the Easter Bunny or the omniscience and total benevolence of their parents. The transition period from belief to non-belief can be extremely uncomfortable. After that, the rest of life simply continues from a different perspective. There is no “gap” to fill. The gap is a mental projection of those who are terrified of losing their familiar world view. They think it should exist so they invent it. It does not exist in reality.
• Educated and intelligent people throughout recorded history have struggled to resolve the cognitive contradiction between the concept of an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful entity and the pain and suffering which happens to innocent and good people. Short of throwing out the god-concept or changing the characteristics attributed of the god, the only safe haven from this discomfit is the possession of an authoritarian personality with a narrow construct tolerance. This largely genetic feature allows the person to engage in ostrich-like denial of logical conflicts. The rest of us are not so lucky.
• It is extremely difficult to treat the scientific method as a religion. It is designed to prevent people’s prejudices from interfering with their observation of cause and effect. Most of the advances in knowledge and understanding over the last few centuries have come from the application of this method. It is not a perfect model but it has a far better track record than any religious method of obtaining knowledge.
The application of this method is not without problems.
It possible to bias research outcomes if the study is based on unfounded assumptions or the researcher fails to consider and control certain variables. This is bad science but it is generally caught out by other scientists who apply the scientific method by considering the methodology of the study. If the way in which a study was conducted or statistically analyzed can be faulted then the findings of that study are open to question. Those with a limited scientific background cannot be expected to tell the difference between good science and bad science, reliable findings and doubtful ones. That is why the Creation Hypothesis is almost exclusively entertained by those who do not rigorously practice the scientific method.
Likewise, the interpretation of scientific findings can be manipulated according to someone’s prejudices or ignorance. That is why scientific journals exist and why scientists provide a review of the findings and conclusions of other scientists before reporting on their own contribution in the area.
It is also possible to treat the products of the scientific method as a religion. This is very unscientific because the essence of the scientific method is to question everything – and go questioning it, even when it appears to be extremely well founded. That is where science differs from religion.
A good science education includes a unit on the essential differences between a “science” and a “religion” or other “ideology”. Popper’s definition is that science sets things up so that they can be falsified whereas religion sets things up so that falsification is impossible. For example, there is no way of disproving the existence of a god: your version or anyone else’s. All gods are equally probable and equally incapable of disproof. Which is where we began this discussion, I believe.
Rosemary:
I agree that True_believer is clearly out of his/her depth, but it appears you’ve let True_believer get to you. Your generalization about non-theists not feeling a void is . . . well, a generalization about a large group of people and therefore patently false. I am sure there are some non-theists who never really needed or wanted a spiritual side, and those people lose nothing they value when they give up faith. I am equally sure there are non-theists who seek substitutes for the spiritual fulfillment they have abandoned.
Most people do have a spiritual side, whether they neglect it or not (one big reason for the pervasiveness of religion). There ARE people (I’ve encountered many online) who may not worship Empiricism in any traditional, religious sense, but who nevertheless show absolute faith in Empiricism as the source of ALL power, knowledge and happiness. If that is true, it cannot be proven — it is just a Theory
. A case can be made that these people “worship” science. I am certainly not contending that anyone here fits that description.
Truth is, empiricism and religion are not comparable — they are apples and orangutangs. Many of these disputes seem to arise from people ignorantly (or deliberately) overlooking that point. Faith should not be taught as science, and it should not shape public policy. Faith should be taught in the family and the church, and it should shape our personal decisions.
God is not subject to empirical proof, and (as you pointed out) empiricism works best when there is no faith involved. Which brings me back to MY first comment.
Stomper.
Admonishment accepted. Mea culpa
Stomper said;
No, not patently false at all, if you are using the word in a general sense, rather than in its specific meaning in logic. Without generalizations (by which I mean statements that include such words as ‘most’, ‘many’, ’some’, or Rosemary’s ‘no more likely’ and make general inferences), we would be unable to discuss anything that wasn’t all or none. As long as we don’t forget that ‘most’ doesn’t mean ‘every’, they are useful.
I think it’s more than some who never needed one, although I have no statistics.
When a person gives something up because they have outgrown it, can they really be said to have lost anything? Growth and change can be painful, but if someone puts faith behind them because they have outgrown it, why should that create what you called a void?
Rosemary compared the abandonment of faith to giving up belief in Santa Claus, Fairies, or the Easter Bunny, and that comparison made her generalization overly broad. I called her on it, because giving up those beliefs is so nearly universal as to be 100% for all practical purposes (particularly when we exclude the mentally challenged and mentally ill), which makes the comparison to them a gross over-generalization. She very graciously acknowledged that.
As I noted, I have met a number of self-procaimed “atheists” (particularly the so-called “strong atheists” ) who have merely substituted one form of faith for another. The most common substitutes I have encountered? Faith in Empiricism, or faith that God does NOT exist (those “strong atheists” again).
Many other “atheists” have essentially abandoned faith altogether (if we disregard the faith/assumptions that existential philosophy says we ALL get by on). Those are the kind I have encountered here. Setting aside the arrogant, patronizing and otherwise insulting implications from saying these people “outgrew” their spirituality, I would (and already did) agree that some people never miss the spiritual life they abandoned.
In short, I have met far more “atheists” who have substituted some other form of faith (30+), than I have met legally competent adults who still believe in Santa Claus, fairies, or the Easter Bunny (none).
Stomper said:
Why should the numbers matter, in this case? As long as the central matter in question is the same (something a person believed in and valued is shown to be false), that seems to be more important than the fact that more people have done the one than the other.
This is not an experience I have had, as I never was religious. But I have read many first-hand accounts, mostly on this blog, from people who used to believe and now don’t. The only common thread I have found that runs between them, the only word I can find that describes all of them, is ‘growth’. Hence the use of the word ‘outgrew’ in reference to what happened. It wasn’t intended to insult, it’s just the most accurate word I could find to describe what those accounts all had in common.
It is insulting, whether intended or not. There are many content-neutral words which convey the idea without insult: people can change their beliefs, give up their beliefs, adopt new beliefs, abandon their beliefs, etc.
Numbers matter only in the sense that you were defending Rosemary’s comparison, by saying Rosemary offered a generalization with an implied “but of course there are exceptions.” The comparison she used, though, does not have any competent, adult exceptions.
If you can’t see the distinction — if you honestly think that belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Claus, fairies, or the Easter Bunny (an argument I have heard numerous times) — then it is hard to believe that your insult was inadvertent.
My faith is genuine, and not a show I put on to entertain the kids. If you cannot respect that difference in belief, then I have nothing further to say to you.
Claire,
Thanks for the support. Stomper, however, is right to admonish me for falling into the trap of doing exactly what I was upbraiding True_Believer for: generalizing for an entire group of people for whom I do not have good sample statistics.
While I have yet to meet an ex-theist who believes that their belief loss has caused a void in their life, I have not meet all of them so it is conceivable that some do feel this way.
Personally (that’s safe, I think), I don’t experience a void. I have fond memories of some of the emotional aspects of my former beliefs but I have experienced similar feelings in other contexts since then.
“Spirituality” and altered states of consciousness are not the exclusive domain of religion or god belief. Buddhism can attest to that. So can Yoga and Eastern meditation practices.
So can the well known atheist, Richard Dawkins. He has a positively delicious account at the beginning of “The God Delusion” about his communion with nature.
There are times when I miss the certainty and closure which some aspects of my previous belief set provided. I find it disturbing to consider my mortality and eventual death, especially now that I have reached the age where there are too many funerals for close friends and relatives. It is distressing to acknowledge that man’s life on this planet is not eternal and we may even be witnessing the beginnings of a climate change which will ensure that it ends within a couple of centuries. I find it frightening when faced with evidence that the planet Earth is doomed, and the milky way will eventually be swallowed by a neighbouring galaxy. None of this is in the least bit comforting.
But my intellectual integrity will not let me revert to something which I believe has no basis in reality simply to escape from the cold hard facts of life – or lack of it. It would be so nice to re-believe in Santa, too. Not to mention the fairies. It was such a disappointment to have to discard them.
Stomper, I think I see your objection now- you divide beliefs into those suitable for children but not for adults, and those suitable for adults. Is that it?
And is that what you meant by “difference in belief”?
Rosemary:
I’m not going to claim that I encountered any atheists who expressly acknowledged feeling a void. That is an inference I drew, from my observation that many of them HAVE merely substituted a different form of faith.
Claire:
No. Children can (and are) harmlessly fooled by adults who know better. My faith is an illogical choice based on my own conscious decision to believe, and based on the teachings of others (like my parents) who also genuinely believe. My faith is not a game.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm said,
Actually, it wasn’t so much that, as it was that I was disgreeing that all generalizations are ‘patently false’.
I’m there, too, and you’re right – there’s not a lot of comfort to be had. Climate change is my worst nightmare.
Dammit, now I’m jealous! I don’t remember ever believing in fairies, that would have been so cool…
Stomper, I’m finding you increasingly hard to follow. I still don’t understand your objection, and statements like “my faith is not a game” seem to come from nowhere and I have no idea how they are supposed to relate…
Claire:
I can only write it for you. I can’t understand it for you.
Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny are part of a game adults play with children. When children come to understand this, it provides a minor rite of passage into adulthood. None of these characters are intended to fill a role in the child’s spiritual life.
My faith is something I chose as an adult. If you really cannot see how patronizing it is to compare my faith to childish fantasies, then I suppose I should feel sorry for you, rather than insulted.
Ok, this site is broken, I’ll repost that one since it’s confusing the way it is now:
Yes, it’s definitely your “limitations”. You already answered it and I was aware of that, I just wanted you to contradict your self, so you may see it as well, all because I like you.
As for Science, I capitalised it there for a reason. Many (atheistic) people abuse science as their surrogate religion. Some science methods are very similar to religion. Sometimes you must believe in a theory beforehand to be able to prove it. You can prove prety much anything if you start with stuid enough presumtions. I don’t think that’s their main reason, it’s just because they feel empty and need something, anything to fill them. I’m just repeating what someone else said here in previous post, can’t be stuffed quoting. (please don’t kill me Clair, I really like you too
Stomper said:
Thank you for not only using using the word ‘patronizing’ in a sentence, but also giving me an example of it in your ill-natured comment “I can’t understand it for you”. All it took was explaining that you considered Santa, etc, as “games” that adults play with children, which is not a word I had ever heard used in reference to those things. That made the rest of what you said clear – finally.
Look, I’m getting tired of retyping this because someone (OP? Flying Spaghetti Monster? Stephan?) may or may not deleted my post. Could’ve been me, not clicking “Submit” before closing my browser, could’ve been you broken friggin page. Whatever the cause, this post doesn’t look same, and it pisses me off. I got an idea: you could scratch that “friendly” from “Friendly Atheist” and leave just plain “Atheist”, or maybe change it to: Friendly if you agree, in any case ignorant atheist=nihilist who is sometimes “ignostic” and may or may not delete your post. And better add Chopper Reid on that list OP or you’re going to have fuming religious fanatic on your atheistic or agnostic arse and I’m sure you don’t want that. (nor me, although, it would be rather hilarious)
You also may want to change “friendly” to “happy” because I’m gone. Maybe someone else could do some more service to this discussion other than spamming clichés like me or unrelated psychology and other dogmas like some otherwise very nice people.
“You are not f-ing bleeping me!”
Good day.
Your Unfriendly Theist
Not as broken as you are, True_believer. Why are you reposting stuff that has already been responded to/ completely rebutted? If you didn’t read the responses before, you won’t read them now. You are one seriously broken troll…..
Clair, you need medical attention. This is missing part of that damn post thet gets cut off f-king each time:
Otherwise, I think that science is very positive, since it’s giving us better view of the world around us. It’s great insight into God’s majesty. I don’t think science clashes with true religion. Science can’t prove of disprove God’s existence, since being like Him, that might not even have any substance in common with this world cant be described with its laws.
It would be somewhat equivalent of trying to fit Pacific Ocean into my pool. For many analogy blind people here: Yes, it’s too f-ing small. (o c e a n s _ m u c h _ l a r g e r _ t h e n _ b a t h t u b s, no links available, and I won’t give three examples, sorry)
Someone said before that “science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind” and I would in every respect agree with that. Only things that clash ever are Science and fanatics, or pseudo-science and “believers”, never science and religion.
NYC, please don’t take this wrong way: answers are there and obvious, I can’t make them more obvious to you. Eg. you ask me to post you links on something I said is irrelevant, and that I don’t want to go that direction. Do your own resarch if you think it’s important and prove me wrong. That poo analogy was obvious joke, if you take that seriously, something’s wrong with you. Reason that you don’t understand me seems to be that you are not trying to understand, only trying to contradict me and that is why I didn’t bother to answer. I did tried to answer when I thought it neededs clarifying, like now.
Everyone that replied on that crippled post:
One part of that post you replied to was missing for whatever reason. I tried to repost it in whole again and then I reposted only missing part when it didn’t work. Read it as one and whole please and then ask me then if you still don’t understand what I’m saying there.
I don’t know what you’re referring to. Can you give an example of one of the obvious answers?
Yes, but the original discussion was serious. You said my logic was broken, and I was trying to understand why you thought so.
I am trying to understand, which is why I keep asking you questions and requesting examples or clarifications.
I don’t think I am only trying to contradict you (oops, another contradiction!). Since we are having a debate/discussion contradicting one another is inevitable. I only hope to understand your reasons, and that you understand mine.
Did you read the Steven Pinker article from the NY Times Magazine I linked to? What did you think of it?
I’m sorry you are having so much trouble with posting here. Are you using IE? I’ve had trouble with IE here, but I’ve never had a problem with Firefox. Or if you want to continue this discussion in the forum, the software there might be more manageable.
Ok, let’s back track it. You said that “gut feeling’ is your only moral standard. I said that your logic is broken after you did not understand my analogy regarding that. I’ll explain my analogy and my conclusion in detail as much as I can.
If “gut feeling” is your only guidance, then you must accept it to be same valid for other people, since you are not better than anyone else. Do you really think that all people got same “gut feelings” regarding different issues? I mentioned killing in that analogy. Reason was that killing is thrill and joy for many, much bigger then their suffering from consequences. Their “gut feeling” you approve would then tell them: to kill is “right”. Since you accepted their “gut feeling” to be valid evaluation, you accept their action to be “right”. Therefore they would kill you with your approval. Moreover, you approve all killings decided out of “gut feeling”. Someone said I (using your “gut feeling”) got logic of a serial killer, and that is exactly where such moral standards would lead.
That clear enough? There must be something outside of us both that tells us what’s right or wrong, otherwise we will astray sooner or later. That is why I said “universal”. Don’t cling to murder I use in analogy and say that your “gut feeling” tells you it’s wrong, and therefore your standards are right. There are millions of other issues you might have to deal with and your “gut feeling” may be wrong in some, same as you accuse other moral standards to be.
My other point regarding your “gut feeling” was that you are not even aware how that feeling works. I said that you are influenced by your upbringing, and your “gut feeling” is a combination of your nature and nurture. Your reply about atheistic roots means nothing unless you grew up isolated from this whole human society that is mainly guided by religious moral standards. Someone else was saying that this goes into discussion about nature/nurture because of what I said. They are probably right so I didn’t go into it deeper.
Needless to say, I really don’t mind anyone contradicting anything as long as they bring up valid point with some understanding of what we are talking about.
I use Firefox and I discovered reason for my previous posting problem: this site can’t handle use of two simbols located on the right from M key on your keyboard when you press Shift key. Site thinks that symbol is part of its code and everything that comes after it is invisible.
True_believer said:
The “something outside of us” that forms our “gut” feeling is society. People accept the mores of the society around them, unless they have been damaged by poor nurture and upbringing or they have a genetic or acquired brain defect.
Actually the consideration of murder as a comparative moral issue is interesting. It is interesting that secular European countries, including the UK, have a much lower crime rates than the religious USA. In the US the crime rate increases in line with the degree of theism. The Bible Belt States have the highest crime rates, including murder.
Do we interpret this as “Christianity causes crime” or “crime causes Christianity”? As a social scientist I would suggest that a series of “third” factors causes both of these phenomena. The main culprits are probably poverty and poor education which lead to a way of thinking which encourages crime as well as heavy handed “law and order” which many would also view as “criminal”.
Whichever way you look at it, there is no support whatever for the notion that a personal god belief or living in a culture which supports one is in any way necessary or useful for developing a moral code which is universally applauded.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm said
Just to inform you Rosemary that you were never even near to be religious. You are longing to go back to Santa? You just followed customs and your environment like a little monkey without actually understanding the meaning of all that. When you got tempted, you gave up for convenience reasons. That is not even near to believing. Religiousness is not just visits to some temple of choice; it’s actual understanding and accepting base of that religion. I am sure that once you truthfully do that, you never capable of “reverting” to nothingness and staying sane. It’s not possible. Whoever claims different is mistaken. You can only replace it with something else, never nothingness (atheism).
Sorry for the tone, but your arrogance and previous comments called for it. I try to avoid judging other people and their religion but I deem it necessary this time. You were what I would name “believer” (not to be mistaken with true believer), someone that’s claiming association with religion of random choice without knowledge or readiness to follow its guidance. It might be of comfort to you that you are not alone, there are many like you. If they have even slight trace of religiousness, they usually turn to eastern philosophies, butcher them into their trendy liking and call that “Buddhism”. Reason for their choice is typically that little Buddha figure is so cute. I promise I won’t make further uncomfortable comments on your personality if you restrain your comments about mine and concentrate on subjects we are discussing.
I partly agree with you. Poverty and education are playing great role there. However, main problem is lack of moral values. That is one of the reasons I have problem with atheism. It makes even easier for media to further degrade our society, because those people look up to media only for their guidance.
Stomper said:
I admire some things you said here mate, one of them being this.
True_believer said,
True_believer: You failed to get the point. The lower the moral values, the more religious the area. The country with the lowest crime rates (Sweden, I think) is also reported to be the one with the most atheists per capita.
In order for your argument to work you need to explain why religion fails to raise universally accepted moral values (as opposed to religious “moral” codes which are condemned as immoral by those of different or no religion.)
{sigh}. Here you are again telling me what I have and haven’t believed and/or done. And you are way, way off.
I am an ex-soul-saving Evangelical who had a profound and meaningful experience of what I thought at the time was “God”. It was so intense that I commenced training for the ministry. My first problem was that I had an enquiring mind that asked awkward questions and persued them to where-ever they led. I was introduced to the fascinating world of modern Biblical scholarship, which still intrigues me. Then I read the Bible all the way through instead of in my previous piece-meal fashion. That was my final undoing. I could not square what I found there with the God I had been taught was described there. I was reading about a mean and racist god of wrath, not a god of love who cared about the well-being of non-Jews.
I found my research talents and desire to do good for humanity were better suited to the profession of psychology. The more I studied this subject the more god beliefs I shed until finally I woke up one morning and realized that there were none left and life had not imploded.
None of this matches your description of my life and belief history but I am almost certain that you will ignore this and continue to insist that your fanciful version is the real reality. You will not delude anyone else on this forum but yourself.
Oh, but I strongly disagree. You just confirmed what I said. And I did notice slight trace of psychology there, didn’t I? It’s not me trying to act smart, it’s just that people fall to same old trap thinking that they are so much different/better then everyone else, and doom them selves to repeat other’s mistakes.
“Quod sum eris.”
Once?
So, True_Believer, how do you account for the fact that countries with the most atheists have the lowest crime rate, as Rosemary pointed out? And the group with the smallest percentage of prison inmates is atheists, far smaller than their percentage in the general population? As measured by behaviour, atheists are more moral than religious people.
Reason might be that because Scandinavian people are far more educated on average, they declare their religion or lack of it more accurate. Or they might have surrounding’s pressure regarding religion going in opposite way then in US, i.e. atheism might be trendy declaration there. I personally think that one’s religious belief is God’s gift and not affected by anything else. Obviously, since I believe that Got is almighty, it means that He could have made us all members of one religion, yet He did not. Unlikely that one’s geographical location plays any role in that.
Are you two in full seriousness trying to say that believing in nothing makes one less criminal then someone that truly believes in eternal and severe punishment for their crimes? Please explain withot using statistics, it can be “adjusted” to show anything.
True_believer said,
I can’t speak for Rosemary, but yes – I am saying that a thoughtful, reasoned moral code, not based on religion, leads to better behaviour than thoughtless, blind faith. That is not the same thing as ‘believing in nothing’ (as you characterized it with the usual insult of the willfully ignorant – so trite). And if I remember correctly, those states without the death penalty (similar to your punishment view) have a lower crime rate than states with the death penalty. Such a lovely moral code you describe, behaving well not because it’s right but because of fear of punishment.
Ah, yes – the attack on statistics: the last refuge of the desperate, when the facts show them to be wrong.
Oh, and those statistics on Sweden are not an anomaly. A high rate of atheism and a low rate of crime go together in many countries.
What else they go together with? What countries? What crimes? Which institution(s)? Links? And is ignorance a bliss or damnation?
Well, in this case, I don’t really want to know your answers since they won’t change a thing. I assumed that your statistics are really reflecting what you are seeing in them, and I answered mainly because Rosemary asked. You conveniently ignored it like you did with every answer I gave you, Claire.
In case someone else is interested, Sweden is one of European countries that avoided destruction during WWI and WWII, hence they high living standard and wealth. Understandingly, when you are wealthy, you are not too interested in petty crime activities. Your statistics could be reflecting many other things, and that is why I have problem with it. World is way too complex to be described with statistics. If that is satisfactory to you, go ahead, but don’t be upset when I call that Science again, as in surrogate religion, something irrational you chose to believe.
True believer,
My, you are the lone ranger here, aren’t you? You’re doing a great job sticking it out! Please know that these are all good people asking honest questions. Don’t think of them as the enemy as you may have in your mind. But they are irritatingly smart, aren’t they?
I don’t like how they often put me me in my place, but I still highly respect them. I think of them as my teachers. 
I do want to point out one pet peeve of mine. Maybe it’s a pet peeve because I found myself doing it sometimes too… when people write or say f–ing… Either say/write the word or don’t do it at all. What the heck is f–ing? It’s like saying “I want people to know that I’m cool, but I’m too chicken to prove it.” That’s just something that I self-analyzed about myself when I found myself doing the same thing. Just my opinion, which you can choose to ignore.
Anyway, everyone, if I may interject with a thought…
Even if the statistics show the numbers in that way, how do we know that other factors are not involved? Such as gun laws? I highly doubt there is a direct link between religion and crime rates in the big picture. It may possibly be one of the factors, but it’s not conclusive enough.
I’m somewhat surprised that it was even brought up by people who love to focus on real evidence and solid facts.
I wouldn’t say irritating and smart in same context, but why else would we still hang around? F-ing is the way around profanity filter. I was more using it as a joke in reference to that Chopper Reid video and my disappearing post. I guess sense of humour is like spirituality these days, rare.
For the correlation between religiosity and crime, see for example Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies.
For those who don’t want to work their way all the way through, I offer the following snippet: ” In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion …”
Well, True Believer, at least you are honest on this point. You are so attached to your fantasies that facts are of no interest at all. Further comment from me would be superfluous.
I wonder what instrument they used to measure belief.
How do you know? I didnt see any facts from you yet. Add your last comment to the rest as well.
Have we broken the record yet for number of comments on a blog post here yet?
True_Believer wrote:
I’m not saying my gut feelings are the standard for everyone to live up to, nor would I respect someone’s gut feelings which told them murder was pleasurable. I am saying that there is a general moral base that is common to all cultures about certain fundamental issues like murder, rape, and so on. The people you mention who do experience a thrill and joy from killing are a minority, and have, in my opinion, “broken brains”.
I think we are arguing nature vs. nurture here. From what I have read about research on primates and human cultures is that humans are born with an innate moral “tool kit”. Of course these innate moral tendencies must be nurtured or they will become warped or broken.
Yes, I understand your point. I would say that the “something” is inside us. Ie. our biological nature. It isn’t perfect or absolute, but I think it is evident in the common basic morality shared by all humans, including partially by other primates.
I’m no expert, and you may be right that a large part could be due to nurture, which may be rooted in a society influenced by religion. There are so many variables here and feedback loops, such as our biology affecting society, which affects are biology etc. We have only scratched the surface and a lot more research needs to be done.
So you think scientific research in psychology, anthropology and cognitive science is worthwhile? Or is the morality in the Bible the final word and no more investigation needs to be done?
Did you ever read that Steven Pinker article? It is quite good and an excellent review of the kind of research going on.
And to the rest of you reading this thread, you might like this post I saw recently which coincidently touches on everything we are discussing here:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/02/darla-she-goat.html
PS: Yeah, it’s a good idea to stay away from the “greater than” and “less than” brackets. I’ve had trouble with them before too. Maybe there is an escape sequence out there so we can use them? How will I show that 3 is bigger than 2???
rue_believer said,
I said:
True_believer replied,
Which is what I predicted. I rest my case.
True_believer demanded:
Statistics can be used to prove anything only to those who do not know how they work. Trash news is full of journalistic conclusions based on the writer’s faulty understanding of statistical method. Behavioral scientists, as well as researchers in other scientific areas, are given a very thorough grounding in this aspect of mathematics. For a research paper to make it into a peer reviewed journals it has to meet a rigorous standard of statistical competence. In the non-absolute human sciences the degree of certainly must be expertly calculated and stated along with the conclusions which it supports. Popular journalism does not talk about degrees of certainty but if they are quoting the results of a reputable scientific report then that degree of certainty is at the 95 percent level.
In laymen’s terms that means that the observed effect could happen by chance in less than five percent of random observations making it much more than likely that the effect is real and not accidental.
If the journalist is not quoting a rigorous scientific study then skepticism is warranted until the statistical data and reasoning is known. Any statistically ignorant journalist can “prove” that motor vehicles accidents are increasing every year by quoting the raw figures. This kind of “statistic” is meaningless until it is mathematically compared with the annual population increase.
I think that sums up your attitude perfectly. You don’t want to be confused with the facts because your mind is very firmly made up. So why are you here on this forum?
For the benefit of others on this forum, the factors which similtaneously cause a decline of religion, a decline in crime and an advance in moral development appear to be an increase in the standard of living brought about by scientific advances and an increase in the quality, level and pervasiveness of education, particulary in the sciences.
The reason that the US is an out-lier is that education is a commodity and not a right in this country. This leads to the ability of parental and community groups to control and influence what is taught and how it is graded. The anti-science pro-Creationist Kansas school board is an obvious example of what this means.
It also leads to a model of education which stress nominal prestige in lieu of competence. This inevitably leads to the use of marketing strategies to increase the level of participation and economic investment in the college industry. These are coupled with the active suppression of international comparisons which reveal uncomfortable truths. Statistical manipulation is rife.
For example, the average American believes that they live in the best educated country in the world although this is very far from the truth. The educational industry continues to inform the average American that the US has the highest proportion of people with Bachelor degrees or better and the best doctoral programs in the world.
What Americans are not told is that in other developed countries American college level material is routinely completed in the last few years of secondary school (Years 11, 12 and 13), the Bachelor degree is often the primary professional degree (medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, psychology ….), post-graduate and professional Masters studies provide post professional specialist education (surgeons in the UK, Australia and New Zealand are awarded a Masters degree) and the PhD is frequently defined as a complex senior research-only degree which is insufficient and inappropriate for professional licensing. Nominal comparisons are therefore spurious.
Last year the university of Melbourne in the Australian State of Victoria persuaded the Australian government to allow it to convert to an American-style senior secondary and tertiary prestige naming system. Government permission was required because funding was legally tied to the definition of the bachelor degree as the basic professional degree, the masters degree as a specialist degree and the doctoral degrees as an independent research degree which required few academic resources.
This year international studies reveal that the educational level in the Australian State of Victoria has fallen dramatically in comparison to the other Australian States and in comparison other nations. The US press has not seen fit to report this phenomena which is no doubt of great relief to those who make a living from selling prestige-style American education.
So beware of statistics which hide the truth because they compare unlike things.
Linda said:
I am at your annoying service, Ingratiating One.
Perhaps I should change my tag to Irritating Guru. What do you think?
True believer,
I don’t think the sense is what is rare, it’s the humor.
And I said irritating, because I end up having to re-think everything when someone here makes sense. And it was my attempt at sense of humor. Oh well… I tried.
Now, that’s funny.
See? Smarter AND funnier. It’s not fair! *sigh*
I agree with you completely, Rosemary. That is my frustration with our education system. Something needs to be done.
However, I still don’t know how atheism is defined in those studies. Skepticism, maybe. Getting away from blindly following religious teachings, maybe. But atheism? Unless you want to group everyone outside of the religious brain-lazy people as atheists, I don’t buy those statistics.
I really don’t believe it’s as black and white as that.
When I was involved in governing industrial enterprise in the last half of my career, I learned very emphatically that there are diminishing returns for spending time, energy, or resource on small issues. I learned that if one could get the larger issues right, then many of the smaller ones just took care of themselves.
Now, it is my impression that some bloggers on this site are straining over a lot of minor issues, and not addressing the major ones. Top of the list of issues in descending order of importance is the question, “Is there a God or is there no God?”
In my long life, I have never met anyone who could prove the answer to those top tier questions using the scientific methods taught to me in engineering school nor could they prove it by using the dogma of competing religions or the testimonies of individuals in those various faith systems. The best answers I feel that I have discovered are very personal and come from use of my own intellect, my own observations, and my own internal promptings. So, I see the existence or non-existence of God as being a very personal thing with each individual. And, I think my own moral compass derives from the same sources: personal intellect, observation, and internal promptings. Observation, of course, would include the mores and conditions in whatever society I find myself a part of, here upon the earth.
I cannot deny that internal promptings are an important part of this process, at least for me. So, what are their source? Strictly psycological? Or cerebral? Or do they emanate from some other energy or spiritual source which can not yet be duplicated in man’s physical laboratories? It is my sense that these promptings do not come from anything in the physical world of which I am a part. My sense is that they emanate from a spiritual world that man cannot measure with instruments or with intellect alone. It is this sense that keeps me on the side of theism, as opposed to atheism.
I am an old guy and quite new to blogging, so please give me a little slack. Thank you.
Old Mormon Guy,
How old is old? I think old is only a state of mind anyway. I’m very happy that you are here sharing your thoughts with us. You will find that slack is not something that you find often here. People usually say it like it is. That is what’s so great about this place. When I am brutally challenged, it hurts for a moment, but it makes me grow. ^_^
I’ve never known much about the Mormon religion other than the fact that it is known to be a cult in the Christian circles that I’ve been in. But a few of the kindest people that I have known have been Mormons. One of my daughter’s best friends is a Mormon, and I love him to death.
Outside of all of the religious differences, I believe we all are searchers of truth.
One thing I have to disagree with you is the following statement:
Is that really the most important question? I agree that belief in God is a very personal thing. The question regarding the existence of God is talked about here a lot, believe it or not, and it never goes anywhere but in circles. It escalates into a battle of the brains and then we’re right back to where we began. I find it a futile effort, except for the fact that each time, we learn a little more about the others and our own strengths and weaknesses. So in that sense, I love the discussions. But I don’t think we will ever be closer to proving or disproving God as a group.
I’m so glad you’re here, Old Mormon Guy, to share your wisdom and insights. I hope you will stay. I’ve only been blogging for less than 6 months as well. So don’t feel bad about being new.
I do have one question for you, which was asked of me a while back. What exactly are you thinking of when you are speaking of God? What is your definition of God?
Linda:
OK, no slack. I should have known better than to ask for any kind of special treatment.
How old? Well, I remember very well the depression days of the 1930’s. You do the math
Age a function of attitude? I agree with you so long as the body is reasonably healthy. I try to think young and stay young. I recently spent a week in Hawaii with 8 of my great granchildren who live in New York and Nevada, so I do try. However, my brain gets periodic messages from my body that say,”Hey there, guy, you aren’t as young as you think you would like to be.”
About the cult thing. I do not think this blog site would be an appropriate place to discuss that. It would be a very, very circular discussion. I would like to stick with what we really do and do not know about the existence of God.
My definition of God? I am not sure I have that all sorted out yet. I don’t know enough yet. The promptings I receive from time to time when studying or considering some particular challenge in my life, perhaps describe God to me. Let me think about it some more. One thing for sure I do not accept is the Nicene creed description of the Trinity.
Do you have a description of God you would like to list? I could not tell from your post if you were on the theist or atheist side. No matter, I appreciate your response.
Claire asked of the Old Mormon Guy:
This is the right question, Claire. When people talk about proof of the existence or non-existence of a god, what they mean is proof of the existence or non-existence of their particular version of the dominant deity of their culture or religious group.
Biases show up immediately in the way the question is framed. People from Christian or Muslim dominated cultures rarely, if ever, think of framing the question to entertain the possibility of the similtaneous existence or non-existence of multiple gods. Or the possibility that a god existed who is now dead.
The details of the deity they want to discuss generally pins the person down to a community, a culture, a decade and a personality. The god whose existence is important to them conforms to the characteristics which are personally familiar to them. If their god is conceived of as “good” then it conforms to the values they hold most dear. If they are aggressive and authoritarian then their version of god will be the same. A person’s idea of what “god” is like tells you a great deal about them.
A discussion of the existence of a god soon runs into big trouble.
Are we discussing the existence of one god or a group of them? Bear in mind that the Jewish book of Genesis combines at least two gods (El and Yaweh) and also refers to the Elohim, or the group of gods under the El god. Modern biblical scholars argue that Yaweh was one of the Elohim (that is, a minor god under El).
Are we confining our discussion to the existence of “nice” gods, or do we include “nasty” ones? Main stream biblical scholars point out that Yaweh was not a very good minion of El and made a mess of his part of the creation of the world. Some scholars even suggest that the Yaweh god is one of the selection of devil gods listed in the Jewish Scriptures which most Christians collectively re-name as Satan or The Devil. The described behavior certainly fits. It has been pointed out that the Jewish and Christian scriptures indicate that Yaweh was responsible for far more crimes, murders and attrocities than the rest of the devil gods combined. The list is somewhere on the Web. Can anyone supply a link to the URL?
How much power does a particular god have and under what circumstances is it powerless? Is there a god-in-charge? How much knowledge does a god have and where are its limitations? Does the god relate to humans? Does it have any other interests or spare time to engage in them? What does it do for relaxation? Is it capable of reproducing? And we could get increasingly anthropomorphic ….(anthropomorphism — giving something human characteristics).
Should the characteristics of a/the god follow those provided in the Jewish Scriptures (the racist god of wrath), the Pauline letters of the Christian New Testament (the anti-sexual misogynist), the god of the Canonic New Testament (the anti-family values god) or the god defined by the 3rd century Council of Trent (all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-damning, three-in-one and capable of inseminating virgins without their consent)?
Should we consider the existence of a god who conforms to the texts of Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith? What about a god who conforms to the writings of Mohammed?
Why confine the discussion to entities derived only from the Abrahamic traditions? Should we consider the existence of all the Hindu gods? Should we consider proof for the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russel’s orbiting tea-pot?
So Old Mormon Guy, first define the characteristics of the god you want to believe exists together with the characteristics of gods you don’t want to believe exist. Only then do we have the basis for a meaningful discussion. Does it sound so simple, now?
There is another aspect to the does-god-exist question which has been ignored to date.
Most theists insist on thowing subjective data into the barrel of “proof”. This argument is some variant of “I know god exists because I experience this special feeling that I can only explain as the presence of god.”
This argument does not survive psycho-biological examination.
Altered states of consciousness which are indecipherable from religious experiences can be induced by means of altered chemistry, physical exertion or meditation and trance activity. Whether people interpret these states as god-derived or not is entirely dependent on the surrounding environmental triggers.
One psychological study gave people a drug which induces mild euphoria. Half of the subjects were then sent to a religious meeting and the other half to a waiting room. The ones in the religious meeting (mis-)interpreted their symptoms as a religious experience; the subjects in the waiting room did not.
Another study involved comparing the brain scans of yogis in self-induced trances and Christains engaged in prayerful meditation. The brain scan activity showed identical trance wave form but the Christians reported a god experience and the yogis reported “enlightenment” without a god experience.
Not everyone is equal in their ability to experience ecstatic and meditative states. People with neural conditions which affect the brain’s ability to focus find it difficult or impossible to achieve such states. People with certain forms of epilepsy or its sub-clinical form have intense and frequent experiences of this nature. These are the people who have been labeled as possessing a “religious personality”. There is a strong concentration of these neurologically abnormal individuals among the adherents of charismatic type religions.
In other words, subjective experience of “god” is not a valid proof that one exists. At best, it proves that a person is capable of trance phenomena.
Mercy! How did this thread get so long over a bunch of dead deities? You know how to kill a god?
{Giggle} That would be deicide, I think. There’s no manual for that.
Regarding “humor”:
Let’s just use smiley only to mark our feeble cracks at entertaining others.
For whoever keeps clinging to those falsified statistical findings:
Pseudoscience.
See under 11. and 12. please. You also ignored my comment on how did they determine that regions they selected for research really contain truly religious people and not just atheists that will claim tomorrow when their basic instincts prevail that they just “lost it”?
To Old Mormon Guy:
This question is priority, but in my opinion, on personal level for each one of us, and is impossible to be answered through debate. Like you so beautifully expressed, it is product of personal experience and knowledge about things that can’t be just spoon-fed to lazy, ignorant people as easy as science research results. They would ridicule and disbelieve you until they face it them selves. They need to actively and alone go this way, hence why I said somewhere here that it’s a God’s gift.
To NYC:
By sending me to that link you confirmed to be a (dogs and babies eating) terrible person as I expected an atheist to be.
I seriously got headache from reading such amount of stupidity, ignorance and adolescent interpretation in one spot. I did read it.
“You should be moral because you will be happier as a moral person overall than if you become any other sort of person.”
If you became “other sort of person”? What a bunch of bullshit. He believes it, not much more proof then for Hell or God, yet that’s totally acceptable as fact to him. I think he forgot to say that he got giant robot goat genetically mutating him into knowing what is right and what is wrong. He alone said before that “evolution made people greedy, evil, with no regard for moral authority”, … just plain stupid person with no basic logical reasoning.
NOPE! You stop believing in it.
We’ve done it so many times and then turned around and make another almost like the last.
Fair enough, but I didn’t intend to send you there. That’s why I wrote “to everyone else”. I have been trying to send you to the Steven Pinker article. I don’t think you mentioned if you looked at it yet, but maybe I missed it. Pinker’s article is worth a read since he’s a respected scholar at Harvard and a best selling science writer, not some guy with a blog like the link you’re talking about.
If anyone else missed it the first time I posted it, here it is again:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html
“The Moral Instinct”
from the January 13, 2008 issue of the NY Times Magazine.
True_believer said,
That’s a very interesting link. It is an excellent set of questions to ask to determine whether something is a pseudoscience (specious rubbish) or a protoscience (a new science). Thank you. But is has little to do with the poor use of statistics.
Item number 12, which you insist we take particular note of, says that those promoting junk beliefs attack the person who objects to their reasoning rather than the reasoning itself. That seems to be what you do on this forum in most of your posts. You describe people who express ideas which do not support your own as stupid, ignorant or {censored by focus on the family}. Then you describe their arguments in the same terms instead of providing a cogent response to the reasoning. Sadly, I think the significance of this escapes you.
True_Believer said:
The researchers made use of various gallup polls which have been done by reputable research companies in the past few years.
There is no way that such polls can determine which of those who say they believe in a god will lose that belief in the future. Nor can they determine if any of those who say they do not believe in a god will begin believing in one at a later date.
But that’s actually irrelevant. If areas infested by god believers are actually full of “unreal-Christians” then such people are shown to behave less morally than the people who live in areas infested by real or unreal atheists. The only logical conclusion which can be based on your hypothesis is that bad or weak Christians are less moral than common or garden-variety atheists. Somehow I don’t think that is the conclusion you wanted us to reach.
By the way, it is logically in-admissable to reclassify a Christian’s original faith as “weak” or “unreal” the minute they lose their beliefs. That is post hoc analysis and it is a great big scientific no-no.
The scientific approach is to determine ahead of time which believer will recant and which will not. According to my research, you could make a better-than-chance prediction of a person’s eventual belief change of loss on the basis of knowledge about the believer’s intellectual potential, cognitive style and personality. The rest of the formulae involves environmental factors which are much more difficult to predict. Belief change of all kinds is facilitated by education which encourages critical thinking and analysis plus exposure to a variety of different environments, cultures and belief systems. People who are locked into a similar environment with like-thinking friends will have a hard time revising their beliefs or value system. Country towns and other isolated communities are a good example of endemic rigid thinking.
Exactly right, Mriana. Which is why it isn’t enough to just stop believing in a particular god or even in any and all gods. It would be far better to rid ourselves entirely of the mental bad habit of belief. Stop believing period.
NYCatheist:
I enjoyed the Pinker article. Thanks for the link.
Well, the thing is, we’d have to get the Muslims to stop believing in Allah, the Jews to stop believing in YHWH, and the Christians to stop believing in God/Jesus, not to mention the Hindus to stop believing in Vishnu/Krishna, Brahma, Shiva, etc. There are so many little deities running around to this day, that I can’t list them all. The more hardcore the believer, the harder it is to convince them that it’s nothing more than a human concept, created by humans, and nothing more. Then get them to believe in love, compassion, and the potential of humans.
Easier said than done, but we’ve killed other gods, who’s to say we can’t do it again?
That article is nothing new, nothing we didn’t discuss, but I guess it’s appealing to atheists since it apperas that it got some scientific value, which I see as flase. Example:
“And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles. Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl would still not be.”
Their parents thought them both actions to be wrong. After teacher told them opposite, they accepted first one to be changed, because their parent probably only told them something along “It’s absolutely wrong to go to around naked”, whereas they only laugh them out if they tried to go to school in pyjamas, and pyjamas are still cloths. However, second one is direct clash of what their parents and teacher accept from them. They understandingly chose their parents guidance since they are children’s main authority.
This is just one of many discrepancies I found there after critically reading it once. It is enough for me to establish picture on how thorough author goes into the subject. He made up his mind beforehand, so he will conclude accordingly.
Ok, now I had enough of personal attacks on me when people got nothing to answer. I don’t want to waste my time. I think I’ll conclude my “visit” here, but not before I give you few more “bones to gnaw on”.
You choose to BELIEVE that there is no God or gods without any proof for such, yet you demand proof for God’s existence. Claiming that God doesn’t exist since nobody saw him is absurd. Nobody also saw most of the Amazonian jungle, and probably never will, yet if I would claim it does not exist for that reason, it would be as ridiculous as your claim. Written books and documented experiences of God’s existence you choose to ignore, and instead jump onto every half-wit’s request-for-funding “research” as long as it’s contra-theism.
You are and will be unable to establish any moral code based only and solely on atheism. It’s impossible. Atheism does not include anything else except claim that god(s) do not exist. You have to involve something more which nullifies your atheism claim, and makes something else out of it. All this examples of moral codes you mentioned, all are nothing to do with atheism. They are all based on some religious moral code, and you are just ignorantly introducing that into your “atheism”. Since true atheism doesn’t define anything else except God’s non-existence, sticking to it leads sooner or later inevitably into nihilism. There is no point denying this. Once you say “but there is this and that moral code …” you stop being atheistic and turn towards agnosticism, or similar, it’s as simple as that. It becomes different ideology.
These false claims of affiliation to beliefs are slowly getting out of hand. We got “Christians” claiming that there is no God, “atheists” that agree to God’s existence when you pin them down with logic, etc. I personally don’t have anything against any religion or luck of it as long as it not denying me right to mine. Diversity is what makes this world (and couple of afternoons here) so fun. False claim that religion is creating criminals is very dangerous.
My point is that nobody is prepared to spend some time on their own, research, learn, meditate and decide what they really think. Instead, in their ignorance and foolishness, they go around ridiculing other views without knowing anything about other’s or even their own. I am fully aware that this may include myself, but please consider you in this light as well. I think spirituality is main part of human being, but some are not prepared to even acknowledge its existence. I truly pity them.
One more thing before I go: when you study any of holy books, you only find in them what you are looking for. They are your mirror, wether you like it or not. As analogy, do you think that 7 year old reading Freud will learn same things as you? Would that be Freud’s fault? One reading is not nearly enough, nor is one book. Imagine how good in psychology you would be if you stick to one book and one reading.
As-Sal?mu `Alaykum
Thanks for reading the article! I would have liked to hear your other criticisms, but I can understand you’re tired of posting here. (There’s always the forum which is better suited for long discussions.)
Well, personally I like to say I don’t have a positive belief in a particular god. I think the lack of belief position is default until further evidence appears. I don’t demand proof, just good evidence. I’m not sure the Amazon jungle is a good example since I have seen pictures and videos of it, and I would be curious what is filling up most of Brazil if the jungle wasn’t there.
It’s all about how extraordinary a claim is. If a friend told me he saw a dog in the park I would believe him. He may be lying, but why would he? If he said it was a talking dog, I would demand more evidence.
I don’t think I ignore them. I have read many. But people can write anything. I’m not sure Robin Hood actually existed, and people have written a lot about him. But he is just a man. Supernatural claims require more than just books. People write about UFOs, ghosts, psychic powers, miracle gurus in India, visions of Buddha, etc. How do you know what is real and what isn’t?
I’m not sure what you’re referring to with the research funding comment.
Well, we agree there! (Except for the definition of atheism. I prefer the general lack of belief definition.) Atheism has nothing to do with moral codes. I don’t think anyone here has ever said so.
I disagree here. I think most atheists are secular humanists. The humanistic morals don’t negate atheism. I think we have to involve nothing more than our innate goodness, reason, and social progress.
I haven’t seen any evidence for this in the lives of the many atheists I know.
But I am an agnostic at the same time. I hate to open the can-of-worms of semantics but I think agnosticism is about knowledge, and atheism is about belief. Atheists can certainly have ideologies. Atheists can be objectivists, or communists, and I guess even secular humanism can be an ideology. But those ideologies have nothing to do with gods.
Yes there are people like that, but I don’t think most of the people here are like that. Many people used to be religious, some still are but have departed from the mainstream, others (like me) just find the idea of gods and religion to be a fascinating topic and want to learn more.
If you do read this before I go, I guess the main point I’d like you to take away is that not all atheists are like you imagine them to be. There is a lot of variety in beliefs and no one is exactly the same. Of course, the same could be said about any group with a label. (”Americans”, “white or black people”, “Christians”, “hippies”, “lawyers” etc.) So I’d like you to think twice before saying “You atheists are like ….” or “You atheists believe … so…” etc.
Anyway, so long, it was fun.
PS :Are you sure you’re leaving? There is this cartoon to consider:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Mriana,
Oh I understand the enormity of the task you’re describing, which is why I am only speaking of myself and perhaps you. People who are determined to believe in things will invent them faster than an army of rationalists could discredit them. The only act we can clean up is our own. Our influence on others is very limited, but by being truly clean of belief we can at least enjoy a clarity of mind free of clutter and a lightness of heart free of resentment, fear, shame and pride. Maybe then our influence on a few individuals will be just a tiny bit more potent.
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm said,
Actually, that was Linda who asked that, but with so many posts things can get confused… It’s not a question I would ever have asked, considering it as just another exercise in re-inventing the gods we already invented. It’s more of a believer’s question.
Richard,
I totally agree with that statement, and I was not (and occasionally even now) able to be free until I emptied my mind of all previous beliefs. But I still choose to believe in a something rather than nothing. As True-believer said, I don’t see how we can deny the fact that we are spiritual beings.
Mariana, words: “Love, compassion and the potential of humans.” It’s something that’s in all of us. It’s also something that’s outside of all of us. We give and we receive. We learn, we grow… and we live. The essence of life, the essence of who we are… whole but separate, together but alone, same but unique… Humans are very complex. We are more than just our flesh.
I believe in life, love, and nature. I believe in the “way things are.” I believe in the invisible thread that connects all of us. And I believe in freedom of expression, to express love and creativity in each of our fullness. That is my God and that is what I learned through Jesus.
True believer,
I’m sorry that you felt attacked. You had a lot to share. I hope you’ll be back.
I agree 100%, Richard. It’s a shame we can’t get other to do the same.
Linda, atheism is not believing in nothing. Why not believe in love and compassion? I think it is far better than believing in some sort of sky daddy or some other superstitious deity. Madilyn O’Hair said something like, “An atheist believes in building hospitals, instead of churches.” Underlying message in that statement to me, is love and compassion for one’s fellow human. She didn’t believe in nothing. Gene Roddenberry, a Humanist, not only had a belief, but also a dream and both are well seen in TOS and TNG. Again, the bottomline was love and compassion for his fellow human beings.
That is hardly a belief in nothing.
No, it is not outside all of us. Is WITHIN all of us. As long as we see it as outside of us, we will continue to make deities.
Yes, I agree that we are more than just flesh, but what we receive, by way of love and compassion comes from within another person, not without that person. What we give comes from within us. It’s not some external force, not even hatred comes from without. If humans could turn some that hate they have for others that is based on external stuff: like skin, colour, religion, ethnic origins, into love and compassion, we’d be a lot better off, but the problem is religious beliefs is a source of some of that hate.
Take for example the religious reich and their attitudes toward women and gays or even the Muslim extremists with their ideas about women, gays, and Infidels (and sorry to say, Christians, in their opinion, are infidels and losers who will go to hell). The list goes on and on as to the hatred religion can still cause.
Did you? I don’t know but reading the text, you would have to pick and chose to find that. I think it is very possible to learn these things through real tangible human beings, like MLK Jr, Gene Roddenberry, (granted they are dead, but there are living people too who we can learn from also.) The only picking and chosing we have to do when we pick rolemodels is to pick the ones who hold the values we would like to strive for- like Obama. Hopefully, Obama really means what he says, and I think he does, and lives up to what he says. Regardless, these beliefs and values of love and compassion came/comes from within them, not from some external source.
I have yet to find any external deity that brings out the best in people. It is when they seek to bring out the best in themselves and in others that they shine most. When they bring out the best in others, that too comes from within also. Not some external source.
Sure, you can say love and compassion, freedom of expression, etc are god, but you are placing them outside yourself and they are not outside you. Once we can put these things where they really are, then I think we can all throw away religious texts, because they are not needed, except maybe as a source of literature for entertainment purposes only, just as the stories of Hercules, Zeus, and the Illiad are. I truly believe this. We don’t need them as a source to live our lives.
[...] http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/ [...]
Let’s keep the two popular definitions of “belief” from being confused. When people say that they believe in God or that Elvis is still alive, that is the kind of belief I’m talking about cleansing ourselves of, the persistent assumption of the truth of something in the absence of credible evidence. The other definition is when people say that they believe in democracy or in love of their fellow human. That means to support it, or to value and want to promote and to practice it.
Even with that distinction in mind, to say “I believe in love” can begin to turn you back toward conjuring up another love-entity to believe in as in the first definition. Try to think of love only as a verb and never as a noun. Then you will see it as an action that people practice, rather than a thing that somehow floats around us without need of us to make it happen. Love does not exist, love happens when people do it. To see love as a noun, an invisible thing like “the force” is to step toward eventually personifying it and soon you have invented another god.
Don’t bother with concepts of existence. Observe actions happening in the world around you. Observe your own actions and improve them. You are what you do. You are what you do. Eventually the word “are” becomes superfluous. You do, you do, you do…
Mriana wrote:
Mriana, I think that is a very good summary of the origins, importance and meaningful flavor of morality. Bravo!
Richard, thanks for making a clear distinction between the two meanings of the composite verb to believe in. Namely:
1. the persistent assumption of the truth of something in the absence of credible evidence.
2.to support, value or want to promote and practice something.
I am not ready to throw out the use of “love” as a noun but I appreciate your point that this abstraction can only occur as the result of an action.
Thank you, Rosemary. I truly believe what I said too.
Rosemary, I have been enjoying and admiring your comments since you first started on this thread. Reading them is like watching a combination samurai master and concert pianist. Any compliment from you is an honor.
Mriana, I did not say anything about atheism. I only said I want to believe in something rather than nothing, in reply to Richard’s statement that we should be “clean of belief,” which he clarified since then. I’ve been talking to you long enough to know that the atheists like you are about much more than nothing.
I said it’s within all of us first. When I said outside of us, I meant we can and should see it in others as well. If it’s in you, then it’s outside of me, no?
And I no longer believe that it’s religion that causes hatred. It’s the human tendency to judge and reject anything that is different than us that causes hatred, I think. I agree with you that hatred, as well as love, comes from within us.
The God I believe in is not anything that I can describe or define. The moment I open my mouth, the words get in the way.
What I tried to explain in my previous post is that perhaps a small portion of that is what is inside all of us. What is outside of us is in every other human being. What I was pointing to was the very essence of life itself. What makes us thrive? Just as you said, I believe it’s love and compassion for each other. I also believe it’s about exploring, creating, and expressing our uniqueness. As Richard pointed out, when we are free of fear, shame and guilt, then we can truly be free to love… ourselves as well as others. (he didn’t exactly say those words, but that is my version.)
I was wondering if the God that I believe in that I can’t describe is, in part, this… energy, idea, thought… something… the thread that connects all of us.
See? I messed it up again. I tried to describe it, and it came out not making any sense…
When I said I learned through Jesus, I meant that he showed me how to be free. When I read the NT and about Jesus’ teachings, all I get is freedom and grace. Maybe I’m slow and cannot follow what everyone else sees…
Richard, I seriously thought about what you wrote:
Maybe you’re right in that love is an action word. If you think of love as…hmm… sort of energy, then it makes sense. It does not exist unless there is action, friction… reaction. I’m thinking of fire, lightening, thunder, wind… even light, which is the source of life.
C’mon… think with me! I think you’re onto something.
Love is a relational property between things that is dependent on the agents doing the loving. The same can be said of belief. God has no “existence” outside the people believing in him. Thats what I believe anyway
Hmmm… Jeff, now you got me thinking even more…
God “exists” when you believe, and He doesn’t when you don’t. Love “exists” when two or more relate, but it disappears when we separate. Jesus did say that the only true sin is unbelief…. It seems to have a ring of truth… I’ll have to stew over this a bit…
[...] video version of the list of gods that atheists and Christians don’t believe [...]
No or at least I don’t see it that way. We are individuals, but what is within us is the same.
I never said it was a noun or a verb. It is a neuro-chemical reaction within us though and it is generally the same chemical within all of us. In that respect though, it is a noun, but not a deity. It’s our action in response to that chemical reaction that makes it a verb though. One cannot make a neuro-chemical reaction in the brain a deity. So, in effect, it is both, even in the context of stimuli triggering neuro-chemicals. It IS that chemical that gives us feelings of love that IS a noun. Therefore, I cannot help but talk about it as such and personally, I don’t want to. I rather like the idea of talking about the neuro-chemicals that induce love and compassion for others- be it friendship love, parent-child love, or romantic love.
To worry about a noun becoming a deity is shear silliness. IF that were the case, all nouns would turn into deities, see post below. A deity doesn’t happen because of a noun.
Not in the context of neuro-psych. IMHO It then turns into a noun or what have you, but it also turns into a chemical name/names. It is not inventing another god in this context, regardless of what Richard says, but then you have to be looking at it from this angle too.
If that were true of nouns, my sons, my cats, my house, car, etc would be gods. They are nouns too. That’s just shear silliness.
Oh brother.
Now that’s taking silliness to the other extreme. One extreme to that other. Where is the poetic justice. It doesn’t matter what form it, in this case love, is in, it’s not Zeus.
Whatever doesn’t make sense to us is deemed silly. Whatever we don’t understand is deemed ignorant. Whatever is different than us, we judge. I was just trying to get you to try to look at the God concept from a new angle.
When the thought of love being an action word, it just made me think of energy, that’s all. …. how energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be transferred. So I thought maybe love could be thought of that way. Silly? maybe. But why not?
And when Jeff mentioned that God only exists in the minds of people who believe, it sparked something in my thought process. I’m not done thinking through it yet.
You know… Maybe it’s time for me to go. I’m really surprised I lasted this long.
Mriana, love has been made into deities many times. The Greeks alone had three personifying it in some of its forms, Aphrodite, Eros and Cupid. There are deities for every neurochemical response that humans can have.
Yes, you are right that love is a set of neurochemical responses, so yes it’s a noun too. But my point was missed; my fault. I’ll restate, and by the way I’m not implying that you are doing any of the following:
I was speaking to atheists in general as a respectful warning about how easy it can be to slip into believing in magical things even after ridding oneself of believing in deities. I’m drawing on my own experience as well as that of two or three friends, so maybe it isn’t that common, I don’t know.
Love is one of the things that both theists and atheists deem very important; they only sometimes disagree on its source. The verb instead of noun thing was just to emphasize that love is strictly a human creation that only exists/happens when humans practice it. If we as I once did, start entertaining fantasies of love being some kind of invisible force that flows through us, between, around, within and without us regardless of our actions, then we have invented a magical power or force or thing to believe in, to assume it has a reality in some kind of non physical/physiological way. If we as individuals do all that while living amidst a culture that is infused with notions of “God is love,” then there is in my opinion a good chance that some of us will arrive at the belief that “love is God,” and we’ll be back to theism again.
It’s just an observation and a caution about how subtle and pernicious magical thinking can be, especially around a subject that we value so much, that is so complex and even bewildering at times, that even the most rational of us are fond of making mysterious, love.
Richard and Mriana:
You apparently have no respect fo